Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 21-071 approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Marshall LaneRESOLUTION NO: 21-071 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NUMBERS: SUB19-0002/ GE019-0014/ARB19-0042 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane (APNs 397-02-110 and 397-02-111) WHEREAS, on June 26, 2019, an application was submitted by John Bellicitti Trustee & ET AL (owner) and 18500 Marshall Ln, LLC (applicant) requesting to subdivide two parcels totaling 9.8 acres (net) located at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane into nine lots ranging in size from 40,098 square feet to 51,248 square feet. The project would also create a new private road accessed off of Marshall Lane, which would serve all the parcels within the subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a re -zoning from Agriculture to Residential, R-1-40,000 for 18520 Marshall Lane, the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for both parcels, and the relocation to the City's Heritage Orchard an existing historic barn that was constructed in about 1870. Both parcels have a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density. 18500 Marshall Lane is zoned Agricultural (A), and 18520 Marshall Lane is zoned R-1-40,000. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to avoid or reduce to a less -than -significant level all of the project's potentially significant effects on the environment. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of the project. WHEREAS, on September 8, 2021, Planning Commission held a public hearing at which the applicant and the public had an opportunity to be heard and recommended that the City Council approve the vesting tentative map. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and it has been determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences; Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Resolution 21-071 Page 2 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the City shall not approve any tentative map if the approving authority makes any of the nine findings set forth in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). For the reasons set forth below, none of the findings can be made. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan (there are no applicable specific plans) in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the City Code. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan (there is no applicable specific plan). The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access, and building envelopes are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD), are consistent with the zoning regulations, and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single-family residences and accessory dwelling units. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. All existing structures on site are to be removed. Design review approval is required, as applicable in the City Code, for the new single-family residences on the nine new parcels. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the Community Development department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy, and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences will be reviewed pursuant to applicable laws. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the residential development proposed in that the proposed parcels have a minimum percentage of slope. The existing conditions are such that there are no physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. Moreover, the subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the very low density of development proposed in that the site currently has one existing single-family home, a barn, and sheds. The subdivision application would result in the removal of these structures and eventual construction of nine single-family residences. Surrounding properties in the immediate surrounding are characterized by low -density single-family residential uses on similar sized parcels. Resolution 21-071 Page 3 S. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the proposed project which includes subdivision. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found following incorporation of mitigation measures as part of the project. 6. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works, and Engineering. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 7. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. Access to the new parcels would be provided by a new private road. There are no access easements in the area that would be affected by the subdivision. 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will result in the creation of parcels to sustain their agricultural use. The land is in Williamson Act Contract. The applicant has submitted a notice of non - renewal and is requesting the cancellation of the contract as a part of this application. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The applicant is proposing a detention basin with the subdivision. The detention basin is designed to detain the stormwater runoff from a storm for a minimum of 48 hours to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle out of the stormwater. This facility will not have a permanent pool of water. This detention basin will also be used to provide hydromodification management by metering the release of the stormwater into a bioretention basin to match the predevelopment peak flow of stormwater off of the site. The bioretention basin is treatment measure designed to detain stormwater runoff, filter stormwater runoff through biotreatment soil media and plant roots, and infiltrate stormwater runoff into underlying soils. The system is designed so that while all stormwater is directed to the treatment train; storms larger than the design -storm event will be allowed to enter the city's stormwater system via overflow drains in the bioretention basin. Resolution 21-071 Page 4 Section 5: The City of Saratoga City Council hereby approves SUB 19-0002/ENV 19- 0004/GE019-0014/ARB19-0042/ZOA19-0005/WIL19-0001 located at 18500 and 18520 Marshall Lane subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This resolution shall take effect on the effective date of the ordinance rezoning the property at 18500 Marshall Lane from Agriculture (A) to R-1-40,000. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council on this 6th day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, KUMAR, MAYOR ZHAO NOES: VICE MAYOR WALIA ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE ATT T: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Yan Zhao, Mayor Date 1( —1,2 Resolution 21-071 Page 5 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICATION NUMBERS SUB 19-0002/GEO 19-0014/ARB 19-0042 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane (APNs 397-02-110 and 397-02-111) A. GENERAL All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner's successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term -specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not "Permanent" or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively "processing fees"). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 6. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and Resolution 21-071 Page 6 b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. The relocation of the intact 1870's barn (original gable portion as a priority and, if feasible, the south and north wing additions) to the Heritage Orchard. Prior to the relocation, a 3D laser scan of the entire barn shall be completed to ensure that the existing condition of the barn is accurately and appropriately documented, and to assist in reassembly of the barn and to assist in labeling and packing the barn for reassemble. The priority for dismantling and reconstruction is to ensure the original gable portion of the barn is reconstructed and if feasible, the shed additions (which flank the original gable form to the south and north of the barn) can be disassembled as well and reconstructed. However, if not feasible, the shed additions that flank the original gable form of the barn (excluding the stables and the southern -most addition) can be reconstructed. 8. A complete set of construction documents for the barn relocation shall be submitted to the city for plan check and approval Prior to final may submittal (including accessibility), foundation plan, floor plan, elevations, ectnons, and a summarytof ny archaic construction methods utilized, and modifications devised to comply with the minimum current Historic Building Code standards. 9. The Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the relocation and reconstruction (in accordance with the California Historical Building Code) of the Bellicitti barn to the City of Saratoga Historic Orchard (Fruitvale Ave/Saratoga Ave). The Barn shall be reconstructed/located along the southern portion of the library parking lot. 10. All construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead is required to meet Cal/OSHA Standard Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1. 11. A plaque should be placed at the new location recognizing the former location and Bellicitti Family. 12. A revised Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR) should be completed for the Heritage Orchard to include the Barn at its new location. 13. If possible, the wings of the barn should be restored or reconstructed when moved to the new location. Resolution 21-071 Page 7 14. The reconstruction of the barn at the Historic Orchard shall be completed prior to final man approval. 15. The applicant shall work with Public Works to ensure that the new pathways are consistent with Safe Routes to School. 16. An application for Design Review shall be submitted for any new single-family home to be constructed on the parcels. 17. The applicant shall submit for Arborist Review for any future Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Section 15-50. 18. The tentative map shall expire 24 months from the date on which it was approved unless a final map is approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the Planning Commission for a period not exceeding 36 months. The application for extension with the payment of a fee shall be filed prior to the expiration date. Extension of tentative map approval is not a matter of right and the Planning Commission may deny the application. 19. All existing wells shall be abandoned and destroyed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District permits. C. WEST VALLEY SANTITATION DISTRICT 20. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. D. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 21. The developer is to submit a completed application for service, approved site, utility and elevation plans, appropriate engineering, and pay all fees prior to gas and electric service being provided. All necessary Public Utilities Easements or Rights of Way must be secured by the applicant prior to the installation of service. The gas and electric service facilities will be installed under the applicable rules and tariffs in effect at the time of application. E. CITY ARBORIST 22. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City Arborist requirements as in the arborist report dated June 30, 2020. E. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 23. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Geotechnical requirements as in the report by Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc. dated July 22, 2019. Resolution 21-071 Page 8 F. FIRE DEPARTMENT 24. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. G. ENGINEERING 25. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 26. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Two copies of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. C. Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 28. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determ interior monuments. ined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of 29. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights -of -way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Additional easements for storm water drainage and treatment facilities shall be dedicated on the Final Map as needed. Resolution 21-071 Page 9 30. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. Widen Marshall Lane by 2' along property frontage. b. Install new 10' pathway with variable width landscape buffer along Marshall Lane frontage. c. Install 5' pathway with 2' landscape buffer along Quito Road frontage. d. Install new 10' meandering pathway along Sobey Road frontage. e. Upgrade the three existing curb ramps to current ADA Standards. 31. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 32. The owner (applicant) shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 33. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 34. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 35. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the City Engineer. 36. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 37. The owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, waiving the owner/applicant's right, and the right of the owner/applicant's successor(s) in interest, to protest the annexation of the property or any portion thereof into the Saratoga Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of any landscape stormwater treatment systems and/or hydromodification controls developed on the property. Resolution 21-071 Page 10 38. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 39. Prior to beginning of construction, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required, to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained on site at all times construction. 40. Per City Municipal Code § 14-30.030(a) the project will be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on -site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on -site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right -of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 41. The owner (applicant) shall enter into a long-term Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement and Plan for this project and the agreement will be required to be submitted and recorded prior to project completion. 42. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act and City Municipal Code § 14- 25.020. 43. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights -of -way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Additional easements for storm water drainage and treatment facilities shall be dedicated on the Final Map as needed. Resolution 21-071 Page 11 44. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction — Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 45. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 46. Conditions Requested by Other Agencies or Utilities. Applicant shall comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on -site or off -site requested by other Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. Such agencies include but are not limited to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of city permits, the applicant must present evidence of permit approval by any such agencies, as required for any activities within jurisdictional areas of said agencies. Resolution 21-071 Page 12 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Nine -Lot Subdivision 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane Saratoga, CA Owner: John Bellicitti Trustee & ET AL Public Review Period July 6, 2021 to August 6, 2021 Resolution 21-071 Page 13 The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed nine -lot subdivision at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane (Project). The Project also includes demolition of three existing structures, relocation of an 1870s barn to the City's Heritage Orchard, construction of a private road to serve the nine lots, as well as a re -zoning from Agriculture to Residential R-1-40,000 and cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for the property. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of nine new single-family homes. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Pub Resources Codes § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs., 15000 et seq.) this document, combined with the attached supporting data and exhibits, constitutes the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject Project. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides the basis for the determination that with mitigation measures, this Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC REVIEW In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this IS/MND commenced on July 6, 2021 and will conclude on August 6, 2021. During this period, the IS/MND will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. All written comments must be received prior to 5:00 P.M. on August 6, 2021. Please submit written comments to: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 njohnson@saratoga.ca.us Following the conclusion of the public review period, the Planning Commission will consider the IS/MND for the Project at a publicly noticed meeting. The Planning Commission shall consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Project and the IS/MND. Resolution 21-071 Page 14 A. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location/APN: 5. Project Applicant name and address: 6. Property Owner name and address: 7. General Plan Designation: 8. Zoning: Nine -Lot subdivision at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner njohnson@saratoga.ca.us / (408) 868-1209 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 397-02-110 and 397-02-111 Marshall Ln LLC (Dutchints Development, LLC) 5150 El Camino Real, Suite E20 Los Altos, CA 94022 John Bellicitti Trustee & ET AL 1400 Chester Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) (1.09 DU/AC) Existing: Agriculture Proposed: Single Family Residential (R-1-40,000) Description of Project: The Project Applicant, is proposing to subdivide an existing 9.8-acre (net) parcel located at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane into nine lots ranging in size from 40,098 square feet to 51,248 square feet. The Project would also create a new private road accessed off Marshall Lane, which would serve all the parcels within the subdivision (Exhibit A). If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of nine new single-family homes each with an accessory dwelling unit. To subdivide this property the Applicant is requesting a re -zoning from Agriculture to Residential R-1-40,000, the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract, and the relocation of an existing historic barn that was constructed in 1870 to the City's Heritage Orchard. The Project site is known as the `Bellicitti Ranch" and is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. The location of the Project site is shown on Figure 1. 10. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project site is located at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane. The site is bounded to the north by Marshall Lane, to the east by Quito Road, to the south by Sobey Road, and to the west by Marshall Lane Elementary School. To the east across Quito Road is San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is the City boundary line with Campbell and Town of Los Gatos. There are four existing buildings on site that are accessible from an unpaved driveway off Marshall Lane. All existing structures other than the barn will be demolished. The Project site consists of an 1870s barn, 2002 house, 1990 shed, a 2012 shed, and an historic orchard landscape. The existing 1870s barn appears to be a representative example of Vernacular architecture which has specific Resolution 21-071 Page 15 design and form characteristics that represent the Santa Clara Valley during the late nineteenth century period. The earliest known owners of the Project site were William and Martha Rucker who owned a 164- acre parcel that included the Project site. At the time there was grain growing on the property and appears to have covered most of the Project Area. The 164-acre parcel was subdivided and sold several times. Around 1945 the Bellicitti family purchased 20 acres of land that was referred to as "The Ranch" by the Bellicitti family. At the time of purchase, the 20 acre property included an 1870's barn and house. The house was demolished in 2002 and replaced with a new home, which appears to have been constructed in the same location of the original 1870s house. The Bellicittis planted apricot and prune orchards, as well as some additional fruit and nut trees. The original 20 acres was reduced when the family sold 10 acres for construction of the Marshall Lane Elementary School. Except for the contemporary wood fencing, it appears that all landscape features pre -date the 2002 house and were around during the property's periods of agricultural use. 11. Other public agencies whose review is required. San Jose Water Company; West Valley Sanitation District; and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality etc.? The Tamien Nation has requested formal notice of and information on the project. An Archaeological Study has been prepared for the site and is confidential as the cultural, scientific, and artistic value associated with this site could be damaged if disclosed to the public. An Archeological Monitoring Plan has been incorporated into the Mitigation Measures to protect any found resource. Resolution 21-071 Page 16 Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Vesting Tentative Map - II:\RSIIALL L:ItiE rw - ABBREVIATIONS GENERALNOTES: Rr 1-nm LEGEND ®,. .., _ s VICINITY MAP ry ..... ',� � _ pGLI nF0 ���. . ..ws..,.� � •�w .�„n � � <� r ro �: oY µ0A0 .�. t•' '6 . .�di •r .awn �� rev .r.�.. ,`\ • rvm sc nc¢r�u esen w aw.a rtm.0 , N �' � � • 1�.�`\ �rPi.� �wi w'w ., rzunn r'�em=uxunoa r - PimA '\ -... n, an u.+am w.HM[ wm •v w.n nm.d .sac, wn LOT e1REAS AND MA.xLIfUM COVERAGE ESISTL\G RECORD (LIPS _ c • - \ I � 4't:�G 94�iL1 iwM• wq SOBEYROAD sNeEr mnEx VESTING TENTATIVE MAP VESTING TENTATIVE MAP MARSHALL LANE I � SllRA6AMOWYIT CAI➢ULW cbg TMto wv�sxALLuaESEcnoR-��_rz soneYROAosEcnoR I o r , f Resolution 21-071 Page 17 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forest ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ® Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise' ❑ I Population/HousingPopulation/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance C. 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 Signature: Date: July 6, 2021 Printed Name: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Resolution 21-071 Page 18 1. AESTHETICS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ❑ ❑ ❑ in the area? DISCUSSION: a-d) There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified for this project area in the City of Saratoga's General Plan or other planning documents. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map would subdivide an existing 9.8-acre parcel into nine lots. A new cul-de-sac would take access from Marshall Lane and would serve all nine lots. Lots 1 through 5 would have rear property lines located along Quito Road. The project would include the relocation of an existing barn from its current location in the northeastern quadrant of the property to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard that surrounds the Saratoga Library with open space. The existing home would be demolished, and though this Project is only for the subdivision of the nine lots, it is anticipated that a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit would be developed on each of the new lots. The new homes would be subject to the City Code and the Design Review process thereby ensuring the compatibility of the aesthetic appearance of new development with existing development in the area. The existing orchard is in in decline and many of the trees are dead or dying. The removal of the orchard will not substantially affect the scenic quality of the area. As such, no scenic vistas will be affected. The project area does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway identified by the California Department of Transportation. There are no identified scenic resources or historic buildings within a state scenic highway located within the project area. The existing visual character of the area is characterized by both one -and two-story homes and related site improvements. All parcels would have access from the newly created private road serving the subdivision. Future development would be subject to zoning regulations, which include limits on building height, setbacks, grading and tree removal. In addition, the City's Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single -Family Residential Design Review Handbook, would be used to ensure visual compatibility within the project area. The construction of the new homes would be similar to existing homes in the neighborhood and therefore would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Resolution 21-071 Page 19 Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 Resolution 21-071 Page 20 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are Significant Significant Significant Impact significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to Impact with Impact the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Mitigation Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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 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 conversion of forest land to non -forest use? DISCUSSION: a) The project site has been developed with a residential home, barn and accessory structures for many decades and is in an area fully developed with urbanized uses. There is no agricultural land or productive forestland on or adjacent to the site. The project site and all surroundings are designated "Urban and Built -Up Land" by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of California Resources Agency. The DOC's Farmland Mapping Resolution 21-071 Page 21 and Monitoring Program (FMMP) publishes Farmland Maps and the most recent map was prepared in 2018. The map shows there is no farmland on or near the project site; therefore, there is no potential to convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. b-e) The property is zoned for Agriculture and the project includes rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential (R-1-40,000) similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is an area within the project site that consists of what appears to be part of an historic orchard associated with the original 20-acre Bellicitti Ranch property. Today, the remaining orchard covers approximately 50,000 square feet located to the south of the 2002 house and to the east of the 1870's barn. The remaining fruit trees consist of apricots and prunes, as well as what appears to be walnut trees. In addition, there are several citrus trees along the front of the house that were not a part of the orchard but planted for use by the Bellicitti family. No tree maintenance has taken place on this property for a long period of time. According to the Kielty Arborist Report (Exhibit B) the majority of the orchard trees are in poor condition due to decay, large amounts of dead wood, being undermined by ground squirrels, and poor past pruning methods. The Arborist recommends the black walnut trees be removed as they are in poor condition and expected to decline regardless of any applied management. The property is currently under a Williamson Act Contract. On September 25, 2018 the owners initiated a Notice of Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contract. (Land Conservation Contract dated January 19, 1972 (Document No. 4192662, recorded in Book 9702, Pages 75 through Page 83 of the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara).) (Exhibit Q. The property owner has submitted an application to the City requesting formal cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract as part of the Project. The Land Use Element of the General Plan notes that there are no timber production areas within the City. There is no potential for the project to adversely affect timber resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on agriculture and forest resources. MITIGATION: None Source: 2, 3 & 9 Resolution 21-071 Page 22 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? EN ■ ►1 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ Elconcentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ Elof people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The City of Saratoga, including the project site, is within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management district (BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the SFBAAB, where the project site is located. Policies are also contained in multiple locations in the City's General Plan, that support improving air quality. Construction for the subdivision improvements include grading for the installation of the private road, overall drainage improvements and utility construction. The existing site is somewhat level and therefore grading will be balanced on site with no off haul anticipated. The Project subdivision improvement plans are subject to best management practices to minimize Project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. Construction activities and debris removal trucks are expected during the 7-month construction time frame. None of these short-term construction activities would potentially effect air quality or create objectionable orders. The future development of each single-family home would be subject to the City's design review process and would include conditions of approval requiring best management practices during construction to minimize project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. The Air District's most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 Air District CEQA guidelines specify Clean Air Plan Consistency methods for plan level evaluation only. Guidance for project -level analysis focuses on attainment of criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds and health risk standards. Development projects, such as the Resolution 21-071 Page 23 proposed project, are consistent with the 2017 CAP if emissions are within the screening thresholds presented in the 2017 Air District CEQA guidelines. Therefore, the projects construction activities both for subdivision improvements and for the new single-family homes, would have a less than significant impact on the existing air quality of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: None Source: 2, 10 & 11 Resolution 21-071 Page 24 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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? DISCUSSION: ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ a-d and f) The project would subdivide an existing 9.8-acre parcel into nine lots ranging in size from 40,098 square feet to 51,248 square feet. The project would create a new private road accessed off Marshall Lane, which would serve the new single-family homes within the subdivision. To the west across Quito Road is San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is the City Boundary line with the City of Campbell and Town of Los Gatos. No known sensitive or special status species are located on the project site and no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community has been identified in the area. There are no wetlands on the project site. e) The City Arborist reviewed the Kielty Arborist Report dated May 27, 2020 (Exhibit B) and assessed the impacts to all protected trees on the project site. The City Arborist conditionally approved on June Resolution 21-071 Page 25 30, 2020 (Exhibit D) the removal of forty-two (42) trees protected by City Code. Tree protection measures have been incorporated into the project and the most significant trees will be preserved. According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, findings must be made, and specific tree removal criteria met. Forty-two (42) trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct subdivision improvements. These trees meet the City's criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the Project, once building division permits are obtained. The City Arborist found that based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this Project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. City Arborist recommendations would be included as a condition of Project approval and would reduce any adverse impacts associated with biological resources to be less than significant. Mitigation measures have been added to ensure nesting birds would be protected during tree removal times. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation on the existing Biologic Resources of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: MM — Biologic Resources — 1) 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 to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. MM — Biologic Resources — 2) If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre -construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. The surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will 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. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction -free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. MM — Biologic Resources — 3) If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g. bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. Resolution 21-071 Page 26 MM — Biologic Resources — 4) All conditions (1-12) including but not limited to planting of replacement new trees contained in the City Arborist Approval dated June 30, 2020shall be implemented. (Exhibit D) MM — Biologic Resources — 5) All Impact and Recommendations and Tree Protection Plan measures contained in the Kielty Arborist Services LLC report dated May 27, 2020 shall be implemented. (Exhibit B) Sources: 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 27 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including that interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? DISCUSSION: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ This section summarizes the potential cultural impacts related to the proposed Project based on the Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared by Evans & De Shazo dated August 21, 2019 (Exhibit E). and the Standards Review of the Proposed Barn Relocation Project within the "Heritage Orchard", prepared by Evans & De Shazo dated April 5, 2021 and updated May 18, 2021 (Exhibit F). a) There are four existing buildings on site that are accessible from an unpaved driveway off Marshall Lane. All existing structures other than the barn will be demolished. The Project site consists of an 1870 barn, 2002 house, 1990 shed, a 2012 shed and an historic orchard landscape. The existing 1870's barn appears to be a representative example of Vernacular architecture which has specific design and form characteristics that represent the Santa Clara Valley during the late nineteenth century period. The earliest known owners of the Project site were William and Martha Rucker who owned a 164-acre parcel that included the Project site. At the time there was grain growing on the property and appears to have covered most of the Project Area. The property was subdivided and sold several times until around 1945 when the Bellicitti family purchased 20 acres of land that was referred to as "The Ranch" by the Bellicitti family. At the time of purchase, the property included an 1870's barn and house. The house was demolished in 2002 and replaced with a new home, which appears to have been constructed in the same location of the original 1870s house. The Bellicittis planted apricot and prune orchards, as well as some additional fruit and nut trees. The original 20 acres was reduced when the family sold 10 acres for construction of the Marshall Lane Elementary School. Except for the contemporary wood fencing, it appears that all landscape features pre -date the 2002 house and were around during the property's periods of agricultural use. The Bellicitti Ranch is listed on the city of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory (HPC Resolution HP-91-01), and in 2009 as part of a city-wide Historic Resource Inventory completed by Archives and Architects, DPR forms were completed that identified the Bellicitti Ranch as being eligible for significance under local criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). The DPR form states the Bellicitti Ranch also appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion (3), as the barn and property embody the distinctive characteristics of the National style for agricultural buildings from Saratoga's Early American period. Resolution 21-071 Page 28 Evans & De Shazo Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Exhibit E) concluded that the Project Area as a whole represents two significant periods of agriculture under California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) but due to lack of integrity was ultimately not found to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The 1870s barn appears individually eligible for listing in the CRHR as it represents significant historic periods of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley from 1870-1965 as well representing an example of the Vernacular barn architecture and form in Santa Clara County during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Evans & De Shazo recommends adjusting the City's Heritage Resource Inventory to apply to the 1870s barn only. In order to address Project -related impacts to the 1870s barn, the Project proposes the relocation of the 1870s barn to the City of Saratoga Historic Orchard to preserve the historical significance of the barn within an agricultural context. The Heritage Orchard consists of 13.9 acres of apricots and prunes. The orchard is bounded by Wildcat Creek, Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenue. The orchard was created in 1984 to preserve the important agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The site was chosen to be preserved by the City because it represents an important early history of Saratoga and the role orchards played as the economic backbone of the town during the period of Horticultural Development (1869 — 1906). Evans and De Shazo recommends appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of relocating the 1870's barn through 3D laser scanning of the barn as discussed below in the mitigation measures. Following the recommended measures for relocation would allow the resource to remain locally listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. This adheres to the public policy of the City of Saratoga to recognize and preserve the heritage of the city as set forth under Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code. Evans and De Shazo also prepared "A Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review of the Proposed CA. 1870 Bellicitti Barn Relocation Project within the `Heritage Orchard' in Saratoga." (Relocation Report). The purpose of the report was to determine if the proposed relocation of the 1870 barn would result in an adverse impact to the Heritage Orchard, which is a City of Saratoga Historic Landmark. The Relocation Report concludes that the relocation of the 1870s barn to the Heritage Orchard should implement recommendations as to where the barn should be placed within the orchard and standards to ensure the project meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to make certain that relocation of the barn will not adversely affect the Heritage Orchard. b-d) The City of Saratoga General Plan states that the City's heritage is to be preserved by providing for the protection of cultural resources representing significant elements of City and regional history. Evans & De Shazo also prepared a Historical Resources Evaluation of the Prehistoric Archaeological Site P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) located within the Bellicitti Ranch property. The purpose of the report was to determine if the prehistoric archaeological resource identified during the initial Archaeological Study completed by Evans & De Shazo in 2020, is considered a Historical Resource for the purposes of CEQA, and to determine the need for further treatment. The initial study determined that the site may represent a Native American habitation site. A Phase II archaeological testing program for the proposed Project was performed. The archaeological excavations performed by Evans & De Shazo within the portion of the site tested revealed a moderate lithic scatter consisting predominantly Resolution 21-071 Page 29 of chert flakes and groundstone implements within a midden soil deposit. No distinct archaeological features were encountered. The report concludes that there is no significant data that was found to contribute to the potential eligibility of the site for listing on the CRHR or as a unique archaeological resource under CEQA due to disturbance to the site from its agricultural use, primarily disking, that has occurred over the past 100 years. Therefore, the site does not meet the definition of a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. However, due to the presence of prehistoric and historic -period cultural material within the Project Area, and the potential to encounter artifacts and archaeological features that could yield further information that is significant in history or prehistory, project -specific mitigation measures are provided due to the presence of P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) within the Project Area and the potential to encounter additional prehistoric or historic -period artifacts and archaeological features during Project -related, earth -disturbing activities. MITIGATION: MM — Cultural Resource — 1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING. Prior to Project -related, ground -disturbing activities a Secretary of Interior qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide full-time archaeological monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within proposed residential Lots 1- 6 and within the proposed new roadway, and spot monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within the remaining portion of the Project Area. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered (including prehistoric and historic), the location where archaeological resources could be encountered, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered during ground -disturbing activities. The AMP shall also provide procedures and guidelines for in -field assessment of the significance of any archaeological features (historic or prehistoric) associated with P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) identified during monitoring. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of an archaeological discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while it is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the Archaeologist's professional judgment, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. Upon completion of archaeological monitoring within the Project Area, the archaeologist shall prepare a report of findings to be submitted to the NWIC of the CHRIS located in Rohnert Park, California. MM — Cultural Resource — 2) DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project -related early -disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are suspected to be those of a pre- contact Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted by the Coroner so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. Resolution 21-071 Page 30 MM — Cultural Resource — 3) CURATION OF ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE Upon completion of the Project, the Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the accessioning of archaeological materials and associated reports generated for the Project at a curation facility. It is recommended that artifacts be submitted to the David A. Fredrickson Archaeological Collections Facility at Sonoma State University, which is the curation facility recommended for the archaeological material recovered as a result of this Project. Another curation facility meeting the California Office of Historic Preservation's guidelines for the curation of archaeological collections may also be used upon the approval of the Director of Building and Planning. MM — Cultural Resource — 4) BARN Conduct 3D laser scanning of the entire 1870 barn, including the additions. MM — Cultural Resource — 5) BARN RELOCATION Relocation of the intact 1870's barn (original gable portion as a priority and, if feasible, the south and north wing additions) to the Heritage Orchard. Prior to the relocation, a 3D laser scan of the entire 1870's barn shall be completed to ensure that the existing condition of the barn are accurately and appropriately documented, and to assist in reassembly of the barn to assist in labeling and packing the barn for reassembly. The priority for dismantling and reconstruction is to ensure the original gable portion of the barn is reconstructed and if feasible, the shed additions (which flank the original gable form to the south and north of the barn) can be disassembled as well and reconstructed. However, if not feasible, the shed additions that flank the original gable form of the barn (excluding the stables and the southern -most addition) can be reconstructed. MM — Cultural Resource — 6) BARN RECONSTRUCTION If proven by a professional in the field of relocation of historic buildings and/or restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings, such as barns, determines the barn is deteriorated beyond the point of repair, then reconstruction, based on the 3D laser scanning, is an option. In addition, portions of the building i.e. the south and north shed additions, may be reconstructed at a later date if the original form of the barn is relocated — as a creative and phased approach using both rehabilitate and reconstruction. If this method is chosen, then 3D laser scanning of the entire barn will also be required and shall include the production of both 3D scans, as well as 2D CAD drawings, prior to the demolition or partial demolition of the barn. MM — Cultural Resource — 7) HERITAGE ORCHARD BARN LOCATION. The Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the relocation of the Bellicitti Ranch Barn within the City of Saratoga Historic Orchard. The Barn shall be constructed/located within one of the open areas of the Heritage Orchard, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 of the DeShazo Standards Review or in another area currently void or with sparse fruit trees. The construction of the barn within the Orchard shall follow the Heritage Orchard Preservation Plan. Resolution 21-071 Page 31 MM — Cultural Resource — 8) HERITAGE ORCHARD BARN, PHYSICAL RECORD OF TIME, PLACE AND USE. The Barn when located within the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard shall include visible signage, both within the orchard and on the building. The signs could be on a post, in a permanent fence or stone marker. The signage should state that although the barn was originally associated with orchard farming in Saratoga, it was not originally located within the Heritage Orchard. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 Resolution 21-071 Page 32 6. ENERGY: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? DISCUSSION: a-b) Implementation of the Project would not be considered to result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. The project consists of the relocation of an existing barn to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard and the construction of subdivision improvements such as utility extensions and a new private road. No additional development is proposed at this time; however, it is expected that nine new single-family residences and accessory dwelling units will be constructed. Energy consumption would be expected to be commensurate with similar uses and wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation is not to be expected. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on Energy. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 33 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 waste water disposal systems where ❑ ❑ ❑ sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geological feature? DISCUSSION: This section summarizes the potential Geology and Soils impacts related to the proposed Project based on the Fault Investigation report prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc., dated May 1, 2019 (Exhibit G) and the Geologic Peer Review (S5029) prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates dated July 22, 2019 (Exhibit H) a-f) The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into nine lots intended for single family residences with accessory dwelling units. Site improvements include a Bioretention area, new private road and utility improvements. Grading proposed for the subdivision improvements would be limited to the excavation of the bioretention area, along with associated drainage and roadway improvements. Resolution 21-071 Page 34 The property is located partially within a City potential fault rupture zone (Pf) associated with a mapped trace of the Shannon Fault, which lies southwest of the site. The proposed subdivision is constrained by potential ground deformation during a moderate to large local earthquake, existing shallow fill materials, and very strong seismic ground shaking could occur. Implementation of the seismic design parameters per Chapter 16 of the California Building Code for the development of any new structures, would reduce any adverse impacts associated with seismic shaking to be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation on the Geology and Soils character of the site and its surroundings. MITIGAITON: MM — Geology and Soils — 1) The applicant shall complete a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed development to identify potential geotechnical engineering constrains (including liquefaction) related to the proposed subdivision level improvements and anticipated future residences. The Geotechnical Investigation shall consist of, but not necessarily limited to: subsurface borings and logs, laboratory testing, geotechnical feasibility and preliminary recommendations for site preparation and grading, drainage design, and foundation design including seismic design criteria, as applicable, consistent with the prevailing standard of geotechnical practice. The investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. Source: 2, 3 & 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 35 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate Significant Significant Significant Impact change is included in the body of environmental document. Impact with Impact While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to Mitigation provide the public and decision -makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project's direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: 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 adopted for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site would create greenhouse gas emissions largely from the generation of electricity for the residential development and vehicle trips. Solid waste would make up a small amount of the total generation of greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD identifies screening levels for evaluation of operational GHG emissions. The City of Saratoga does not have an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD 2017b; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: "Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?" This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets, for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Resolution 21-071 Page 36 Separate thresholds of significance have been established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on -road vehicles) (BAAQMD 2017b). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). Projects that could exceed the threshold of 10.000 metric tons of CO2 per year might involve use of equipment such as production flares, steam generators, thermal oxidizers and furnaces with an individual or combined project power rating of 20 MMBtu/hr or greater. None of these examples will be in use on this Project site. The quantitative threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e annually adopted by BAAQMD is applied to this analysis. If the project -related GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. Because the Project's estimated operational greenhouse gas emissions falls below this threshold, there is a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. MITIGATION: none Source1, 2, 10 & 11 Resolution 21-071 Page 37 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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 or acutely 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 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it 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 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing 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? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DISCUSSION: a-g) The proposed Project is a residential development that does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other construction materials are routinely used during construction processes. Resolution 21-071 Page 38 The proposed Project is located in a residential zoning district that does not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous waste. Nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other construction materials are routinely used during construction processes. The Project includes the removal of several structures including a single-family home and the relocation of the barn to the City of Saratoga's Heritage Orchard. The construction of the subdivision improvements would not be a source of hazardous emissions. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances Control compile and regularly update a list of hazardous waste facilities and sites. A search of the Envirostor website (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2018) revealed that the Project site is not on the list. The Project site is not within an airport land use plan, is not within two miles of a public airport, and is not near a private landing strip. The nearest airports are San Jose International Airport ten miles to the northeast, and Reid-Hillview Airport 16 miles to the east, northeast. The City participates in the Santa Clara County Operational Emergency Plan. The plan is an all -hazards document describing the County's Emergency Operations organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other guidelines, and critical components of the Emergency Response System. Development of the Project would not impair the implementation of this plan. h) The Project site is not located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Area and is subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. Development on the project site is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on Hazards and Hazardous Materials. MITIGATION: none Source: 1, 2, 12, 14, 15 & 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 39 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DISCUSSION: a-f)The Project would subdivide an existing 9.8-acre parcel into nine lots ranging in size from 40,098 square feet to 51,248 square feet. The existing barn would be moved off site and all remaining Resolution 21-071 Page 40 structures removed. The Project would create a new private road accessed off Marshall Lane, which would serve the future new single-family homes and accessory dwelling units within the subdivision. To the west across Quito Road is San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is the City Boundary line with the City of Campbell. The proposed Project would retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site. The Project would be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date NPDES Standards, which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater would comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed Project would utilize public water provided by the San Jose Water Company and would not use groundwater for any phase of the project. Two existing wells are proposed to be destroyed and will require permits from Santa Clara Valley Water District. Regarding surface water that recharges the groundwater, the project site is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Consequently, the Project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or recharge other than its indirect impact on the use of groundwater by the San Jose Water Company. The Water Company receives water from Santa Clara Groundwater Basin supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the water district's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, there is adequate groundwater recharge within the Basin. Consequently, the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater resources nor substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and the impact is less than significant. New development of the Project site is required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit require that any development on the Project site incorporate Low Impact Design techniques, provide erosion control measures during construction, and ensure that runoff does not exceed the rate and duration of that existing runoff. Further, the required Low Impact Design techniques require pre-treatment of runoff before it enters the City's storm water system. Development on the site will be required to prepare a storm water management plan which would be reviewed by City staff to ensure it meets the City's requirements for storm water management. These requirements will ensure that the proposed Project will have no impact on downstream flooding, including impacts on downstream creeks. These requirements will also ensure that the proposed Project would not create or contribute substantial amounts of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. g-i) Large scale flooding is not a significant hazard in the City. Site drainage is generally characterized by infiltration or sheetflow ultimately intercepted by San Tomas Aquinas Creek. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the subject site is located in a delineated Zone X which corresponds to areas within the 0.5% annual chance of flood. j) The Project site is located inland and is not at risk of inundation by a tsunami. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water -retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the Project site. Flooding from a seismically - induced seiche is unlikely. The Project site is not located at the base of a hill and the area surrounding Resolution 21-071 Page 41 is developed with single-family homes on sites heavily vegetated. The Project site would not be subject to inundation by mudflow. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the Hydrology and Water Quality. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 13 Resolution 21-071 Page 42 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site contains a one-story single-family home a historic barn and some ancillary structures. The project site is known as the `Bellicitti Ranch" and is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential. The proposed Project would include the subdivision of the site into 9-lots for single-family homes and would not physically divide an established community. To subdivide this property the applicant is requesting a re -zoning from Agriculture to Residential R-1- 40,000, the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract (Exhibit C), modification to the City's Historic Resource Inventory and the relocation of an existing historic barn, to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard located at the City of Saratoga Library. c. The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. MITIGATION: none Source:1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 43 12. MINERAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of 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? DISCUSSION: a-b. The City of Saratoga does not contain any designated important mineral resources that need to be protected. Mineral resources in the City are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. There are several closed quarries within Saratoga and there are no mines or quarries known to be operating in the City or its Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site. Therefore, the Project would have a no impact on Mineral Resources. MITIGATION: none Sources: 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 44 13. NOISE: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El El ❑ 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 two 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? DISCUSSION: a. The standards of the City of Saratoga General Plan Noise Element utilize the Day -Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor. The Noise Element of the General Plan includes the existing roadway noise and noise contour distances for various roadway segments within the City (Table NE -Al) including the portion of Quito Road which borders the project. Based on the table, the Project can expect a DNL of 67 dB as measured 50 feet from the roadway center line. The Noise Element includes land -use compatibility guidelines (Table NE-2) which lists a DNL of between 60 to 70 dB as being in the range of being conditionally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Policy 2.2 of the General Plan Noise Element requires residential development be designed and constructed to reduce interior noise levels of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms. Implementation of standard building design and construction techniques per CALgreen standards will ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. b. Equipment expected to be used during the construction phase of the project, would generate ground - borne vibration levels on a short-term basis. There are no long-term effects that would result from ground -borne vibration. c. The primary source of ambient noise levels associated with the project would be traffic noise. The General Plan Noise Element includes projected future noise contours. The portion of Quito Road to the project is expected to have a DNL of 65-70 in 2030 which is still conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. Resolution 21-071 Page 45 d. Short-term noise impacts may be created during construction of the subdivision improvements such as grading for the new street and utilities and the relocation of the historic barn. Temporary noise excesses will occur at the properties adjacent to the site during construction of the Project. The noise levels are expected to be consistent with typical single-family home construction within the City. Compliance with the City's construction hours will reduce the Project's impacts on noise to less than significant. e. The Project site is not located within an airport land -use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. f. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on noise. MITIGATION: none Sources: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 46 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ El construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a-b. The Project would create eight additional parcels for the future construction of nine single- family homes and accessory dwelling units. The existing home would be demolished and the subdivision improvements would be constructed. Once complete the developer could construct all nine parcels or choose to sell individual parcels. Construction of nine single-family homes and accessory dwelling units would not induce substantial population growth in the area. b-c. The Project will create single-family homes on site and will not displace existing housing, nor would the Project displace any people. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing. MITIGATION: none Source: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 47 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for 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: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Schools? ❑ El Z El d. Parks? ❑ ® ❑ e. Other public facilities? ❑ El ❑ DISCUSSION: a-b) The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides fire protection to the City of Saratoga. The closest fire station to the project site is the Quito Fire Station located at 18870 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, which is approximately 2 miles east of the project site. The Santa Clara County Sheriff provides law enforcement services to the City. The Project is an urbanized infill site therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police or fire facility. c-e) The Project would create nine parcels for future development of single-family homes that would have a negligible increase in the demand for schools, parks, or public facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact Public Services. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 48 16. RECREATION: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project would create parcels for nine future single-family home sites. The development of nine single-family homes and accessory dwelling units would have a negligible increase in the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on recreation. MITIGATION: none Source: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 49 17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 El El® ❑ 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 El El Elotherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f. A traffic impact analysis was conducted for the proposed Project which includes the construction of nine new detached single-family homes. Access to the site would be provided via a new private roadway off Marshall Lane. The project would also provide sidewalk improvements along the frontage of the site. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 10, 2020 (Exhibit I). The report was conducted to identify the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The Project is estimated to generate 76 total daily trips per day with six peek hour trips during the AM peak hour (two inbound and four outbound), and eight trips during the PM peak hour (five inbound and three outbound). The intersection level of service analysis shows that all intersections are expected to Resolution 21-071 Page 50 operate at an acceptable level of service, with and without the Project. The General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element requires a transportation analysis to all new development projects resulting in 25 or more new net peak -hour trips. The report also concludes that site access and on -site circulation is adequate and that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in the study area. Although the proposed Project would not affect existing school traffic conditions on Sobey Road, an analysis was provided within the traffic report that describes the traffic circulation at the Marshall Lane Elementary School during morning drop off and afternoon pick up time periods. The analysis shows that traffic on Sobey Road is very heavy for about 15 minutes in the morning just before school starts. Traffic going to the school does have a delay turning into Sobey Road from Quito Road, returning vehicles after student drop-off experience long delays getting through the intersection of Sobey Road and Quito Road. Traffic on Sobey Road backs up into the entrance of the school's parking lot and it takes about three to four minutes to get through the intersection with Quito Road. However, this condition last only for about 15 minutes. No operational issues were observed at pick-up time when school lets out in the afternoon. Due to the minimal trip generation with the project, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to traffic circulation. MITIGATION: none Source: 1, 2 & 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 51 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site, feature, place, or 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), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, or in it discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision © 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. DISCUSSION: Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation El Z E. 0 // W/ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ❑ 0 El 0 El The Project site is in an established urbanized area. Located on site is an existing one-story single- family home, an 1870's barn, related accessory structures and an orchard. Residential land uses surround the site. Evans & De Shazo prepared a Historical Resources Evaluation for the Bellicitti Ranch property. A Phase II archaeological testing program for the Project was also performed and no distinct archaeological features were encountered. Therefore, the report found that due to disturbance to the site from its agricultural use, primarily disking which has occurred over the past 100 years, the site does not meet the definition of a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. However, due to the presence of prehistoric and historic -period cultural material within the Project Area, and the potential to encounter artifacts and archaeological features that could yield further information that is significant in history or prehistory. Therefore, Project -specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce to a less than significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources. MITIGATION: MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING. Prior to Project -related, ground -disturbing activities a Secretary of Interior qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide full-time Resolution 21-071 Page 52 archaeological monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within proposed residential Lots 1- 6 and within the proposed new roadway, and spot monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within the remaining portion of the Project Area. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered (including prehistoric and historic), the location where archaeological resources could be encountered, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered during ground -disturbing activities. The AMP shall also provide procedures and guidelines for in -field assessment of the significance of any archaeological features (historic or prehistoric) associated with P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) identified during monitoring. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of an archaeological discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while it is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the Archaeologist's professional judgment, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. Upon completion of archaeological monitoring within the Project Area, the archaeologist shall prepare a report of findings to be submitted to the NWIC of the CHRIS located in Rohnert Park, California. MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 2) DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project -related early -disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are suspected to be those of a pre- contact Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted by the Coroner so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 3) CURATION OF ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE Upon completion of the Project, the Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the accessioning of archaeological materials and associated reports generated for the Project at a curation facility. It is recommended that artifacts be submitted to the David A. Fredrickson Archaeological Collections Facility at Sonoma State University, which is the curation facility recommended for the archaeological material recovered as a result of this Project. Another curation facility meeting the California Office of Historic Preservation's guidelines for the curation of archaeological collections may also be used upon the approval of the Director of Building and Planning. Source: 1, 2 & 4 Resolution 21-071 Page 53 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El El El 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 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient 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 enough permitted capacity El El Elto accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a) Sanitary sewer services are provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. The district has adequate capacity to service the site and therefore the proposed Project would not cause the district to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b/d/e) The Santa Clara County Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company provide water service to the City of Saratoga. The District is responsible for designing and building local water reservoirs and water distribution facilities and operating water treatment plants. The District then sells treated water to local water retail agencies that serve communities using their own distribution systems. San Jose Water Company is the water retailer that provides water to Saratoga residents. c) The City uses a storm water collection system, in conjunction with the natural creek drainage system, to manage storm water runoff. Storm water collected through this system ultimately drains into the San Francisco Bay. The Project includes a Hydromodification Detention Basis which would be required to be install for adequate storm water infrastructure. In addition, the proposed development Resolution 21-071 Page 54 will require any new development on site to incorporate Low Impact Design techniques and that stormwater runoff be maintained on site to the maximum extent possible. f) Solid waste and recycling service are provided by West Valley Collection and Recycling (WVC&R). Solid waste is picked up Monday through Friday weekly, depending on the Saratoga neighborhood. Paper, plastic, metal, glass and green waste, such as lawn trimmings, can be recycled. All recyclables collected are transmitted to the Material Recovery Facility located in San Jose, where they are sorted and processed into new materials. E-waste is not collected by WVC&R at this time but may be dropped off by residents at the Material Recovery Facility. g) Solid waste and recycling services is available to the Project. Development of the site would be consistent with the proposed General Plan and would need to comply with all federal and state regulations as well as any local goals and policies related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would be less than significant impact on utilities and service systems MITIGATION: None Source: 2 & 15 Resolution 21-071 Page 55 20. WILDFIRE: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan El ❑ El 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 to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post- ❑ ❑ ❑ fire slope instability, or drainage changes? DISCUSSION: a-d. The location of the Project at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane is not in a designated Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire area as identified in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not be threatened by wildfires or pollutants from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Quito Road which borders the property, is designated as an evacuation route in the Safety Element of the Saratoga General Plan. The site and surrounding sites are on fairly level topography so there are no impacts from runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. MITIGATION: none Source: 1, 2 & 14 Resolution 21-071 Page 56 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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, substantially ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 El ❑ Elproject 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? DISCUSSION: a) The Project would subdivide an existing parcel into nine lots. The parcel has been in use as a family ranch and orchard for many years and is known as the Bellicitti Ranch property. Today the remaining orchard covers approximately 50,000 square feet located to the south of the existing home. The Project would include the relocation of the 1870's historic barn from its current location on the site to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard located adjacent to the public library. This would allow the resource to remain locally listed. Mitigation measures are included herein to ensure the impact of relocating the historic barn would not be significant. The orchard trees are in poor condition due to decay, large amounts of dead wood, being undermined by ground squirrels, and poor past pruning methods. City arborist recommendations would be included as condition of project approval and would reduce any adverse impacts associated with biological resources to be less than significant. The site is in a developed urbanized area and does not support any sensitive habitats or provide habitat for any rare or endangered plant or animal species, and the proposed project would not affect or substantially diminish plan or animal habitats, including riparian or wetland habitat. The proposed Project would not interfere with any resident or migratory species habitat, or affect any rare, threatened, or endangered species. b) The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Project will be relocating and maintaining an existing heritage resource. c) The proposed Project is a residential project and does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Resolution 21-071 Page 57 E. SOURCES l . Vesting Tentative Map for 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane, dated December 20, 2019 2. City of Saratoga General Plan 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory 5. City of Saratoga Heritage Master Plan dated October 2020 6. City of Saratoga Ground Movement Potential Map 7. City staff review of the project. 8. California Department of Transportation State Scenic Highways Map 9. Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2018 10. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 11. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. April 19, 2017. 12. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database; June 2021 13. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Map 06085CO238J, February 2014 14. Cal Fire Hazard Zone Map October 2008 15. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 16. City of Saratoga Emergency Operations Plan 17. F. EXHIBITS A. Vesting Tentative Map for 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane, dated December 20, 2019 B. Kielty Arborist Services LLC report dated May 27, 2020 C. Notice of Non -Renewal of land Conservation Contract September 25, 2018 D. City Arborist Approval dated June 30, 2020 E. Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Evans & DeShazo, dated August 21, 2019 F. Standards Review of the Proposed Barn Relocation to the Historic Orchard, Evans & DeShazo dated April 5, 2021 updated May 18, 2021. G. Fault Investigation Report, Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc, dated May 1, 2019 H. Geologic Peer Review Memo, Cotton, Shires & Associates dated July 22, 2019 1. Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc dated April 10, 2020 Resolution 21-071 Page 58 MITIGATION MEASURES MM — Biologic Resources — 1) 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 to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. MM — Biologic Resources — 2) If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre -construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. The surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will 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. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction -free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. MM — Biologic Resources — 3) If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g. bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. MM — Biologic Resources — 4) All conditions (1-12) including but not limited to planting of replacement new trees contained in the City Arborist Approval dated June 30, 2020. (Exhibit D) MM — Biologic Resources — 5) All Impact and Recommendations and Tree Protection Plan measures contained in the Kielty Arborist Services LLC report dated May 27, 2020. (Exhibit B) MM — Cultural Resource — 1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING. Prior to Project -related, ground -disturbing activities a Secretary of Interior qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide full-time archaeological monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within proposed residential Lots 1- 6 and within the proposed new roadway, and spot monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within the remaining portion of the Project Area. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered (including prehistoric and historic), the location where archaeological resources could be encountered, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered during ground -disturbing activities. The AMP shall also provide procedures and guidelines for in -field assessment of the significance of any archaeological features (historic or prehistoric) associated with P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) identified during monitoring. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the Resolution 21-071 Page 59 location of an archaeological discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while it is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the Archaeologist's professional judgment, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. Upon completion of archaeological monitoring within the Project Area, the archaeologist shall prepare a report of findings to be submitted to the NWIC of the CHRIS located in Rohnert Park, California. MM — Cultural Resource — 2) DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project -related early -disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are suspected to be those of a pre- contact Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted by the Coroner so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. MM — Cultural Resource — 3) CURATION OF ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE Upon completion of the Project, the Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the accessioning of archaeological materials and associated reports generated for the Project at a curation facility. It is recommended that artifacts be submitted to the David A. Fredrickson Archaeological Collections Facility at Sonoma State University, which is the curation facility recommended for the archaeological material recovered as a result of this Project. Another curation facility meeting the California Office of Historic Preservation's guidelines for the curation of archaeological collections may also be used upon the approval of the Director of Building and Planning. MM — Cultural Resource — 4) BARN Conduct 3D laser scanning of the entire 1870s barn, including the additions. MM — Cultural Resource — 5) BARN RELOCATION Relocation of the intact 1870's barn (original gable portion as a priority and, if feasible, the south and north wing additions) to the Heritage Orchard. Prior to the relocation, a 3D laser scan of the entire 1870's barn shall be completed to ensure that the existing condition of the barn are accurately and appropriately documented, and to assist in reassembly of the barn to assist in labeling and packing the barn for reassemble. The priority for dismantling and reconstruction is to ensure the original gable portion of the barn is reconstructed and if feasible, the shed additions (which flank the original gable form to the south and north of the barn) can be disassembled as well and reconstructed. However, if not feasible, the shed additions that flank the original gable form of the barn (excluding the stables and the southern -most addition) can be reconstructed. MM — Cultural Resource — 6) BARN RECONSTRUCTION If proven by a professional in the field of relocation of historic buildings and/or restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings, such as barns, determines the barn is deteriorated beyond the point of repair, then reconstruction, based on the 3D laser scanning, is an option. In addition, portions of the Resolution 21-071 Page 60 building i.e. the south and north shed additions, may be reconstructed at a later date if the original form of the barn is relocated — as a creative and phased approach using both rehabilitate and reconstruction. If this method is chosen, then 3D laser scanning of the entire barn will also be required and shall include the production of both 3D scans, as well as 2D CAD drawings, prior to the demolition or partial demolition of the barn. MM — Cultural Resource — 7) HERITAGE ORCHARD BARN LOCATION. The Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the relocation of the Bellicitti Ranch Barn within the City of Saratoga Historic Orchard. The Barn shall be constructed/located within one of the open areas of the Heritage Orchard, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 of the DeShazo Standards Review or in another area currently void or with sparse fruit trees. The construction of the barn within the Orchard shall follow the Heritage Orchard Preservation Plan. MM — Cultural Resource — 8) HERITAGE ORCHARD BARN, PHYSICAL RECORD OF TIME, PLACE AND USE. The Barn when located within the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard shall include visible signage, both within the orchard and on the building. The signs could be on a post, in a permanent fence or stone marker. The signage should state that although the barn was originally associated with orchard farming in Saratoga, it was not originally located within the Heritage Orchard. MM — Geology and Soils — 1) The applicant shall complete a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed development to identify potential geotechnical engineering constrains (including liquefaction) related to the proposed subdivision level improvements and anticipated future residences. The Geotechnical Investigation shall consist of, but not necessarily limited to: subsurface borings and logs, laboratory testing, geotechnical feasibility and preliminary recommendations for site preparation and grading, drainage design, and foundation design including seismic design criteria, as applicable, consistent with the prevailing standard of geotechnical practice. The investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING. Prior to Project -related, ground -disturbing activities a Secretary of Interior qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and provide full-time archaeological monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within proposed residential Lots 1- 6 and within the proposed new roadway, and spot monitoring of ground -disturbing activities within the remaining portion of the Project Area. The AMP shall provide details regarding the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered (including prehistoric and historic), the location where archaeological resources could be encountered, and the procedures to follow should any archaeological material be encountered during ground -disturbing activities. The AMP shall also provide procedures and guidelines for in -field assessment of the significance of any archaeological features (historic or prehistoric) associated with P-43-000428 (CA-SCL-425) identified during monitoring. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of an archaeological discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while it is being assessed. Monitoring shall continue until, in the Archaeologist's professional judgment, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered. Upon completion of Resolution 21-071 Page 61 archaeological monitoring within the Project Area, the archaeologist shall prepare a report of findings to be submitted to the NWIC of the CHRIS located in Rohnert Park, California. MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 2) DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS If human remains are encountered within the Project Area during Project -related early -disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are suspected to be those of a pre- contact Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted by the Coroner so that a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) can be designated to provide further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains. An archaeologist shall also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD. MM — Tribal Cultural Resource — 3) CURATION OF ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE Upon completion of the Project, the Project applicant shall assume the responsibility and cost for the accessioning of archaeological materials and associated reports generated for the Project at a curation facility. It is recommended that artifacts be submitted to the David A. Fredrickson Archaeological Collections Facility at Sonoma State University, which is the curation facility recommended for the archaeological material recovered as a result of this Project. Another curation facility meeting the California Office of Historic Preservation's guidelines for the curation of archaeological collections may also be used upon the approval of the Director of Building and Planning. > d _ Z - an = c W e of QUITOR onD I� e W Its � I'f 1 s, m nl = ri :(3 I}.-- =1 c- 'IOOHDS k1IV1K9W3'19 -- - JNV1'IWHSdVNI a- O a w °J a uITO ROAD _ J G � I r \\ 1 u - e Y `py�=hill - a wz -- J �� i•�lO� I I I. TOOHOS kdVlN9W9lH +' ANV'I'I'IVHSiI W 1 i wo -w wW O _(oz)z�Q V 1 wQ 4\✓' U W � ua g V AA a g� 100HOs AVINHW919 awl TIVHs2I W ❑a ' ei a � I I �— QUITO ROAD I 3 cl� _ z 0 l - s- ---L I�I lO o j -- I 72 o� ww rw.r�m r _e 'IOOHOS .[2Pd.LN�Y�IH'I3 � I a ,� _ I �NdI I IVIIS2IVY�I :; • 0 z i t .' p w a -_- wy r yoo `¢6- �ga m�e s \ d i 4. nTTTToROAD s Resolution 21-071 Page 67 Kielty Arborist Services LLC P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 May 27, 2020 Dutchints Development Attn: Scott Stotler scott@dutchints.com Site: 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, CA Dear Mr. Stotler, As requested on Friday, November 2nd, 2018 I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. This lot is to be subdivided in to 9 new parcels, with 9 new homes being built on site, as well as a new road. As required by the City of Saratoga a survey of the significant trees, and a tree protection plan will be included. Site plans TM1.0 through TM5.0 were reviewed for writing this report. Method: The significant trees on this site were located on a topography map provided by you. 166 trees were surveyed for this report. All of the protected trees by city ordinance were surveyed. Each tree was given an identification number. This number was inscribed onto a metal foil tag and nailed to the trees at eye level. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). A condition rating of 1 — 100 was assigned to each tree representing form and vitality using the following scale: 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. Each tree was appraised by using the "Trunk Formula Method". In the survey you will find the species and size of each tree followed by comments for each tree. On the next pages you will find a summary of my findings and a recommended Tree Protection Plan that should be in place for the entire length of construction. Resolution 21-071 Page 68 Marshall Lane SHOWING TREE NUMBER LOCATIONS SEE PLAN TM2.1 (2) Resolution 21-071 Page 69 Marshall Lane Tree suitability for preservation: The conservation suitability worksheet from the Best Management Practices, "Managing Trees During Construction", book was used to evaluate each trees suitability for preservation. Using this worksheet takes into account the trees health, distance from tree where roots are to be cut or distance from soil fill, structural defects, construction tolerance of species, tree age, location of construction activity, existing soil quality, and species desirability. After filling out the sheet it gives you a number. Below are the number ratings with an explanation. Trees with a rating of 80 or higher have a high suitability for preservation rating and have a high potential for longevity on the site after construction. These trees are given a high suitability for preservation. Trees with a rating of 60-79 have a moderate suitability for preservation, and may require more in-depth management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have a shorter lifespan than those in the "good" category. These trees are given a moderate suitability for preservation. Trees with a rating of 59 or below have a poor suitability for preservation, and would be expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. These trees are given a low suitability for preservation rating. Tree# and preservation rating for trees to be retained. #8- High #35-Moderate #60-Poor #102- Moderate #10-Moderate #36-Moderate #61-High #103-Moderate # 12-Poor (split union) #37-High #62-Moderate # 104-Moderate #13-High #38-High #63-Moderate #122-Moderate #15-High #39-High #67-Moderate #123-Moderate # 16-High #41-Poor #68-Moderate # 124-High # 17-High #42-Poor #69-Poor # 125-Moderate # 18-High #43-High #70-Moderate # 126-High # 19-High #44-Moderate #71-Moderate # 127-Moderate #20-High #45-High #72-Moderate # 128-Moderate #21-High #46-High #73-Moderate #129-High #22-High #47-High #77-Moderate # 130-High #23-High #48-Moderate #79-Moderate #131-High #24-High #49-Poor (split union) #89-High # 132-High #25-High #50-Moderate #90-Moderate #133-High #26-High #51-High #91-Moderate #134-High #27-High #52-High #92-Moderate #135-High #28-High #53-Moderate #93-Moderate #136-High #29-High #54-Moderate #94-Moderate # 137-High #30-High #55-Moderate #95-Moderate # 138-High #31-High #56-Moderate #96-High #139-High #32-High #57-Moderate #97-Poor # 140-High #33-High #58-Poor #98-Moderate #141-High #34-High #59-Poor #99-Moderate # 142-High #143-High #151-High #159-High #144-High #152-High #160-High #145-High #153-High #161-Poor #146-High #154-High #162-Poor #147-High #155-High #163-Poor #148-High #156-High #164-Poor #149-High #157-High #165-Poor #150-High #158-High #166-Poor(dead) (3) Resolution 21-071 Page 70 Marshall Lane Black walnut trees have a poor tolerance to construction impacts as seen in, "Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction". Any black walnut tree to be retained, must be far from any of the proposed work. Most of the black walnut trees should be removed as they are in poor condition and expected to decline regardless of any applied management. All of the black walnut trees were given a moderate to poor preservation rating due to existing decline and proposed work. Oak trees and redwood trees have a good tolerance of construction impacts. The oaks on site have a high to moderate preservation rating. Trees with a condition rating under 50 have a low suitability for preservation and should be removed. Summary: No tree maintenance has taken place on this property in a long period of time. The majority of the walnut trees are in poor condition due to decay, large amounts of dead wood, being undermined by ground squirrels, and poor past pruning methods. Showing walnut trees on site and codominant leaders with included bark (oak tree #12) 51 oak trees were surveyed with 6 of the oak trees being located off site (adjacent neighboring property). The majority of the oak trees are in fair to good condition with the exception of oak trees #12, 19, 21, 31, and 49, that are in poor condition. Oak tree #49 is a hazardous tree due to actively failing codominant leaders. Included bark was visible at the codominant union. At this time oak tree #49 is proposed for removal due to its hazardous nature (high risk of large leader failure. Oak tree #12 is to be retained for the time being. Tree # 12 is far from any property improvements/ proposed work. A level 3 risk assessment is to take place for oak tree #12 at a different date. Oak trees #19, 21, and 31 were given poor condition ratings due to being heavily suppressed with no room for vertical growth. The suppressed conditions have also made for poor tree vigor. All of the retained oak trees on the property are recommended to be pruned by a licensed tree care provider to reduce risk of failing limbs where needed. This will reduce risk of a limb failure, and preserve the trees for many years to come. Younger oak trees should be pruned for future structure. (4) Resolution 21-071 Page 71 Marshall Lane Showing dead limbs at top of redwood tree A row of redwood trees is located between the property and the adjacent school property. The redwood trees are small young trees. All of the redwood trees are showing signs of drought stress. Redwood trees are not appropriate for the Saratoga climate, and need supplemental irrigation to maintain a healthy canopy. Supplemental irrigation should be provided for these trees or they are expected to eventually decline. Showing redwood trees at property line Trees proposed for removal Redwood tree #9 is a large redwood tree located on site with a dimeter measurement of 74". This tree was given a poor condition rating. Large areas of dead wood were observed within the tree's canopy. The top of the tree appears to have died and re -sprouted in the past. This tree is under extreme drought stress as no supplemental irrigation has been provided. Removal and replacement of this tree with a native oak tree is a better option then trying to preserve this tree. The tree is at high risk for limb failure. This tree falls under Saratoga's tree removal criteria that states the following: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling(limb failure imminent), proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. The tree is poorly located on the property. (5) Resolution 21-071 Page 72 Marshall Lane Trees #1-7, 9, 11, 14, 17-19, 40, 49, 64-66, 73-76, 78-88, 100, 101, 105-129 all are proposed for removal due to being located too close to the proposed work or because they are in poor condition. The majority of the proposed trees to be removed are in poor condition. These trees fall under Saratoga's tree removal criteria that states the following: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling(limb failure imminent for most trees), proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Appraised value for protected trees proposed for removal due to home locations or other improvements: #1 (not protected) #73 $480 #106 $560 #2 (not protected) #74 (not protected) # 107 $0 (dead) #3 (not protected) #75 $350 #108 (not protected) #4 (not protected) #76 $400 #109 $2,390 #5 (not protected) #78 $340 #110 $2,860 #6 (not protected) #79 $530 #111 $570 #7 _(not protected) #80 $400 #112 $570 #9 $16,700 #81 $1,060 # 113 (not protected) # 11 (not protected) #82 $490 # 114 (not protected) #14 $700 #83 (not protected) #115 (not protected) 917 $1,190 #84 $670 #116 $3,170 #18 $2010 #85 $350 #117 $420 #19 $100 #86 $580 #118 $1,870 #40 $260 #87 (not protected) # 119 $1,120 #64 $180 #88 $700 # 120 (not protected) #65 $180 # 100 (not protected) # 121 $280 #66 $120 #101 $0(dead) #105 $400 #49 $0 (hazardous) # 122 $160 # 123 $260 # 124 $610 # 125 (not protected) #126 $5,500 #127 $390 #128 $180 #129 7,200 Total appraised value of tree to be removed-56,300 Trees to be removed: 60 (42 are protected size) (18 non protected) Replacement tree plan -The city of Saratoga requires that new trees equal to the total appraised value of trees approved for removal be planted on site, or that some or all of the value be placed in a fund for tree planting elsewhere in the City. Any tree on site protected by City Code will require replacement according to its appraised value if it is damaged beyond repair as a result of construction. For ease of determining replacement trees, replacement values have been assigned to specific sizes of trees as follows: 15 gallon= $350 24 inch box= $500 36 inch box= $1,500 48 inch box= $5,000 60 inch box= $7,000 72 inch box= $15,000 (6) Resolution 21-071 Page 73 Marshall Lane The replacement tree species shall be approved by the city arborist. All replacement trees must be shown on plans. The total appraised value of the protected trees proposed for removal is $56,300. If only 24 inch box trees are to be planted, this means that 113 trees would need to be planted. The replacement trees can be planted anywhere on the property. Any remaining value not meet can be donated to the city tree fund. IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Oak tree #10 Demolition of the existing building near this tree will be taking place. This tree will need to be protected during demolition. Fencing during demolition will need to be placed 5 feet beyond the canopy spread where possible. During the construction phase of the project, tree protection fencing will need to be modified. Demolition equipment must be facing the tree when pulling away the foundation material closest to the tree. Any exposed roots at the existing foundation must be covered by native soil as soon as possible. If to be left exposed the roots should be covered by layers of moistened burlap to avoid root desiccation. Impacts from demolition are expected to be nonexistent. TO REMAIN \ ` `, % i Showing tree protection fencing during demolition for oak tree #10 During the proposed construction the tree protection zone for oak tree 410 will need to be changed. The proposed home on lot 4 has been modified to allow enough room for oak tree #10 to continue to grow. The proposed foundation is 25 feet from the tree on 3 sides of the tree. At 25 feet the foundation is still underneath the large canopy spread of the tree. The entire foundation will need to be excavated by hand in combination with an air knife when within the tree's dripline. The Project Arborist will need to be on site during the foundation excavation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter will need to be saved. Roots can be wrapped with insulation foam and poured around within the foundation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter that are to remain exposed must be wrapped in burlap and kept moist by spraying down the burlap twice a day until it is time to pour the foundation. Minor pruning may be needed for building clearance. All pruning shall be done by a licensed tree care provider. The recommended pruning for tree maintenance using crown reduction pruning cuts is recommended to take place as soon as possible. This tree has not been pruned of an unknown length of time and has developed large heavy lateral limbs. Construction is likely not to start for a long period of time, as the project is still in the planning phase. This would give the tree a good amount of time to recover from pruning. The proposed foundation is recommended to be a pier and grade beam foundation to help reduce impacts to the tree. The grade beam depth shall stay as shallow as possible as the grade beam will be bridging over tree roots. Once the (7) Resolution 21-071 Page 74 Marshall Lane 1 1 foundation has been constructed a soaker hose is \ `% recommended to be placed at the foundation edge // , �` �� •S� and turned on once a week until the top foot of soil is saturated. After 4 months irrigation shall be Ps % \ 36 \ permanently suspended underneath the canopy \ \ spread of this tree. Impacts to this tree are expected \ \ to be minor if the above recommendations are put into action. 11 Pao N= Showing tree protection fencing for oak tree #10 during construction \ P78 Oak tree # 16 Demolition of the existing building near this tree will be taking place. This tree will need to be protected during demolition. Fencing during demolition will ' = need to be placed 5 feet beyond the canopy spread APPROXI TE where possible. Demolition equipment must be ON OF EX LL facing the tree when pulling away the foundation TO BE REM EG material closest to the tree. Any exposed roots at the existing foundation must be covered by native soil as f— soon as possible. If to be left exposed the roots should be covered by layers of moistened burlap to avoid root desiccation. Impacts from demolition are expected to be nonexistent. Tree protection fencing TO .-1 will need to be moved after demolition has taken TEa _ . ` place to protect the tree from the proposed I ; construction. Showing tree protection for oak tree #16 during demolition CV C'TIAIn 0 T01 1^T' i The proposed home foundation is located 25 feet from oak tree # 16 (at outer edge of dripline). The entire foundation will need to be excavated by hand in combination with an air knife when within the tree's dripline. The Project Arborist will need to be on site during the foundation excavation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter will need to be saved. Roots can be wrapped with insulation foam and poured around within the foundation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter that are to remain exposed must be wrapped in burlap and kept moist by spraying down the burlap twice a day until it is time to pour the foundation. Minor pruning may be needed for building clearance. All pruning shall be done by a licensed tree care (8) Resolution 21-071 Page 75 Marshall Lane i I I -- —1 I j� BIQRETE\110N/ IWATER QUALITY BASIN I I LOT LINE a provider. The proposed foundation is recommended to be a pier and grade beam foundation to help reduce impacts to the tree. The grade beam depth shall stay as shallow as possible as the grade beam will be bridging over tree roots. Once the foundation has been constructed a soaker hose is recommended to be placed at the foundation edge and turned on once a week until the top foot of soil is saturated. After 4 months irrigation shall be permanently suspended underneath the canopy spread of this tree. Impacts to this tree are expected to be minor if the above recommendations are put into action. Showing tree protection fencing during construction for tree #16 X_ Showing the recommended tree protection fencing for trees near the detention system and storm drain line work Trees #20-39, 41-43 &71 Trees #20-39, 41-43 &71 are all near the proposed storm drain line, bioretention/water quality basin, and hydro modification/detention systems. The trees are a good distance away from the proposed work, with work only taking place within the outer edge of the tree driplines. When excavating for the storm drain line and detentions systems, hand excavation in combination with an air knife must take place when underneath the canopy of a tree to be retained. All roots measuring 2 inches in diameter or larger will need to be retained when possible. With hand excavation the roots can be saved with the line tunneled below or besides roots when possible. All exposed roots must be kept moist by wrapping roots in burlap and wetting down the burlap twice a day. This work must be supervised by the Project Arborist. Anytime roots measuring 2 inches in diameter or larger that need to be cut are encountered, they must be first shown to the Project Arborist. Roots must be cut cleanly under the Project Arborist supervision. Minor irrigation will be recommended if roots are to be impacted. Overall impacts to these trees are expected to be minor. Tree protection fencing will be needed for all of the trees in close proximity to this work. (9) Resolution 21-071 Page 76 Marshall Lane 5 Showing the recommended tree protection fencing for #89 and #90 Trees # 102 & # 104 Oak trees #89 & #90 Oak trees #89 and 490 are both to be retained. Both trees are near a proposed foundation. The foundation is located at 25 feet from oak tree #89 and 10 feet from oak tree #90. The entire foundation will need to be excavated by hand in combination with an air knife when within the tree's dripline. The Project Arborist will need to be on site during the foundation excavation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter will need to be saved. Roots can be wrapped with insulation foam and poured around within the foundation. Roots measuring larger than 2 inches in diameter that are to remain exposed must be wrapped in burlap and kept moist by spraying down the burlap twice a day until it is time to pour the foundation. Impacts to oak tree 489 are expected to be minor. Impacts to oak tree #90 are expected to be moderate as the foundation is closer to this tree. Both trees are located 12 feet from the proposed street. All excavation will need to be manually done by hand in combination with an air knife while under the Project Arborist supervision when working underneath the dripline of these trees. Encountered roots will need to be cleanly cut for the street construction. All root cutting of roots measuring 2 inches in diameter or larger will need to be supervised by the Project Arborist. Both trees will need to be irrigated once a week for 4 months following root cutting. Exposed roots or cut root ends must be wrapped in burlap and kept moist by wetting down the burlap multiple times a day. Impacts are expected to be minor to moderate. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the edge of the proposed work for these trees. Neighboring trees # 161-165 The neighbor's trees are very close to the proposed road. Impacts are expected to be high as large roots would be impacted regardless of hand digging or mitigation measures. It is recommended to move the road to be at least 15 feet from these trees. At 15 feet impacts would be tolerable with hand excavation and cleanly cutting roots. Minor irrigation would be needed at the cut area. If this is not possible than the road shall be built entirely on top of grade with the use of biaxial geogrid. Grading review Where possible the grading plan has been revised to stay 25 feet away from the trees. Where not possible grading has been revised to be at least 6 times the diameter away from the retained trees. Anywhere future grading needs to take place closer to a retained tree than 6 times the tree diameter, an exploratory trench will be needed to review impacts to the trees and to come up with a plan on how to mitigate potential root loss. Exploratory trenching will take place during design review to ensure trees are protected. 10 Resolution 21-071 Page 77 Marshall Lane Pathway/sidewalk work: The pathway has been revised to be 6 feet from both coast live oak trees #130 & #131. The pathway is to be built on top of grade with the use of biaxial geogrid (Tensar BX 1100) as an underlayment. This way no impacts to the large oak trees would be expected. The Project Arborist will need to be on site to document and inspect this work. Tree protection fencing will need to be temporarily removed for this work to take place and replaced once the work is completed. City engineers have stated that the sidewalk near trees #116, 118, 124, 126, and 129 needs to be a 10 foot wide pathway. The pathway has been split to be on both sides of the trees. Impacts on both sides of the trees may lead to tree stability issues; therefore, these trees are recommended to be removed and replaced to allow for the construction of the 10 foot wide sidewalk. Tree protection security deposit: The town of Saratoga requires a tree protection security deposit that is 100% of the total value of trees potentially impacted by construction work, as there is more than one structure being builton site. The owner will be required to obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit prior to obtaining Building Division permits. The tree protection security deposit is to remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist (a building inspector cannot release the tree security deposit), the bond will be released. Trees near DrODosed construction and their aDDraised value: #10- $26,400 #28- $1,580 #38- $2,680 #161-$1,510 #16- $25,400 #29- $5,300 #39- $3,140 #162-(not protected) #20- (not protected) #30- $8,000 #41- $90 #163-$7,700 #21- (not protected) #31- (not protected) #42- $340 #164-$4,430 #22- $1,210 #32- $700 #43- $3,000 #165-$4,430 #23- $6,000 #33- $24,800 #71- $560 #24- $16,300 #34- $5,900 #89- $11,500 #25- $9,800 #35- $160 #90- $8,500 #26- $860 #36- (not protected) #102- $1,910 #27- $10,400 #37- $7,300 # 104- $160 TOTAL TREE PROTECTION SECURITY DEPOSIT- $200,060 11 Resolution 21-071 Page 78 Marshall Lane Tree Protection Plan: Tree Protection Zones Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6 foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized post, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. On the metal chain link fencing protecting the trees should be a sign saying -"TREE PROTECTION FENCE -DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST-KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276. The city requires that all tree protection fencing be installed before any equipment comes on site, and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of permits. The location for the protection zone is the distance from the trunk to a point that is five feet beyond the canopy of a tree protected by city code. Tree protection fencing shall be located as close to this location as possible while allowing room for construction to occur. No equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Any tree on site that is protected by city code will require replacement according to its appraisedvalue if it is damaged beyond repair as a result of construction. At the end of the project, in order to take the tree protection down, the city requires a final inspection that is to be done by the city arborist. Tree protection is well shown on the site plans. Tree protection for the neighboring trees will consist of the property line fence. Landscape Buffer Where tree protection does not cover the entire root zone of the trees (5 feet beyond canopy spread), or when a smaller tree protection zone is needed for access, a landscape buffer consisting of wood chips spread to a depth of six inches with plywood or steel plates placed on top will be placed where foot traffic is expected to be heavy. The landscape buffer will help to reduce compaction to the unprotected root zone. If plywood is used the pieces of plywood shall be attached in a way that minimizes movement. Root Cutting and Grading Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented (not expected on this site). Large roots (over 2" diameter) or large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Trenching and Excavation Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time, will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots. 12 Resolution 21-071 Page 79 Marshall Lane Irrigation Normal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. The imported trees will require normal irrigation. On a construction site, I recommend irrigation during winter months, 1 time per month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. During the warm season, April — November, my recommendation is to use heavy irrigation, 2 times per month. This type of irrigation should be started prior to any excavation. The irrigation will improve the vigor and water content of the trees. The on -site arborist may make adjustments to the irrigation recommendations as needed. The foliage of the trees may need cleaning if dust levels are extreme. Removing dust from the foliage will help to reduce mite and insect infestation. No irrigation shall be applied to the native oak trees. This report should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. The owner, contractor and architect are all responsible for knowing the information included in this report and adhering to the conditions provided. This report is to be copied onto a plan sheet and become part of the final plan set. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty AU.4;Z1 Certified Arborist WE40476A 13 Resolution 21-071 Page 80 Marshall Lane Kielty Arborist Services P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord -tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. Arborist: A""'' X"e Kevin R. Kielty Date: May 27, 2020 14 Resolution 21-071 Page 81 Via Hand -Delivery City of Saratoga ILP zt J CITY OF '--;AFA, TO G^, Attention: Debbie Bretschneider Dated: September25, 2018 Interim City Clerk Subject: Notice of Non -Renewal of Land Conservation Contract of Bellicitti Properties Dear Ms. Bretschneider, Pursuant to Government Code Section 51245, the undersigned, being all the owners of the affected properties, hereby serve notice of non -renewal of the Land Conservation Contract dated January 19, 1972. All properties are located within the City of Saratoga. The properties affected by this notice are: 14001 Chester Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070, APN: 397-01-072 John H. Bellicitti Trustee 0 Chester Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070, APN: 397-01-071 Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070, APN: 397-02-111 John H. Bellicitti Trustee & ET AL 18520 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070, APN: 397-02-110 John H. Bellicitti Trustee & ET AL ��/8 John H. Bellicitti � �.d.��,� Dated: 91 Owner Mary F. Driggs Manager, Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership Harry L. Bellicitti, Jr Manager, Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership John H. Bellicitti Manager, Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership Robert J. Bellicitti Manager, Bellicitti Family Limited Partnership Mary F. Driggs Trustee Harry L. Bellicitti, Jr Trustee John H. Bellicitti Trustee Robert J. Bellicitti Trustee li� Dated: _44 Dated: L r► @&44a-. h ,d:�f'�� d: d: 1Z �2 � /-/ Resolution 21-071 Page 82 y °E SARgr SARATOGA 1956 cgCIFORN�P Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Application No. ARB19-0042 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 18500 Marshall Lane Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us Owner: John Bellicitti APN: 397-02-110 & 111 Date: June 30, 2020 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to demolish two structures and a driveway and subdivide the property into nine parcels. A new private road and utilities for the nine lots will be included in the project. A total of 42 trees protected by City Code and listed below are requested for removal to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit — Required - $200,000 Tree protection — Required — See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Trees 9, 14, 17 —19, 40, 49, 64 — 66, 73, 75, 76, 78 — 82, 84 — 86, Tree removals — 88, 101, 105, 106, 107, 109 —112, 116 —119, 121-124 and 126 — 129 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees — Required = $56,300 ATTACHMENTS: 1— Findings and Tree Information 2 —Tree Removal Criteria 3 — Conditions of Approval 4 — Map Showing Tree Protection 1of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 83 18500 Marshall Lane FINDINGS: Attachment 1 Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Forty two (42) trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. They meet the City's criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of tree removal criteria met - submitted May 27, 2020 arborist report. Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 9 Redwood 1, 6, 7, 9 Drought stressed, in decline 14, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, 78 - 81, 84, 85, 86, 88, 105, 106, 110, 122, 123 Black walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 In decline, decay in trunk 17 -19 Coast live oak 1, 5, 7, 9 Crowded by oak tree 16 40 Acacia 1, 6, 7, 9 In decline 49,129 Coast live oak 1, 6, 7, 9 Next to public sidewalk, at risk of failure 821 127 English walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 In decline, history of limb failure 101 English walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 Dead 107 Black walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 Dead 109, 121, 128 Black walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 Stump sprouts 111, 112 Coast live oak 1, 6, 7, 9 Stump sprouts 116, 118, 124, 126 Coast live oak 1, 6, 7, 9 In conflict with sidewalk 117, 119 Black walnut 1, 6, 7, 9 In conflict with sidewalk New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1) The tree information and recommendations from the submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020; 2) The Protect Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection from this report dated June 29, 2020. 2of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 84 18500 Marshall Lane TREE INFORMATION: Protect Arborist: Kevin Kielty, Kielty Arborist Services LLC Date of Report: May 27, 2020 Attachment 1 Number of trees inventoried: 166 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 42 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Eighteen trees (1— 7, 11, 74, 83, 87, 100, 108, 113 —115, 120, and 125) are not protected by City Code and were not included in the tree information table. Table 2: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tres # Species BotanlcaliWawa (inches) : Condidon Spread Comments 1 Apple Malus sp. 6.8 30 8/10 Fair to poor vigor, poor form, heavily decayed trunk. 2 Lime Citnrs sp. 7.2 40 10110 Fair vigor, poor form, heavy decay, split trunk. 3 Apple Malus sp. 5.4 30 10/10 Fair vigor, poor form, heavy decay on trunk. 4 Lime Citrus sp. 7.8 45 10110 Fair to poor vigor, fair form, die back. 5 Oran a Citrus sp. 8.5 60 12/12 Fair vigor, fair form, minor die back. 6 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 3.4 80 1416 Fair vigor, fair form, young tree, transplantable- 7 Lemon Citrus spp. 5.6 40 14/8 Poor vigor, fair form, suppressed, abundance of dead wood. 8P Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 22.5 70 65110 Fair vigor fair form. 9P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 74 40 75/30 Z. stressI.ed. 10P lCoast live oak Quercus agrifolia 40.1 80 40/50 maintenance. 11 Orange Citrus sp. 7.5 30 15/10 Poor vigor, fair form, in decline. 12F Coast live oak Quercus a rifclia 44 0 40/60 feet due to included bark, hazardous, over extended limbs. 13 Black walnut Juglans nigra 7.9 50 15/10 Fair to poor vigor, fair form, die back. 14P Black walnut Juglans nigra 20 30 20/15 hazard, remove, in decline. 15P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15 70 20/20 Fair vigor, fair form, young tree. 16P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 39.3 80 40/50 Good vigor, fair form, needs reduction pruning. 17P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10.2 50 26/12 fill 6. 18P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 60 25/15 Fair vigor, fair form, suppressed, under canopy of oak #16. 19P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 40 15/10 Poor vigor, poor form, heavily suppressed. 20 Almond Prunus dulcis 6 0 10/10 Nearly dead. 21 lCoast live oak I Quercus agrifolia 4.5 45 10110 Fair vigor, poor form, heavily suppressed. 22P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10.9 50 15/15 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed, heavy towards street. 23P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 22.8 50 30125 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed, heavy towards street. 24P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 30.1 80 40/40 Good vigor, good form, dominant tree. 26P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 24.2 75 30/30 Fair vigor, good form, good screen. 26P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7.9 65 25/15 Fairvigor, fairform suppressed. 27P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 24 80 35/35 Good vigor, good form, good screen. 28P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11.9 60 30/15 Fair vigor, fair form. suppressed, 1 foot from #29. 29P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 17-3 60 40/30 Good vigor, good form, good screen. 30P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 20.8 80 40/35 Good vigor, good form, good screen. 3of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 85 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tree#, S ecfes Botanic4ftfw DOH (inches) Condition HU Spread Comments 31 Valley oak Quercus lobate 5.5 30 15110 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, suppressed. 32P Valley oak Quercus lobata 7.1 50 25112 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed. 33P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 40 75 40/40 Good vigor, fair form, recommended to remove lowest leader. 34P Coast live oak Quercus agrifofla 18 80 25/25 lGood vigor, fair form, needs maintenance pruning. 35 Privet Li ustrurna onicum 10.5 30 12/12 Poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade, in decline. 36 Privet Ligustrum japonicum 6 30 10/10 Pour vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade, in decline 37P Coast live oak Quercus agfifofia 19.8 80 40130 Good vigor, fair form. 38P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 80 25/20 Good vigor, fair form. 39P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolla 12A 80 25/20 Good vigor, fair form, codominant at 5 feet. 40P jAcacia Acacia dealbate 13.5 30 10112 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline. 41P Black walnut Juglans nigra 10.4 20 12/12 Poor vigor, poor orm, co omrnan at 1 fact, heavy decay a union. 42P Black walnut Juglans nigra 16 1 30 25/20 Fair vigor, poor form, codominant at grade. 43P Coast live oak I Quercus aorifofia 16.4 1 65 30os Good visor. fair ofrm. codominant at 6 feet. on slooe_ 44P Black walnut Ju !arts nigra 12.4 35 30/26 Fair vigor, poor form, decay near grade. 45P Valley oak Quercus lobata 78 60 25/20 Fair vigor, fair form, suppressed. 46P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7.8 FA 30/20 Fair vigor, fair form, shares root zone with 945. 47P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5 60 30/20 Fair vigor, fair form, shares root 2cne. 48P lBlack walnut Juglans nigra 11 40 1 20/25 Poor vigor, poor form, decay_ 49P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 22.5 0 25/35 Fair vigor, poor form, split union at 4 feet. hazard. 50P Black walnut Ju lams nigra 13.6 30 30/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay, in decline. 51P Black walnut Juglans nigra 218 50 30/30 Fair vigor, fair form, near street 52P Black walnut Juglans nigra 19.6 50 30/35 Fair vigor, poor to fair farm, decay at union. 53P lBlack walnut Juglans nigra 19.6 1 40 30130 Poor to fair vigor, poor form. decay at 2 feet. UP Black walnut Juglans nigra 16.2 4.0 35/30 Poor vigor, poor form, decay near grade. 55P Black walnut Juglans nigra 25.5 45 35140 Fair vigor, poor form, decay from pruning cuts. 56P Black walnut Juglans nigra 16.9 40 35130 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, decay at grade. 57P Black walnut Ju lams ni re 11.7 35 20/20 Poor to fair vigor, poor form.. decay at grade. 58P Black walnut Juglans nigra 14 20 15/10 Poor vigor, poor form, decay 69P Black walnut Jug- ni re 14.1 30 15/10 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 6o Plum Prunus sop. 9.5 30 15115 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline. 61P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 38 70 45/50 Good vigor, fair form, multi leader at 4 feet. 62P Black walnut Ju lens nigra 18.5 30 26/30 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline. 63P Black walnut Ju tans ni re 12.9 25 20120 Poor vigor, poor form, decay - 64P Black walnut Juglans nigra 10.5 25 20/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 65P Black walnut Juglans nigra 11.3 25 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. Be Black walnut Juglans nigra 9.5 20 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 67P Black walnut Juglans nigra 10.9 35 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 68P Black walnut Juglans nigra 15 40 30/25 Fair vigor, fair form, decay. 69P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12 25 15/15 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 70P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12 45 20/25 Poor vigor, fair form, decay. 71P Black walnut Juglans nigra 13 45 25/20 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader. 72P Black walnut Juglans nigra 149 45 25125 Fair vigor, poor form, decay near grade. 73P Black walnut Juglans nigra 1 11.7 1 45 25120 Iroor to fair vigor, poor farm, decay 4of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 86 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tree # Species Botanical mame .DOH (Inches) - Conditions ;HU read Comments 66 Black walnut Juglans nigra 9.5 20 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 67P Black walnut Juglans nigra 10.9 35 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 68P Black walnut Juglans nigra 15 40 30125 Fair vigor, fair form, decay. 89P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12 25 1 15/15 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 70P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12 45 20/25 Poor vigor, fair form, decay. 71P Black walnut Juglans nigra 13 45 25/20 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader. 72P Black walnut Juglans nigra 14.9 45 25125 Fair vigor, poor form, decay near grade. 73P Black walnut 1JUglans ni re 11.7 45 25/20 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, decay. 74 Black walnut Juglans nigra 8.8 35 1 25120 Por to fair vigor, poor form, deacy. 76P Black walnut Juglans ni re 13.5 30 25/15 Poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade, decay. 76P Black walnut Juglans ni re 14 35 25/20 Poor vigor, poor poor form, cedominant at grade. 77P Black walnut Juglans nigra 23 30 35/35 Poor vigor, poor form, large scar on trunk. 78P Black walnut Juglans nigra 16.5 20 25125 Poor vigor, poor form, decay 79P Black walnut Juglans nigra 14.5 40 1 35/30 Fair vigor, poor form, decay. 80P I Black walnut Juglans nlgre 14 35 25/30 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade. 81P Black walnut Juglans nigra 17.5 45 30M Fair vigor, poor form, decay at4feet. 82P English walnut Juglans regfa 13.5 45 25/25 Fair vigor, poor form, history of limb loss. 93 Blackwalnut Juglans nigra 5 30 20110 lPoor vigor, poor form, leans, suppressed. 84 Black walnut Juglans nigra 16.5 1 40 25/20 Fair vigor, poor farm, codominant at 3 feet. 85P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12.9 35 30130 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, mufti leader at 3 feet, decay. 86P Black walnut Juglans nigra 19.5 25 25/30 Poor vigor, poor form, decay in trunk. 87 Black walnut Juglans nigra 9.3 15 20125 Poor vigor, poor form, heavy in decay. 88P Black walnut Juglans nigra 19.5 30 30/25 Poor vigor, poor form, nearly dead. 39P lCoast live oak Quercus agrifolia 26 75 45/50 Good vigor, fair form, shares root zone with #90. 90P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 24.2 65 45140 Fair vigor, fair form, suppressed by 989. 91P Black walnut Juglans nigra 26.9 40 30/30 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, decay. 92P Black walnut Juglans nigra 19 35 25125 Poor vicor, poor form, decay. 93P Black walnut Juglans nigra 28.8 45 35/30 Farr vigor, poor form, decay. 94P Black walnut Juglans nigra 21 40 30M Poor to fair vigor, poor form, multi leader. 96P Black walnut Juglans nigra 25 40 35125 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, decay. 96P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolla 9 50 2000 Good vigor, poor form, suppressed by #W 97P Black walnut Juglans nigra 20.1 55 40/40 Good vigor, fair form, spreading canopy. 98P Black walnut Juglans nigra 11.2 30 25/25 Fair vigor, poor form, leans rorth. 99P Black walnut Juglans nigra 21 40 35135 Fair vigor, poor form, undermined by ground squirrels. 100 Plum Prunus sp. 75 40 15/15 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, cedominant. 101P English walnut Juglans regia 14 0 15/20 DEAD. 102P Black walnut Juglans nigra 22.5 50 35135 Fair vigor, fair form. 103P Black walnut Juglans nigra 15.3 45 35/35 Fair vigor, fair form, minor decay 104P English walnut Juglans re is 12 25 25/20 Poor vigor, poor form, nearly dead. 105P Black walnut Juglans nigra 13.6 35 30125 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 106P Black walnut Juglans nigra 22.1 20 mm Poor vigor, poor form, decay nearly dead. 107P I Black walnut Ju lens ni re 13.1 0 30120 DEAD. 5of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 87 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tree # Species Botae!Cal Name Caches . '.. Condition Spread Comments 108 Black walnut Juglans nigra 9.5 20 25115 Poor vigor, poor form, nearly dead. 109P Nor Cal black walnut Juglans hindsii 20.5 50 45140 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade. 110P Nor Cal black Walnut Juglans hindsii 20.5 60 35/35 Goodvigor, fair form, codominant at 5 feet. 111P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 55 20/20 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade. 112P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 65 55 20/20 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade 113 Almond Prunus dulcis 8 0 15/15 DEAD. 114 Olive Oise europaea 8.5 40 20/20 Poor to fair vigor, fair form, on slope above road. 115 Black walnut Juglans nigra 6 0 15/15 DEAD. 116P lCoast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13.5 70 35135 Good vigor, fair from, on slope above road. 117P Black walnut Juglans nigra 17 25 15120 Poor vigor, poor form, multi leader. 118P Coast live oak Quercus agrfolia 12.2 60 30130 Goodvigor, fair form, heavy to the south. 119F Black walnut Juglans nigra 21.5 40 26130 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, multi leader. 120 Black walnut Juglans nigra 9.7 40 30/20 Poor to fair vigor, poor form, heavy to wrest. 121P Black walnut Jug/a- nigra 18 20 15115 Poor vigor, poor form. stump re -sprout. 122P Black walnut Ju lens nigra 11.1 30 20120 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 123P Black walnut Juglans nl ra 12-5 35 20/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay. 124P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 55 16115 Goodvigor, fair form, suppressed. 125 Black walnut Juglans nigra 9 30 15120 Poor vigor, poor form, nearly dead. 126P Coast live oak Quercus agrifbifie 215 50 20125 Fair vigor, poor form, leans west. 127P English walnut Juglans regia 15.6 35 20/20 Poor vigor, poor form, decay/ 128P Black walnut Juglans nigra 10.8 25 15110 Slump re -sprout. 129P Coast live oak Quercus aWdofia 24.1 55 35135 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at 5 feet. 130P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 632 70 55180 Goodvigor, fair form, codominant at 4 feet. 131P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 50.4 70 50/65 Good vigor, fair form, multi leader at 5 feet. 132P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 7.8 65 25/15 Fair vigor, fair form, crown lifted in past. 133P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75 65 25/15 Fair vigor, fair form, crrnvn lifted in past. 134P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 6.3 65 25115 Fair vigor, fair form, crrnvn lifted in past. 135 Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 5.1 65 25/15 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 136 Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 3 65 10/5 Fair vigor, fair form, crrnvn lifted in past 137 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia, 3.3 55 20/15 Good vigor, poor form, clump 138 Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 3.7 55 20115 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 139 Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 4.5 65 20A5 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 140P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 9 65 30/15 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 141P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 65 30115 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 142P Redwood Sequoia sem ervirens 10 65 30115 Fair vigor, fair form, crmvn lifted in past. 143P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10.7 65 30/15 Fair vigor, fair form ,cro\vn lifted in past. 144P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 7.4 65 20/10 Fair vigor, falrfonn, crown lifted in past. 145P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10.7 65 20/10 Fair vigor, fair form, crown lifted in past. 146P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 8.5 65 20110 Fair vigor, fair form, crrnvn lifted in past. 147P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia o" 55 25120 Good vigor, poor to fair form, codominant at 5 feet. 148P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 8.8 65 25115 Good vigor, fair form, crown lifted in past. 149P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 65 25112 Good vigor, fair form, crown lifted in past 150P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 7.4 65 9.5112 Goodvigor, fair form, crown lifted in past. 151P Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 14 80 25/20 Goodvigor, fair form, 12' standing trunk. 152P Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 7.7 65 25/15 Fair vigor, fair form, ermvn lifted in past. 153P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 60 25120 Good vigor, fair term, codominant. 6of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 88 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 2 continued: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tree # Species Botankat Hama BH Inches Condition Hti Spread Comments 154P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 20 60 2520 Good vigor, fair form, =dominant. 155P Black walnut Juglans nigra 12.2 40 2520 Fair vigor, poor form. suppressed. 156P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1i! 60 20/15 Fair vigor, `air form, on property Ime. 1571P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25 55 45/50 Gond vigor, fair form 158'P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 26 65 50160 Goodvigor, fair form, multi leaderat 10 feet 159'P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 24 60 45140 Good vigor, fair fcfm 16V Pear Pyrus sp. 6 45 15/15 Fair vigor, poor form topped 16YP Apricot Pnlnus armentaca 14 50 20/25 Godo vgior, tant form, mature. 162' 1 Peach Prunus persica 5 35 10/12 Poor to tan vigor, poor form. 1631P Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 22 70 35/45 Good vigor, fair form, codominart at 5 feet. 16,rP Coast live oak Quercus a rifolia 18 60 35/40 Fair vigor, fair form, spreading canopy. 166•P Douglas fir Pseudofsuga menziesu 26 65 65/35 Good vigor, fair form, 166'P Coast live oak Quercus agrfolia 30 0 45135 DEAD. P=Protected Table 3: Appraised values from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. Tree# Spades Nursery Groin GBH pnchse) Trunk Area (TA) Total Trunk Area (TA) Replacament Trunk Area (TAs) TAB (=TA-TAs) (= TA_ x Unit Tree cam) Condition Location Species Rating Appraised value 1 Apple 1 6.8 38 38 2.09 35.91 $3,324 30% 50% 50% $250 2 Lirne 2 7.2 38 38 2.24 35,76 $3105 40% 50% 50% S310 3 Apple 1 5.4 20 20 2.09 17.91 $1833 30% 50% 50% $140 a Lime 2 7.8 50 50 2.24 47.76 $4,029 45% 50% 50% $450 5 Orange 2 8.5 64 64 2.24 61.76 $5.108 60% 50% 50% S770 6 Coast live oak 3 3.4 7 7 3.80 3.20 $495 80% 70% 90% $250 7 Lemon 2 5.6 28 28 2.24 25.76 $2,335 40% 50% 50% 5230 e Fan palm 3 22.5 $25 TF 70% 65% 50% $1 630 9 Redwood 4 74 2207 2207 4.75 2202.25 S80.424 40% 65% 80% $16 700 10 Coast live oak 3 40.1 1149 1149 3.80 1145.20 S52,411 80% 70% 90% $26,400 11 Citrus 2 7.5 50 50 2.24 47.76 $4 029 30% 50% 50% S300 12 Coast live oak 3 44 1314 1314 3.80 1310.20 S59 912 0% 60°% 90% So 13 Blackwalnut 4 7.9 50 50 4.75 45.25 $1995 50% 50% 50% $250 14 Blackwalnut 4 20 314 314 4.75 309.25 S11594 30% 40% 50% S700 15 Coast live oak 3 15 177 177 3.80 173.20 $8 224 70% 70% 90% $3 630 16 Coast live oak 3 39.3 1106 1106 3.80 1102.20 $50 456 80% 70% 90% S25 400 17 Coast live oak 3 10.2 79 79 3.80 75.20 $3,769 50% 70% 90% $1,190 19 Coast live oak 3 12 113 113 3.80 109.20 $5,314 60% 70% 90% S2.010 19 Coast live oak 3 6 28 28 3.80 24.20 S1 450 40% 60% 30% S100 20 Almond 2 6 28 28 2.24 25.76 $2,335 10% 50% 50% S60 21 Coast live oak 3 4.5 20 20 3.80 16.20 $1 086 45% 50% 90% S220 22 Coast live oak 3 10.9 95 95 3.80 91.20 $4,496 50% 60% 90% S1.210 23 Coast live oak 3 22.8 415 415 3.80 411.20 S19 043 50% 70% 900A $6 000 24 Coast live oak 3 30.1 707 707 3.80 703.20 S32 317 80% 70% 90% $16 300 25 Coast live oak 3 24.2 452 452 3.80 448.20 $20 725 75% 700% 90% $9.800 26 Coast live oak 3 7.9 50 50 3.80 46.20 $2 450 65% 60% 90% $860 27 Coast live oak 3 24 452 452 3.80 448.20 S20 725 80% 70% 90% S10 29 Coast live oak 3 119113 113 3,80 109.20 $5.314 55% 60% 90% �400 S1.529 Coast live oak 3 17.3 227 227 3.80 223.20 S10,497 80% 70% 90e/ $5. 7of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 89 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 3 continued: Appraised values from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. m rn m o 0 O O 0 0 O o 0 O 0 [O 0 V O 0 0 O O 0 O o 0 0 O 0 ((j 0 0 (p O 0 0 0 O O O '` 7 O LO O CO O (fl O LO M cO .- (O O O V O (1) T 0 LO M 0 M � V � LO N V N M LO a CO (» N yj � y� V 69 LO - ea I� N M N (fl CA M 69 (`) N 69 - CO (R CO (A M e4 (fl V Qa e» � h 69 N CO u) CO (fl N M (0 (fl a (» (fl (� 69 (fl ea s� (f) (fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o a o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N w rn rn rn rn M M M M M LO LO LO M LO M M M LO M 0 0 LO LO LO 0 LO LO LO LO c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J V LO r- � V t` I- M M M (O (1) ti LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0o\ o a o\ 0\ o \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 o 0 0 0 O O O L(-) O O O O O O O O O 0 LO Ln LO LO O O O O O 0 0 LO O LO O 0 0 o CO LO I-- a0 M M M co co M N M LO M n LO LO V M LO LO V 't d' M N M ID 1= 0 O O LO LO N (O 0 N i° V M m o (.0 LO (O O O O O O O M O O) LC) - N V LO Lb - 00 N L() LO M 0 1- 6) Ln O LO Co CO M M r- 0 K o M V V M N Lb O V' M N O V 17r (O r V d' (O P- ti o U 1° N M N V L( i 0 «) M I� LA V V' N N M O_ Lf) M � � I� °) c0 M L(� LO ffl Efl Ff3 fR 69 Efl ffl to ffl 69 69 ffl U) Efl 69 E9 Ef3 69 EA 0 e4 69 ea 61) LO � u rc QQFFI.+I (o (O N OO O O O O LO LO 0 O LO(OOO LO O O LO LO n « L LON LO LO0 I6 N NN N N N N N N N N NN NNNNNN N N LOLD V V O M O(OOVn NNOmm FQ- N ( COLO NM OO- OOM 7 CO NO M M LO N mQg G ro 0 1- V O O O O O O O L( i L(� L(] O LO V O O LO O Ln LO L i 0 I-D 0 LO LO L.L) L( i m c0 N N M OD Lb c0 CO M CO ti r r M 1� N co C0 r CO I� 1� I� r� 1` I-, 1� 1` r t` ro G a. Y M N N M M M M CO M M N �f V Co V N (6 M V M q V V V V V q V V m C 2 F ro m Q I- CO CO 0)(0 CO O O O I— VLn CI4 M ) o) M LO I� n t LO MM pMp O M lT LVO � — N LO NN 0 F m a Q CD Co Co CD z LO co V M M �t (D M O O CDtO L(i V O V V' I- LO V V' Y j q M N M � U") N °) N CO M LO r- O N O NLO LO LO O �' In Lb- M M r M O N M N 0) LO L� i F LO N �- N m CO LD 0 Co LO c0 c0 CO CO LO «i M CoM O N LO O .- '� O O 0 CDLT N CO O 0M N N O d) M LO CO V = N N N (0 N m Z' a o M N N M M M M M M(0 V V M V N M CO V M IZt V V V V V rl V V 7 (? I I Z O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C N Y Y N @ N N O C C N Y N N C U C C C C C C C C C C Lu (n O @ (n (p @ N to (J) (A U Y Y Y @ N Y (n Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m O @ @ O O O O O U O @ O O @ O @ @ u) 01 > > U U 0- Q- U U U Q CO O0 U 00 U U ED U Ca CO CO m m CO CO CO CO in, F OM MN CO MN 0 M 0 OM yO OLY L M N LLCn U"n h N O L[) lA Ln 8of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 90 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 3 continued: Appraised values from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. a m 'm o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O 0 00 o O O LO O f) O N N V O CO ('7 c) (D Lf i N CO CO N_ N (1) (D (0 c- N 00 'zt ( LO Z Imo- 00 �t CO � � (0 O V c- V ('7 ('7 U) 0 T O 0)O V LO � (D UQ C,) COO U) CD O I- Cl)r_ r O V ('7 C 0) Go, U, Ffl Ef3 Efl Efl 69 (0 U') Efl EA U) 69 Efl 69 ea 69 Efl Eta b9 H) b9 Efl04 N ffl ffl Efl 69 C \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \0 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 o 0 0 0 \ 0 o \ 0 \ 0 o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 01010101,01C O O O O O O O y Cr LO O LSi LO LO LO Ln <U LSi LD Ui LO Ui Ui 0 LD LO 0 LO Ln LID Ln M Ln Ln LO L() LE) LID O) O LO n 0 LO LO LD C 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O J O O r- O 'IT O Ir O 'IT CD 'IT O Ci O lU O LD O V O In O LC) O L() O L() O �T O q O O In O O d" O �T O lfi LO L() O d' O �r O V O �T O �T O V O r- O � O 117 O V O LO O V O d' O In O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o O O O LSD LO Ui O Ln Q Lt) Ln LO LO U) LO O LO O O O LO LD LO O O LO In Ln O Lf) LO O LD LO O O O CO r- CO N N N N('') V•Nt1' V•tYtt('7000O(0NV (0 VVzMVM CIA V(hI-(DITM 'IT V V0 U m F 0 • V O ti O (h O (0 (0 CO ('O (fl V 1- � I� O ('O � (7 Co ('o V O V V O I� LO NCO V r_ (0 LO CO L() 0 M 3 m O m x (0 N Lf� d' O C`') CO C') O L(� O CO O - O CO N CO N O r O CO N O L{� I- ti NL (r1 V (D I,_ I� V t` V () V O O In Lr (h r V V n O O L() U U CO Efl � L() EA CO ea Y) (>7 Y) c�O U) V) V V ln� �' N«O «��COOWO1- cO L(7�N� V000 N N - VNCON N LNO Q Efl E,4 EA EA 60 Ea Ea (fl (fl fA (fl Ef) EA EA Efl EFT 69 ea ffl ER ffl Go Q3 Efl 69 EA Qa Efl rf3 30 E- n K Q CD ON LO LO lf� L() LP l(i LD L(�LO Ui LO L() lfi In lf) O � Lfi lfi L(� � If) O O LO lj� ") L(� Ui � 1 N N N N NNNN N NNN NNNNNN CA N N N NNN N N N N(" NNNN NN F ctC (0 CD CO N O O VON00 Nti0 O V V-N� V �L�NN OOO N ITN r-U 0O I� ti O N O O ISO- - - - - - �c -� - V N - - N -� N r(h� M LO'T U) N(0 V CO V L LI rc m ~ A V O Lf) lfi lfi LO ) «i lf) LO In LOi U� U7 L() L(i U7 L(i L() L() LU L() L) O lr) L() L() L,) LO L,) o O L1) U7 L) Ui L(i L ) A N c0 ti I- I-- r- �I�titi � I--n r I- I- r- f� I- I- r- r- 00 1'- I- 1- ti I- r CO 00 1-r- rti rr- a� m N () V' V V V V mil' V V V V V V (Y) V V V V V V (`') rc 2 I- m Q 0) 0 CO Cl) 0)LO O 0 1­(0(O (Y) I� M � V V LO � I- d' V � O I,_ (0V � V � N � CO O CO � O CO Cl) 0) O ti0� �- �- ('7 (Dc-.-V LU In N L1) (`") C`0 LO Cl) CO CD V O) O F�, N N�� N�NNr(7O('7 LO VUON(DM V A O F m Y Q CD (0 CO L(� L(� O LO ti (h (h CO � ('7 V � In I� ti V V V O � M mil' V' N (h O (D C 2 1 O N O t� I�O� ('7 r- O�-� L(7 L(� V N N��N�NNr(h0M t(� L(� L(� N (`! ('7 LD LID (`') LD CO C"!MM (D V CP V (0 F to m V C CO L() O) L(7 ('') LO 0) 0) N N (h D) LD V (O LL) LO V V) V) LID L(7 o In Ljj N CO O •- CO CO N o 0) O c- �- �- �- V CO (`') � C,4 r� � � �� ('7 0) V NN CO i- Co N N N m O 2' a o U N CO V V V r! V V' V' V V R V V V V V V V M V V V V It IT CO ( V V V V V V Z Y p 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -5 5 5 5 5 5 Y p Y p 5 5 5 5 5 5 . C C C C C j (U M (0 (6 (U M (U M M M M (4 (O (6 M M (0 (6 (0 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 j j (4 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 N (n Y YY Y Y Y Y Y Y YYY Y YYY Y�YYYYYY �YY YYYY m 7 l0 (6 6 (6 6 O 6 (6 (6 (0 (6 l6 6 (6 (6 6 ([3 (6 (R (c5 @ l6 (6 (6 (6 (6 l0 l0 (6 (6 6 (Q U p U N CL C� m m m m mmm mm m m m COCOC�COCOf�mmUj CID [DIM mim000nmmCO CID CID F O O (D N (O (0 (0 V (0 N (0 f0 (0 (0 w 00 (0 (D 0 O 1.,ti N M I� V f` 11Y ti (D I+ h I'_ QD I.- O I` O 00 OD N CO M 00 V OO LA Go (O CO Iti CO OD 00 (A 00 O Im W N -MO C'1 7 O Lf1 W fD -M 9of16 Resolution 21-071 Page 91 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 3 continued: Appraised values from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. m rn m ? o GONG 0 o_ 0 rO0O0 C' Cr0 O� O 00(DGO 00 (Y1 W O 0 I.O(�N000OOOp0000000000 00 -0 CO CO '0 o00 CV G ` Q6r9 N � rU3- m 0 ffl Efl E9 Efl G C.ALfi EA 117 Eft CD (fl Cn V Efl - T - N 0 N 0 69 0 Cr0 0 � 0 LO C0) EA Eft r- lf') Ef9 In EA m Efl N Efl (t] E9CIj Ef3 Ff3 N O O CCV) ( n (n7ln u m n to m tCJ (n to to n LD rn 0) LOao lCJ 0) n to n n LD LO rn LD rn m LO CD 0" Co CO m co CO C O 0 �000000 �00 S O0001 LOV'��1�11 00000 U)t() V V ItmO(DG(0 Oo 0001IO IT D O - It(DIt CO O O VC)C)()G O O O LO 000 d' '1d'I'-I'-I'-(D(9G(D(1) c o e BCD f v c U')Goo tO (') -zY 'f O 0LO tO 1-N LO tOO C) N CDN 00 U-) o(O (1) LO CO to 0 0 �t C) O ('A 0 (0 0 V 0 Nr CDO(O(O CNI (0 LO O m 0 tO LO((') (1) N n ((-J 00 f- I'- LO Ui LO(O(O0 CO (O ui LO U 0 1= r CO 0) CO I- m C fl CO CD (O n M CO LO cc)r �T O m r CO LD tt N lO r LO � LOO Ci? LO m U� f� N I� G N r r f` G ") r U7 O M O 6) O O N O O I� (+') r a) 0? r m r O C) r m N 1'` � 0 0 0 N x 8 -(0 o r. m(*�I� 00 Q)Oor���7m OV mOCA(O m(0 I` f�- N (A6J p m U Cr; N I� to CO lf) lf] In m tfJ r r C' lfJ r h- CO lIJ m 0) m LO r N I ` (T m r r r Efl ffl �Eflk 6969 69 to 69 flEfl �E9 Efl E9w 69 Efl EH EAR 29 e9 U4w wfl O w wCi3 Era (fl 0w Efl Q F 11 q LO 11 tCJ O LO LD G LO 0 LO LO O OOo(fl0u')GtOO(O QD GG ON NtO N CA N ti N N N N CN N N N N N N N f�- f� N CV N N N t0 N N CO(nO(fi N N N N N u7 N N N (f7 N (O N (O N <D 4aQOGVI`(fJ O O C}1 I�oQ'I�-N�Q' 9i M U) CO (V C11 Vd'd'I'�.r(`71fJN01.� m m Q' m N Ci L- N M u� V�ONV M r (�I�OOQV (D 1- 1_ 00 ({y t� (1) LO LO `7 CO LON N C) (�') ri N 0 C) h- N (@ � m Lo � (T V (n T V N r z H E m (n In (() `S O p U7 O LO (f) LD UJ C) O O C) `S �r LO O U-) C) (n (n LD (n U-)C)LC) C:) CD If) C) C) O (n In U) (n (0 n m h I- I'- N CO I- 1-, 00 1- 1- 1-1- CO Go Go CO N N I- CO I- Co I- I` I- I- 1- 00 1- 0 CO CO 00 cA 1_1_ 1_ 1_ h asV V VNcriV V(riV Vfi'V(�'�C)cri cfi (VNVcrJ V('7�Q'Va'Q'criVm CO V(00( COV-TV V-7 m C r 0 x �VOtf O Q lO I-- I CO - IT OW O CO mOV (O CO VcOcOO�tcO CDNrNr R' ONrCOQ) I- CO 0 'ITm 1-0MCO (A mCDMC4 V�ou�L''Y CDr (V CD5a VOOc001 R CI) rm�I'-m(`')mm(O CO CO CNI c�-(()LnNN a 0 �� `S �V O Mtn 'TLO I��(Oti(`')� C'Om (D(0 V �mC?(CO CO OOCON�JN�COOtO�C)m�c00�tn�C' T Co V I�mO "T m o N� NI' �`- r m CO r�1'r rr CO m m r Nrm N r M01 �T LO I000O N C') (h(CJ(OCO L(J -N NCO j� .- �-N�0 (O (!') N��N(D C4a0LC) u70'7(0O= CO LO mfVtri001'�j���_ F NN �nl (-�- to CO [1 Z' a m 5 Q'QQ'Nmtt'•T met It �T �tmmmm NN'R'm? milt ?`7 �7't7'm rJ'mmItmmmr7'Q'T!'�7'tt Z C C C M O M O 7@ O M M M; O � � M O M O M O 1 1 S > -o � M j � M j @ @ @ @ @ } M j i @ j j j 0 O O O O 0 Y Y Y Y 1Y .� �' _� Y Y Y � _ _ �' _� Y _ Y _ > Y ; Y Y Y _� Y _ > Y _ �-o N Y _ _ -_ O O O O O 000E-UC) @@@ C ro C@@@@ UUUUUU 0 0 0 O- o @ 0 o (0 p@ o0o00 (U @ ro@ O 0 (0 O C ro 0 0 0 (ll N N N@ 0CDCOMawmmwmmmmzzUU<cOmCOmUmmmommUmUwmU()C)IY Ir. (Y-mx 4t PI �!�I (O m O -N ON d N N N N N N O M NM M M M M M 10 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 92 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 1 Table 3 continued: Appraised values from submitted arborist report dated May 27, 2020. �i m 0 LO 0 I, 0 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 -M 0 0 0 l f) O N o OClO N OO o 0 O OO O 0 0 - N pOj - n V O t}3 0 CO 0 (O CD N ('7 1--_ f7 (� to c0 V CA (f� (N V 0 QEi3 69 Efl Ef) (fl Ea E9 Ea Ea c9 E9 Ea 69 E9 EH ca Ea ca ca c9 (si Ea E9 oil o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� o o• o• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0)00 cc) cc) coCOCo00 CC) COMcoCoCOLnc000U)MO)000]nLOLOOp)00 c O o 0 O 0 o o 0 a 0 0-o o 0 0 o a o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 S(D(D(.D(D(DQQQ(D(0(1)(:7c>7QQLO(D(DI-ITQ)tif�r� 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui O O o In 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 'o O 01� o 0 0 0'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lp LO U) u7 Lo (o (0) LO «) «) LO (O U7 (O (n LO (n LO to LO 1-6 u) U7 LO Uf) LD U7 u] Lr) o 00 LO U7 O (D 0 (D o V O (D LO (O LO cO O cD LO d' O LO (n c7 O r-- o CD (n O O U m F O j d O O O O V O O LL LD (V (D O CO r- U) LO N Co CA 7 V I� IO0�q (D LO)(O(1) UO('90 U700 LD 0) r �a0(D O�N�'S (ONco.— I� TCO m x O rn(noLOC)C) V (DON(h nco(n'T 11)~rnc�QNr-17 (Y) �U cn (nO ca(}i (7(*l Ea cam [�N ca cam NC7 e4 Ea � I) N E9690 f)� V Ea (7NV to CA Onj� �I �(n�tn I��6iN UN7 to (n(0n A F 11 c(" NNNN lf) lf] lI) NN lO U� N 11J NN tO lO NNNNN O lf� lI) lf) L O NNCAC\I O0U0 O 000 NN1_f�1_(�IN(V O (0 CO 00u;0 N a t-� UJM �r I- 'Cr 1h C)C]OOCd 0) CON —rn LD0)000LO O00V 1 1- I4 Co LO N(`)J(LOI'- �C(O 1`(00(0Q 1 "a � F E RoIn1O(0(OL)(O(Ou)(O0LOIOIO IO00�00000v�voo(O0 m m CO l` r- r— I- V— r-- V— I` r r— �r CO (a r� �r r— V r— V Imo- V CO CO CO CO I'-_ V CO (.h CO CO ch cO cq CA N N CV N CAI Co (') co (h r-- rr CO CO m c �2 d a Y 5a1`c�)o-rOO(OCO0gcoVOao r•f`O(7O(ONCD o�rncr(n�'(oom(nr)o CO Q CO r r CA CO CD'7 r I` rN(O h-(� IO V((7 ITCIANM(VU7I'- A O H m (r) O rY O I�r-Ci)('r)G)CO(V(01-M O U) CO Ui V 00 t O Co O If)rC'7r1�'7�CNr('�1�Ntf C) G' (7 O r r N CO 'I7 O O P r I`_ N 7 v 2 N m1`-�o001��1�U) CO ITvl- No(yoncoVco _-MCO—Y �0r�0c0 cO�r��l`�NNs-NNc�I r,Nm<oo c�l�c-•!('� x m 0 2 a o co Vet V V r �Y �t �r �t c�� t �r (r)'t()(h Vc'()('')O CJNNN(7 CO V CO 2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y @ O @ O @ CC) @ @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 00 @ @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -> 0 0 0— 0 -} } (O N }}}} N m @ m }} N N } m- m 'u 0 ? 0 > 0 > 0 } 0 ? 0 > 0 > 0 > 0- > in 0 3 0 0@ � a O------ �: ifi Ul Y !fi U) Ul vi UO U -- N t6 @- in n @ 0 -0 0 -0 m U ro '6 a) 'D a) 'd a) 'O a) 'B a) 'O a) @ 0 'a m '0 0 a m@ C: -0 ti @ o @ 0 M @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 'c @ m @ 0 @ 0 7 0 13 0 rnU�XctofQfQfOf(r0UQ� 11�IrLLIrUUmUUUUa¢IIL N M C N (C R UJ Y7 (D cD fD F 11 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 93 18500 Marshall Lane TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Attachment 2 Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. 12 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 94 18500 Marshall Lane CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Attachment 3 1. Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. Permit: a. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3. Final Plan Sets: a. Shall include the tree information and protection recommendations from the arborist reports by Kevin Kielty dated May 30 and October 31, 2019, and May 27, 2020 copied onto a plan sheet. b. Shall include the Protect Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection sections of the City Arborist report dated June 30, 2020. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit: a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $200,000 for tree(s) to be retained and preserved. c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map and shown on the Site Plan. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. d. Shall be posted with signs saying "TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST (408) 868-1276". e. Wherever protection is needed outside of fences, unprocessed wood chips, or approved equivalent, shall be placed to the edge of the tree's canopy and to a depth of 6 inches. f. Call City Arborist at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 13 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 95 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 3 6. Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. Work inside fenced areas: a. Requires a field meeting and approval from City Arborist before performing work. b. Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8. Proiect Arborist: a. Shall be Kevin Kielty unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b. Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c. Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. d. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: 1. 15 feet of trees 24, 89 and 90. 2. 25 feet of trees 10, 12, 16, 24, 33 and 61. 9. Tree removal: Trees 9, 14, 17 —19, 40, 49, 64 — 66, 73, 75, 76, 78 — 82, 84 — 86, 88, 101, 105, 106, 107, 109 —112, 116 —119, 121-124 and 126 —129 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued. 10. New trees: a. New trees equal to $56,300 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b. Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. 11. Damage to protected trees that will be retained: Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City's Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed under New Trees above. 14 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Page 96 18500 Marshall Lane Attachment 3 12. Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. 15 of 16 Resolution 21-071 Attachment 4 Legend 18500 Marshall Lane I Tree Protection Fencing 071 EVANs � DE ARCHAEOLOGY HISTI A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR THE BELLICITTI RANCH AT 18500 MARSHALL LANE, SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: City of Saratoga, Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 PREPARED BY: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian and Brian Matuk, M.S. Senior Architectural Historian August 21, 2019 Resolution 21-071 Page 99 ?; EVANS & DE $HAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT LOCATION.....................................................................................................1 REGULATORYSETTING.............................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT..........................................................................................................................3 City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission................................................................................................4 METHODS................................................................................................................................................................ 4 HISTORICALCONTEXT..............................................................................................................................................4 MEXICANPERIOD (1822 —1846).......................................................................................................................................4 EARLYAMERICAN PERIOD (1848 — 1866)............................................................................................................................5 EARLY SANTA CLARA VALLEY AGRICULTURE (CA. 1850 — CA. 1880)...........................................................................................5 Santa Clara Valley Fruit Orchards (ca. 1880 — ca. 1965)..........................................................................................6 HISTORYOF SARATOGA(1847-1956)..................................................................................................................................8 ARCHITECTURALCONTEXTS.....................................................................................................................................9 VernacularArchitecture............................................................................................................................................9 Vernacular barns in Santa Clara County (ca. 1850 —1945)....................................................................................10 LITERATURESEARCH AND REVIEW........................................................................................................................10 LOCALRESEARCH............................................................................................................................................................10 ONLINERESEARCH..........................................................................................................................................................10 RESULTS OF THE LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW..............................................................................................11 PROPERTYHISTORY.........................................................................................................................................................11 HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL FIELD SURVEY................................................................................................................16 PROJECTAREA................................................................................................................................................................16 ca. 1870 Barn..........................................................................................................................................................17 CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS.............................................................................................................................................25 ca. 1990 Shed 1.......................................................................................................................................................25 2012 SHED 2.................................................................................................................................................................26 2002 house.............................................................................................................................................................27 AssociatedLandscape.............................................................................................................................................29 Historicorchard......................................................................................................................................................31 PREVIOUSDOCUMENTATION.............................................................................................................................................33 Heritage Resource Inventory (updated in 10/17) and Archives & Architects, 2009...............................................33 EDSComments........................................................................................................................................................34 EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE..........................................................................................................35 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................35 CRHREVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................................35 INTEGRITY...................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page ii Resolution 21-071 Page 100 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC *'/'ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................................40 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................40 FEASIBILITY....................................................................................................................................................................41 3D LASER SCANNING OF THE CA. 1870 BARN.......................................................................................................................41 RELOCATINGTHE CA. 1870 BARN......................................................................................................................................42 RECONSTRUCTING THE CA. 1870 BARN...............................................................................................................................43 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX A: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page iii Resolution 21-071 Page 101 EVANS @ DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION INTRODUCTION Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) was contracted by the City of Saratoga to conduct an Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the Bellicitti Ranch property located at 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California within a 9.53-acre Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 397-02-111 (Project Area). The Project Area consists of a ca. 1870 barn, 2002 house, a ca. 1990 shed (Shed 1), a 2012 shed (Shed 2), and historic orchard landscape. The "Bellicitti Ranch" is currently listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory' and is therefore considered a Historical Resource under Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code. The proposed Project consists of a proposed development that includes the subdivision of the existing 9.53-acre parcel for housing and the relocation of the ca. 1870 barn to the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard that surrounds the Saratoga Library with open space at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue (Project). As such, the City of Saratoga, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Saratoga's Chapter 13 — Heritage Preservation, Articles 13-05 of the General Provisions, requested an HRE be completed to assess the built environment resources that are at least 50 years in age. The purpose of the HRE is to evaluate the built environment resources for significance following the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria and to determine if the proposed Project will cause significant impacts to Historical Resources. The 9.53-acre Project Area was evaluated for CRHR eligibility as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn —the only building within the Project Area over 50 years in age —was also evaluated for individual CRHR eligibility. The following report was completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S., both whom exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and History. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Project consists of the potential development of the Project Area that includes the subdivision of the existing 9.53-acre parcel for new housing, and the relocation of the ca. 1870 barn from the Project Area to a new site within the City of Saratoga Heritage Orchard, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. The Heritage Orchard, which is owned by the City of Saratoga, partially consists of approximately 15 acres of orchards that serves as a reminder of the area's agricultural past. The Heritage Orchard surrounds the Saratoga Public Library and associated surface parking lot. The Project Area is located within a 9.53-acre parcel located at 18500 Marshall Lane within APN 397-02-111 in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California, approximately 2.25 miles west-northwest of the Saratoga Village (Figure 1). The Project Area is bound to the north by Marshall Lane and an adjacent parcel, to the east by Quito Road, to the south by Sobey Road, and to the west by Marshall Lane Elementary School, and consists of four buildings. The Project Area is accessible from Marshall Lane, via an unpaved driveway that follows an easement through the adjacent parcel to the north (APN: 397-02-110). 1 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, City of Saratoga, 2009. The Bellicitti Ranch is listed as resource #39. z Although it is inferred that the "The Village" is a smaller portion of the current City of Saratoga and referenced often in the context by Archives and Architecture, it is not defined in regard to development or the boundaries. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 1 Resolution 21-071 Ak Page 102 EVANS & DE SHAZO) INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION "IF.7 1, Sal =0t1l, 1:4 "Al - Santa Clara County z " nyrp Y9 F '"t 0 0.5 1 Miles 1:24,000 1 Project Location Legend 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga Santa Clara County, California Q Bellicitti Ranch Property (APN 397-02-111) SRE, 1130/2019 USGS 7.5'Quadrarigle: San Jose West, Calif. (1980) Map Projection: Township 8 South/ Range 1 West/ section 22 NAD 83 UTM Zone ION Figure 1. Project Location Map HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 2 Resolution 21-071 Page 103 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATORY SETTING California Environmental Quality Act CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluating a project's potential adverse impacts to the environment and the preparation of Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Pursuant to California State law, the City of Saratoga is legally responsible and accountable for determining the environmental impact of any land use proposal it approves. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1). There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). These are: • Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A "building" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. • Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter. Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels. • Object: Construction primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures and boundary markers. • Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs. • Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally. According to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.); • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); • Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code; or • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 3 Resolution 21-071 Z Page 104 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in -light of the whole record. City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission The Heritage Preservation Commission functions as a liaison working in conjunction with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the agencies and departments of the City. The Commission implements the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance. The Commission's scope includes the survey of properties within the boundaries of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of heritage resources. The Commission can recommend that these resources be designated by the City Council as a historic landmark, heritage tree, heritage lane, or historic district. As designated by City code, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) determines which properties should be included on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The HPC recommends to the City Council which properties should be designated as a historic landmark, heritage lane, or historic district. The Bellicitti Ranch is currently a locally listed heritage resource. METHODS The FIRE was conducted by EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. Ms. De Shazo and Mr. Matuk also conducted a local literature search and review that included documentation available at the City of Saratoga Public Library and the City of Saratoga, as well as information on file at the EDS office, Online Archive of California, and various other online sources to ensure the document provides an understanding of the history of the property. A phone conversation with John Bellicitti, the grandson of Angelo and Isabelle Bellicitti and son of Harry Bellicitti, on January 28, 2019 provided additional information regarding the site -specific history of the Project Area. Ms. De Shazo and Mr. Matuk also conducted a site survey to document and assess the current condition of the Project Area, and to provide physical characteristics and character -defining features of the associated built - environment, including the ca. 1870 barn. Updated Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms were prepared for the Project Area (Appendix A). HISTORICAL CONTEXT The following historical setting is intended to provide an overview of broader historic themes, as well as specific historic themes associated with the Project Area. Mexican Period (1822 — 1846) In 1821, Mexico achieved independence from Spain, and in 1824 the first Mexican Republic was established. In 1824, the Mexican Colony Law established rules for petitioning for land grants in Alta California 3, and by 1828, the rules for establishing land grants were codified in the Mexican regulations. The Mexican 3 Alta California refers to "Upper" California in New Spain (Nueva Espana), roughly encompassing what is now the current states of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona north of the Gila River, along with parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 4 Resolution 21-071 Page 105 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION government secularized the California missions in 1833 and changed land ownership patterns in the Santa Clara Valley by dividing mission property into private land grants. During the Mexican Period, vast tracts of land were granted to individuals, including former Mission lands which had reverted to public domain. In the Santa Clara Valley, between 1833 and 1846, 17 parcels were granted from Pueblo Lands, and 13 from the lands of Mission Santa Clara, including Rancho Quito. Rancho Quito was a 13,310-acre Mexican land grant in present-day Santa Clara County, California given in 1841 by Governor Juan Alvarado to Jose Zenon Fernandez and Jose Noriega.4 The land grant included present-day Saratoga, Campbell, and Cupertino. Early American Period (1848 —1866) The early American Period in California is marked by the end of the of the Mexican -American War when the U.S. took possession of the territories of California and New Mexico in the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). The Treaty provided the resident Mexicans with American citizenship and guaranteed title to land granted to them during the Mexican period. Shortly before the signing of the Treaty, on January 24, 1848, James W. Marshall discovered gold along the American River in California. News of the discovery brought thousands of immigrants (known as "49ers") to California from all over the U.S, as well as other countries. In 1849, San Jose became the first capital of the state of California and the first California State Legislature convened there on December 15, 1849. In 1850, when California became a state, Santa Clara County became one of the original 27 counties created. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Quito was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852, and the grant was patented to Jose M. Alviso and the heirs of Jose Zenon Fernandez (Dioniso Fernandez, Francisco Maximo Fernandez, Jose Zenon Fernandez, Manuela Loveto Fernandez, and Petra Enriquez Fernandez) in 1866.5 Early Santa Clara Valley Agriculture (ca. 1850 — ca. 1880) Beginning as early as the 1850s, Santa Clara Valley was one of California's foremost agricultural regions. By the late 1860s, the Santa Clara Valley was mostly developed with grain crops, with wheat production in Santa Clara County accounting for 30% of California's total wheat crop in 1854.E Throughout the 1870s, the fertile valley remained a wheat and grain capital, as well as a place where the growing wine industry thrived, as many vineyards were planted in the lush soil. Vineyards and wineries continue to be a part of the valley's agricultural base today. However, wheat and grain crops soon proved incapable of withstanding the occasional drought years in the Santa Clara Valley, and by the late 1870s and early 1880s, fruit orchards began replacing the grain crops throughout the Santa Clara Valley, marking the beginning of the significant period of orchard farming in this region. By the late nineteenth century wheat and barley were almost totally abandoned and orchard crops, such as apricots, plums, prunes, and cherries became the dominant agricultural crop. Accompanying this rise in orchard development was a need for fruit processing plants, and a number of canneries and fruit processing facilities soon developed in the Santa Clara Valley. This was supported by the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad line and the South Pacific Coast Railroad, and rail spurs were constructed at canneries and fruit processing plants to allow for easy loading for 4 Ogden Hoffman,1862, Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California, Numa Hubert, San Francisco. 5 "Report of the Surveyor -General of the State of California from August 1, 1884, To August 1, 1886." Sacramento State Office. James J. Ayers, Supt. State Printing, 1886. 6 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, Prepared for the City of Saratoga, 2009, 22. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 5 Resolution 21-071 Page 106 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC #�AARCIIAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION transportation to cities and states throughout the U.S., as well as ports that also shipped canned fruit overseas. Many Italian immigrants who arrived in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries found their way to California in search of opportunity in the rich agricultural areas and booming cities. Italian immigrants in Saratoga, and the larger Santa Clara Valley, came from all areas of Italy, bringing different cultures that varied by region or village.' Historian Frederick W. Marrazzo asserts that Italians were drawn to the Santa Clara Valley in the late nineteenth century because "it reminded them of their villages in Italy" in topography and climate.' The large availability of land allowed these immigrants to buy property at a fair cost, and begin tending it for agriculture —an opportunity that was not possible in Italy.' Participating in the prevailing agricultural practices of the area, Italian -owned farms often focused on fruit production, such as apricot, cherry, pear, and prunes, as well as wine grapes.10 Santa Clara Valley Fruit Orchards (ca. 1880 — ca. 1965) By the turn of the twentieth century, the Santa Clara Valley continued to develop its fertile agricultural land, with a focus on fruit and walnut orchards that began dominating the landscape in ca. 1880 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). During this time, the Southern Pacific Railroad and South Pacific Coast Railroad lines throughout the area facilitated the transport of fruit among various levels of production, from the orchardists to the canneries to the consumers. Through the early twentieth century, fruit and nut orchards dominated the landscape around Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley, with peak fruit production occurring in the 1920s. Increasing land prices and various costs of agriculture put pressures on large land -owners to sell their agricultural land for development. Orchard land around Saratoga was subdivided to allow for smaller farmers to cultivate land that was as little as three acres to serve as "highly specialized 'fruit ranches"' that only cultivated one type of fruit." During this time, the large amount of fruit production, canneries and fruit packing companies were abundant in the area around the Santa Clara Valley, including 18 canneries, 13 dried -fruit packing houses, and 12 fresh -fruit and vegetable shipping firms around the region operating during the 1920s and 1930s. Beginning after the end of World War II, agricultural land in the Santa Clara Valley, as well as the town of Saratoga, gradually gave way to suburban housing, with residential developments in and around Saratoga expanding outward. The end of World War II in 1945 also ended the heyday of orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, as orchards began what would become a rapid removal to accommodate new suburban housing. Farmers around Saratoga lobbied annexation of their land by the City of Saratoga with the intent that their orchards would be protected from encroaching suburban development of San Jose. However, this residential development eventually took hold, with the period between 1950 and 1969 signaling an acceleration in replacement of orchard -covered land with residential subdivisions in the Santa Clara Valley. 12 Given this transition was spread over a nearly twenty-year period, it appears that ca. 196513 is the ' Frederick W. Marrazzo, Italians in the Santa Clara Valley (Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2007) 8. $ Ibid, 8. 9 Ibid, 28. 10 Ibid, 27, 29, 31. 11 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, City of Saratoga, 2009, 26. 12 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, City of Saratoga, 2009, 47. 13 Circa dates typically include the previous and subsequent five years. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 107 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION most appropriate end to this theme's period of significance. Suburban development eventually took hold, and there are very few large parcels of orchard land still in cultivation around Saratoga and the larger Santa Clara Valley. Figure 2. ca. 1900 photograph of orchards in -bloom located near present-day Saratoga (California State Library Digital Collections) GrelneA rnnt i•iilla C:2nit, riern l!:sItwu rAl Figure 3: ca. 1909 postcard of the Saratoga foothills showing the fruit orchards and agricultural fields (courtesy of the San Jose Public Library, California Room) HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 7 Resolution 21-071 Page 108 EVANS @ DE SHAZO, INC '(#ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION History of Saratoga (1847-1956) The following history of the City of Saratoga was taken in part from the 2009 Heritage Resources Inventory context prepared by Archives & Architecture for the City of Saratoga, but is also expanded based on research conducted by EDS. It is intended to provide an overview of the development of the City of Saratoga as well as the agricultural and other development of the area east of the City historically known as San Tomas. The Village of Saratoga originated in California's Early American period in 1847 when William Campbell founded a mill and established a lumbering community called Campbell's Gap just below what is now known as Long Bridge, located above Saratoga Village along Highway 9. But at the time, the lack of roads made it difficult to transport the lumber to markets. In 1850, Martin McCarty leased Campbell's mill and he obtained a franchise from the Court of Sessions to build a toll road from the mill down to the small settlement at the mouth of the canyon. A tollgate was then erected at the location of present day 3rd Street and Big Basin Way (formerly Lumber Road). The toll was $3.00 for a two -horse team and $6.00 for a four -horse team. The new road made it easier to transport lumber and encouraged the growth of industry in the area. This same year, Martin, along with his wife Hannah, surveyed, platted, and registered the community of McCartysville14. The success of the sawmill brought other industries to the area that included a lime quarry, tannery, furniture factory, and paper and flour mills. On March 13, 1865, the villagers voted to rename the community Saratoga. The name was selected because of the similarity in the mineral content of the water, located at the mineral springs a mile above the village, to that of Congress Springs at Saratoga, New York. During this time, the Saratoga Paper Mill, Saratoga's only steam -powered industry, was situated near Sixth Street and Big Basin Way near the Project Area (Figure 4). The mill flourished from 1868 to 1883 until the plant was destroyed by fire. During the mill's heyday, it employed as many as 20 men at one time, who worked a 12-hour day earning from $2.00 to $2.50 a day." In 1900, the Saratoga economy embraced the change from a lumber town to one that included orchards, vineyards, and other agriculture. During this same year the Saratoga Blossom Festival was started. In 1904, the Peninsular Interurban railway was constructed, which brought tourists to the area. At some point in the early twentieth century, Lumber Road became known as Big Basin Way, and the address numbers changed to their current format, though it is not clear exactly when this occurred. Saratoga remained a small community until after World War II, when the community grew with the return of the veterans and development of new housing. In the early 1950s, San Jose was poised to annex the town, which forced residents to organize and, in 1956, Saratoga City Council voted to incorporate the small town. 14 Some historic maps reference "McCartysville" as "McCarthysville." is Saratoga Historical Society, "They Called It Saratoga," Accessed May 15, 2018, http://www.saratogahistory.com/History/ca lled_saratoga.htm#industria ltown HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 8 Resolution 21-071 *ARCHAEOLOGY Page 109 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 4. Saratoga Paper Mill ca. 1880 located at Big Basin Way and 61h Street. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXTS The ca. 1870 barn is an example of Vernacular architecture related to late nineteenth century agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley. The following discussion about Vernacular Architecture provides an understanding of various definitions of the term, and the circumstances where identifiable variations of form, design, or materials are found to represent significant themes related to localized, functional architecture. Vernacular Architecture Vernacular architecture16 is characterized as a functional shelter for people, animals and stores, "built to meet needs", constructed according to the availability and performance of materials, and formed in response to environmental and climatic conditions. This regional specific nature of the architecture in a rather simple, functional form defines "vernacular architecture" without attributing a specifically defined architectural style, as the attribution of a studied and accepted architectural style to such a regional and functional type would not be appropriate. To further understand the Vernacular architecture, it is important to know that the definition of what "vernacular architecture" encompasses is not universally agreed upon, and is sometimes extended to include the "everyday": city neighborhoods, market towns, roadside diners, suburban housing developments, barns and anonymous industrial complexes. In addition, the definition of the term is falling out of favor, as a more focused definition of "vernacular architecture" has been set forth by the Vernacular Architecture Forum 16 The term "vernacular architecture", as opposed to traditional, vernacular or folk buildings, first appeared in the post-war period of the 1950s and 1960s when architects sought to appropriate simple traditional buildings to legitimize prevalent functionalist theories of design. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 9 Resolution 21-071 Page 110 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION (VAF), which more closely aligns with the earlier description of Vernacular style that focused on regional and functional elements, which is gaining wider acceptance in the field of architectural history. As such, this use of the term Vernacular is carefully considered when evaluating buildings that appear to have "no style" or one that does fit the traditional known architectural styles. Whether thatched cottages or trailer parks, vernacular architecture is typically defined as those buildings that are outside the main -stream of professional architecture, and may carry a form, design, or use of materials that is fit for the region and function of the building, structure, or object. Vernacular barns in Santa Clara County (ca. 1850 —1945) Barns were a prevalent building type in the agricultural regions of Santa Clara County in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In particular, barns in Santa Clara County often took on a localized Vernacular architectural design that is defined by vertical board construction, and a central gabled portion flanked by shed wing additions, with some exhibiting open bays with simple posts and knee braces." Since the buildings are "working" structures, often these Vernacular barns have gained replacement materials over time, though some continue to display the characteristic and materials such as square nails or other materials that relate to a specific period in building construction and technology. The period of significance for this architectural theme corresponds with beginning of the early period of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley and larger Santa Clara County region (ca. 1850) and the end of World War II (1945), which began a sharp transition of Santa Clara Valley land from agricultural to residential land use, and a slowdown in construction of new buildings for agriculture. LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW As part of the HRE, research was conducted at local repositories, as well as online to review published local histories, maps, photographs, and other available information that revealed the property history associated with the built environment at the Project Area to provide additional context for the Assessment. Local Research Local research was conducted on January 14, 2019 to review primary source documents available at the City of Saratoga Public Library such as the Polk's City Directories for City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County, Calif.), historic maps, and photographs, as well as additional documentation related to the history of the Project Area and its vicinity. Online Research In addition to local research, online research conducted utilizing the following sources: • www.newspapers.com • www.ancestry.com • www.calisphere.com (University of California) 17 Archives & Architecture, County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement, Prepared for the County of Santa Clara, December 2004, Revised 2012, 115. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 10 Resolution 21-071 Page111 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION • http://www.library.gov/ (California State Library) • http://www.saratogahistory.com/ (The Saratoga Historical Foundation) RESULTS OF THE LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW As part of the literature search, EDS reviewed historic maps, city directories, as well as documents available online to provide additional information regarding ownership history associated with the built environment resources with the Project Area that are detailed in the section below. Property History The earliest known owners of the Project Area were William D. Rucker (b. 1840, d. 1914) and Martha Rucker (b. 1845, d. 1922), as evidenced by the 1876 Thompson map that lists "W.D. Rucker" as the owner of a 164.06- acre parcel that includes the Project Area (Figure 5). Rucker's parcel appears to have been significantly greater in area than the current 9.53-acre Project Area, and also included an area on the east side of today's Quito Road. The 1876 map also indicates that there was grain growing on the property, and appears to cover most of the Project Area. William was the uncle of Joseph Rucker, who was a "widely known real estate dealer of San Jose and San Francisco."18 William married Martha J. Moon in 1864, and they had five children. William worked as a swine farmer specializing in breeding thoroughbred Poland China Swine (Figure 5),19 and won several awards for his prized livestock, including first prize at the Santa Clara Valley Fair in 1883,20 and the Fifth District Agricultural Association Fair in 1886, where William's Poland -Chinas were "considered byjudges one of the best."21 Given the timeframe, it is likely that William raised his swine within the Project Area, and may have been responsible for the construction of the extant ca. 1870 barn and non -extant ca. 1870 house. By 1892, William and Martha are listed as living in San Jose, where they stayed for the remainder of their lives. It appears that the Ruckers sold their property at some point between 1886 and 1892, though an exact date could not be determined. At his death in 1914, William was described in his obituary to have been a "pioneer" citizen of the San Jose area, though little information was found regarding his life beyond his successful swine farm.22 18 "Wealthy Retired San Jose Business Man Dies," San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December 1915. 19 "W D. Rucker," Pacific Rural Press, 6 October 1883. California Digital Newspaper Collection. 20 "Santa Clara Valley Fair —Premiums Awarded," Pacific Rural Press, 13 October 1883. California Digital Newspaper Collection. 21 "The San Jose Fairs," Pacific Rural Press, 9 October 1886. California Digital Newspaper Collection. 22 "Wealthy Retired San Jose Business Man Dies," San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December 1915. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 11 Resolution 21-071 Page 112 , EVANS DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION ss.s�vt� ilk 227 6f7 � p,Z7' W.D E86 1 N C 0 1676 Thanpson and West 0 0125 025Md- x - F i � Figure 5: Geo-rectified map from the 1876 Thompson and West Atlas of Santa Clara County showing W.D. Rucker as owner of the property that contains the Project Area. The map also shows hash marks where grain is shown to be cultivated. POLAND-CHIINA. BMidered and Thmaughbroa dnizah, ham 4 to 10 m oltb• old, for We. W. D. RUCKER, Sants Ulars► flat Figure 6: A newspaper advertisement in an 1885 issue of Pacific Rural Press that advertises William D. Rucker's thoroughbred Poland -China swine. The date of the next change in ownership is unclear, but it appears that Rucker's land was subdivided among four parcels —one of which was a 30-acre parcel owned by L. Walker, which encompasses a portion of the current 9.53-acre Project Area (Figure 7).23 However, no substantial information was found on the life of L. Walker, and he was not included in an 1886 discussion about various farmers and their products within the 23 Henry A. Brainard "Quito District" [map], 1880 Santa Clara County, Brainard Agricultural Atlas, February 1886. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 12 Resolution 21-071 AIN Page113 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC 'V��ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Quito Road area. i T.Gt!WTGHELL o .n �� � z .• o y o u JJ/ l� IYI r.. R� F J.SP6'AA w aL`p66 OAO �, f 9 - L- c 56rT F ,a 7T9z /Yr E P It W W� 7?S.Lw.r4soAD f Y F .Llpw,i4 O yyrNY Mom/ y v Z 1 Quito District - Brainard 1886 o Pwj,cl A— D - HA RK"a a 0 760 1.500 Feet 0 4eh° •1 i Figure 7: February 1886 map of the Quito District by Henry A. Brainard, showing the Project Area, outlined in red. (San Jose State University King Library Special Collections) By 1903, the next known occupant was Mrs. M. R. Stanfield, who is documented as having owned 20 acres of land that included the current 9.53-acre Project Area.24 Little information was found on the life of Stanfield or if she or her husband had lived on, or farmed, the 20-acre land. Additionally, the dates of Stanfield's ownership of the property are not clear, but likely correspond with ca. 1900 to ca. 1945. The next recorded occupants of the land were Angelo and Isabelle Bellicitti, who purchased a portion of the 20-acre property in ca. 1945. Angelo was born "Angelo Pellicciotti" in Lucca, Italy in 1886, and immigrated to the United States in 1902 at the age of 16. Angelo worked at the Pacific Mills in Santa Clara before deciding to move "out to the country" to work in the fruit orchards on Pollard Road owned by Henry Guinchard, a Swiss -French native, near Saratoga. During this time, Angelo married Henry's daughter Isabelle Guinchard (b. 1892; d. 1982) in 1917, at which point Angelo changed his last name to a more anglicized "Bellicitti".25 Isabelle Guinchard was born in California in 1892 from Swiss -French background, and lived on the family farm with her three other siblings until her marriage with Angelo. Angelo and Isabelle had their first child, Lorraine, in 1918, and by 1920 the Bellicitti family had moved to a newly purchased property on Allendale Road near Chester Road (Figure 8).26 Son Harry Louis Bellicitti was born in 1921 in the house on the Allendale Road property, and Harry would assist his father on their ranch with "cutting, pitting and drying of the prunes and apricots" and also caring for the animals.27 24 Mrs. M. R. StanfieId's name appears on a 1903 map of the County of Santa Clara, by surveyor J. G. McMillan. 2s "Harry Louis Bellicitti" [obituary], San Jose Mercury News, 21 November 2009. 26 John Bellicitti, [phone communication], 28 January 2019. 27 "Harry Louis Bellicitti" [obituary], San Jose Mercury News, 21 November 2009. HRE for 18S00 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 13 Resolution 21-071 Page 114 , EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION In ca. 1945, the Bellicittis purchased 20 acres of land that was referred to as "The Ranch" by the Bellicitti Family, and would later be known as the Bellicitti Ranch (Figure 9).28 At the time of the purchase, the property included a ca. 1870 barn and ca. 1870 house, and the Bellicittis planted apricot and prune orchards, as well as some additional orange, lemon, grapefruit, and walnut orchards, and raised horses on the land.29 It is not clear if there had previously been orchards within the now 9.53-acre Project Area, or if Angelo and Isabelle were the first to plant such crops on the property. During this time, the property was located 0.5-miles south of the Southern Pacific Railroad, where it intersected with Quito Road, and approximately 1.5 miles from Congress Junction,30 which was the junction of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Peninsular Railway Company's lines north and west of the Project Area. It is likely that the Bellicittis took fruit to this rail line to be transported to local canneries. In ca. 1950, the Bellicittis gave a friend (name unknown) approximately 1.053-acres of their 20-acre property (adjacent to the north and west of the ca. 1870 barn). The friend then built a house (extant) on the property facing Marshall Lane (18530 Marshall Lane within APN 397-02-033).31 Additional information regarding this donation of the land and the friend's name is not known. Angelo died in 1962, and Harry took on the full responsibilities for the ranch, maintaining the orchard business. Harry had worked as a machinist in Mare Island at the start of World War II, before serving in Germany later in the war. Harry married Mary Caroline Hindes in 1942, and they had four children: Mary Frances, Harry Louis Jr., John Henry, and Robert James.32 A severe frost damaged the citrus crop, and in response, Harry replaced the orchard with wine grape vineyards. The first vineyard of wine grapes was successful, and Harry replaced apricot and prune trees with wine grapes.33 The Bellicitti Family continues to own and manage the property, though the agricultural business associated with the property has ended. According to John Bellicitti, son of Harry, 10 acres of the remaining 19.47-acre property was used for construction of Marshall Lane Elementary School (extant), located directly west of the Project Area.34 As such, the original 20-acre property was divided, and effectively eliminated approximately half of the land's original orchard acreage, leaving a 9.53-acre parcel.35 Prior to the 1970s, the original entrance to the Bellicitti Ranch was from Quito Road, through a non -extant driveway that aligned with Pollard Road.36 In the 1970s, the property was further altered when this entrance was removed as part of a road widening project along Quito Road, and as a result the current driveway from Marshall Lane was constructed. In 2002, the ca. 1870 house (Figure 10) was demolished and replaced with the 2002 house, which appears to have been constructed on the same location of the original ca. 1870 house. 28 John Bellicitti, [phone communication], 28 January 2019. 29 Frederick W. Marrazzo, Italians in the Santa Clara Valley (Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2007) 8. 30 Congress Junction appears to have been located at the current intersection of Saratoga Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks that parallel CA-85. 31 John Bellicitti, [phone communication], 28 January 2019. 32 "Harry Louis Bellicitti" [obituary], San lose Mercury News, 21 November 2009. 33 Ibid. 34 John Bellicitti, [phone communication], 28 January 2019. 36 Ibid. 36 Before the relocation of the driveway from Quito Road to Marshall Lane, the Bellicitti Ranch had the address 14161 Quito Road. HIRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 14 Resolution 21-071 Page 115 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 8: Early 1920s photograph of Angelo Bellicitti holding son Harry while ploughing with two horses at the Guinchard Ranch property on Pollard Road. (Photo courtesy of Harry Bellicitti) a�,_ � •rrl ,1 _ Figure 9: ca. 1945 photograph of Angelo Bellicitti utilizing a tractor to plough, rather than horses. It is not clear if this photograph was taken at the Allendale Road property or the Bellicitti Ranch (Photo courtesy of Harry Bellicitti) HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 15 Resolution 21-071 Page 116 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 10: A photograph of the non -extant ca. 1870 house at the Project Area from Saratoga's Heritage: A Survey of Historic Resources (1993), a publication of the City of Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission. HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL FIELD SURVEY On January 14, 2018, EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S., completed a field survey of the Project Area that includes the ca. 1870 barn, 2002 house, ca. 1990 Shed 1, 2012 Shed 2, and historic orchard landscape located at 18500 Marshall Lane. The following section documents the results of the field survey. Project Area The Project Area consists of a ca. 1870 barn, 2002 house, a ca. 1990 shed (Shed 1), a 2012 shed (Shed 2), and historic orchard landscape (Figure 11). The current neighborhood that surrounds the Project Area is generally characterized as a low-rise residential neighborhood developed in the post -World War II era, with many of the houses having been constructed in various eras between the mid -twentieth century up to recent years. The Project Area occupies a large amount of land relative to the suburban scale of the surrounding area. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 16 Resolution 21-071 Page117 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 11: Sketch map of Project Area with 2018 aerial- photograph as background layer. (Aerial source: Google) ca. 1870 Barn The ca. 1870 barn consists of an original, front gable form with two shed additions, as well as a shed -roof stables37 attached to the west elevation, and a secondary shed -roof addition attached to the south shed roof addition (south addition), and a trellis addition attached to the north elevation that appears to have been constructed within the past fifteen years, given contemporary materials. The central gable roof and shed roof additions are clad in contemporary asphalt shingles, while the roofs of the stables and south addition are clad in sheets of corrugated metal. The east elevation (primary facade) consists of the barn's distinct original front gable form, flanked by two shed additions, with a shed -roof "south addition" attached to the south elevation, and a trellis -style addition attached to the north elevation (Figure 12). While the west elevation of the original form is clad in horizontal droplap siding, the south addition is clad in wood board siding. There is a vertical tongue -and - groove barn -style sliding door that is attached with metal hardware to a metal track at the center of the barn (Figure 13 and Figure 14). Directly above the barn -style sliding door is a hinged hayloft door, which appears to be clad in the same vertical tongue -and -groove wood siding as the door below. The southern 31 According to John Bellicitti, the shed -roof addition (south addition) of the barn served as stables for horses. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 17 Resolution 21-071 Page118 EVANS DE $HAZO, INC .� ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION shed addition has a squared opening and a sliding barn -style door railing system; however, the associated sliding barn -style door was lying on the ground adjacent to the opening. The northern shed addition has a opening with angled corners, but no railing system or door (Figure 15). This door consists of vertical wood siding with metal operational hardware. The west elevation of the shed -roof addition has a set of double doors adjacent to a single hinged door —all clad in wood boards. The south elevation of the ca. 1870 barn consists of both the south addition and the attached stables. The south elevation of the south addition is clad in corrugated metal siding with an exposed wood sill plate below, and no fenestration (Figure 16). The south elevation of the stables consists of vertical wood siding with an opening for a window and one for a door (Figure 17). The building's west elevation consists mainly of the attached stables (Figure 18). It appears that part of the west elevation of the stables was originally clad in vertical wood siding, and some areas are currently clad in sheets of corrugated metal (Figure 19). The south addition visible near the southern end of the elevation and consists of a patchwork of wood boards with an aluminum sliding sash window. The upper portion of the west elevation of the original barn form is visible behind the stables and consist of unpainted droplap siding. Within the gable of the barn there are three openings —one of which consists of a wood louver vent. The functions of the other openings could not be determined at the time of the field survey. At the time of the field survey, a contemporary storage container blocked the direct view of the north elevation (Figure 20); however, access at the interior showed that there are three openings along this elevation that all display the angled corners (Figure 21). The north elevation of the stables is clad in the same corrugated metal sheets that occurs at the west elevation (Figure 22). The interior of the ca. 1870 barn consists of three distinct sections, the center gable portion and the shed additions (Figure 23-Figure 25). There are visible interior alterations that show some openings along the interior walls of the original form have been changed. Figure 12: East elevation of the ca. 1870 barn, with shed additions, facing northwest. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 18 Resolution 21-071 4 Page 119 , EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 13: Original gable form at the east elevation of the ca. 1870 barn, facing west. Figure 14: Detail of metal operational hardware and track associated with the door at the center gable form. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 19 Resolution 21-071 Page120 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 15: Door that appears to be associated with the squared opening in the southern addition at the east elevation, visible at upper right. Figure 16: South elevation of south addition at ca. 1870 barn, facing north. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 20 Resolution 21-071 Page121 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 17: Detail of south elevation of the stable addition, facing northeast. Figure 18: West elevation of ca. 1870 barn with shed -roof addition at the south elevation visible at right, facing northeast. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 21 40 1,.;. Av l� Kin K;,�, Resolution 21-071 Page 123 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 21: East and north elevations of ca. 1870 barn with attached contemporary trellis, and detached contemporary storage container, facing southwest. Figure 22: North and west elevations of ca. 1870 barn with contemporary metal storage container and trellis visible at left, and the north elevation of the stables visible at center, facing southeast. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 23 ._ Resolution 21-071 Page 124 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 23: Interior of the center gable form of the ca. 1870 barn, view from sliding door at east elevation. Figure 24: Interior of the center gable form of the ca. 1870 barn, view toward wall between center gable form and northern addition. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 24 Resolution 21-071 Page125 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 25: Interior of the southern shed addition of the ca. 1870 barn, view from door opening at east elevation Contemporary Buildings There are three contemporary buildings within the Project Area that were constructed between ca. 1990 and 2012.38 While these buildings do not reach the 50-year age criteria for CRHR-eligibility, they are nevertheless documented below for clarification of the extant built -environment at the Project Area. ca. 1990 Shed 1 Shed 1 is a ca. 1990 shed located directly to the west of the of the 2002 house, along the western fence that encircles a side yard associated with the house (Figure 26 and Figure 27). This building currently serves an auxiliary function to the 2002 house, but was likely constructed to serve the earlier, nonextant ca. 1870 house, which was replaced by the 2002 house. The side -gable roof of this ca. 1990 shed is relatively steep in pitch, and clad in contemporary asphalt shingles with exposed raftertails and wood fascia alongthe gable ends. The building appears to be of simple, single -wall wood -frame construction atop a wood post and concrete pier foundation. The exterior is clad in wood boards with the corner posts and double plates exposed, and wood louver vents in the gable ends. There is a door at the east elevation that consists of the same wood boards as the exterior, and appears to open to a patio near the northeast corner of the 2002 house. The north elevation of the ca. 1990 shed has an aluminum sliding sash window. 38 The previous identification by Archives & Architecture from 2009 misidentifies the house as potentially being from the 1950s: "The ranch property consists of a residence which was either extensively remodeled or replaced in the 1950s on the site of the original nineteenth century farm house." In -person communication with John Bellicitti verified that the extant house was constructed in 2002 and replaced the ca. 1870 house. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 25 Resolution 21-071 Page126 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC 1 ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 26: South and east elevations of Shed 1, facing northwest. Figure 27: North and west elevations of Shed 1, facing southeast. 2012 Shed 2 Shed 2 was constructed in 2012, and is located to the west and south of the ca. 1870 barn that appears to serve as a storage shed for agricultural uses (Figure 28 and Figure 29). This side -gable building is similar in plan to the ca. 1990 Shed 1 located across the dirt pathway. The building is situated on a wood post and concrete pier foundation, and the side gable roof is moderate in pitch and clad in contemporary asphalt HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 26 Resolution 21-071 Page 127 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC */'ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION shingles. The exterior is clad in unpainted wood board siding, with metal louver vents in the gable ends and a wood -board door with contemporary metal strap hinges. Figure 28: East and north elevations of Shed 2, facing southwest. Figure 29: West and south elevations of Shed 2, facing northeast. 2002 house The 2002 house is located approximately 80 feet west-southwest of the ca. 1870 barn (Figure 30-Figure 32). The house is rectangular in plan with a main side -gable plan, and appears to have experienced some HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 27 Resolution 21-071 Page 128 V , EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION alterations. The house is contemporary, replacing a previous ca. 1870 house associated with the original agricultural development of the property. Given the lack of direct associative significance to historic agriculture, and due to its recent date of construction, it does not appear that the house has any potential to contribute to the historic significance of the Project Area, nor does it appear to have the potential to convey any historic theme that warrants individual evaluation. As such, the house itself is not described in this section. Figure 30: East and north elevations of the 2002 house, facing southwest. Figure 31: West and south elevations of the 2002 house, facing northeast. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 28 Resolution 21-071 Page129 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 32: South elevation of 2002 house, facing north. Associated Landscape The current landscape appears to show changes over time, including an unpaved driveway from Marshall Lane, remnants of the historic fruit orchards planted in the 1920s, mature trees including a coast redwood and palm likely located near the 2002 house likely planted in ca. 1900, as well as areas of contemporary wood fencing that creates the boundaries for a side yard to the west and south of the 2002 house (Figure 33). With the exception of the contemporary wood fencing, it appears that all landscape features appear to pre -date the 2002 house and were extant during the property's periods of agricultural use. There is a substantial amount of land within the Project Area that once served as orchards or vineyards, but have since been removed of this use and these crops (Figure 34-Figure 36). HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 29 Resolution 21-071 Page 130 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC J� HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 33: Mature coast redwood located directly to the west of the 2002 house, facing north. Figure 34: Project Area from Marshall Lane, view toward 2002 house (center -left) and ca. 1870 barn (center - right, behind vegetation), facing south. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 30 Resolution 21-071 Page 131 EVANS & DE $HAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 35: Northern end of the parcel, facing northwest toward house on neighboring parcel to the north (APN: 397-02-111). Figure 36: Western portion of the Bellicitti Ranch property, facing southwest. Historic orchard There is an area within the 9.53-acre Project Area that consists of what appears to be part of an historic orchard associated with the original 20-acre Bellicitti Ranch property (Figure 37-Figure 40). Today, the remaining orchards cover approximately 50,000 square feet located to the south of the 2002 house and to the east of the ca. 1870 barn. This appears to cover approximately 15% of the orchard area shown at the HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 31 Resolution 21-071 Page 132 EVANS � DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION property in a 1948 aerial photograph. The remaining fruit trees consist of apricots, and prunes, as well as what appears to be nut trees as well. In addition, there are several citrus trees along the front of the house that were not a part of the orchard but planted for use by the Bellicitti family, and appear to consist of orange trees. Figure 37: Remnant of historic orchard located to the south of the 2002 house, near the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch property, facing southwest. Quito Road visible in background. Figure 38: Remnant of historic orchard located near the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch, facing northwest toward the ca. 1870 barn (center -right) and 2002 house (right). FIRE for 18S00 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 32 Resolution 21-071 Page 133 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 39: Paved bridle path located along Sobey Road at the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch property. Figure 40: Detail of a tree tag attached to one of the trees within the historic orchard near the south of the Bellicitti Ranch property. Previous Documentation Heritage Resource Inventory (updated in 10/17) and Archives & Architects 2009 In 1991, the Bellicitti Ranch was listed on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory (HPC Resolution HP-91-01), and in 2009, as part of a city-wide Historic Resource Inventory completed by Archives and HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 33 Resolution 21-071 ti Page 134 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Architects, DPR forms (Appendix B) were completed that identified the building as being eligible for significance, under local criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g) (listed below)39: a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga; c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the National style, type and period; e) the property embodies unique physical characteristics that represent an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood40. f) the property represented a significant concentration or continuity, or buildings unified by past development. g) the property embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. The DPR forms states the following regarding the Bellicitti Ranch property's potential eligibility for listing in the CRHR: "Bellicitti Ranch also appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion (3), as the barn and property embody the distinctive characteristics of the National style for agricultural buildings from Saratoga's Early American period."" The integrity, as required as part of the evaluation for significance, states, "Although the house shown on a previous recordation form has apparently been demolished, somewhat affecting the overall setting within the property, the barn retains its historic design, workmanship, materials, along with its original location and large agricultural setting, and the historical associations and feelings of the property are generally maintained."42 Fnc, Cnmmantc Although the 2009 DPR forms lack the sufficient details and evaluation necessary to determine eligibility for the CRHR, the Bellicitti Ranch is nevertheless locally listed, and is therefore considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. 39 These 2009 DPR forms identified the Bellicitti Ranch as locally significant under Saratoga's local eligibility criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g); however, the section that follows lists (b) and not (g) as applicable criteria. This appears to be an error, as the site -specific information presented in the DPR forms did not reveal any important persons significant in local history. Therefore, it can be surmised that 2009 DPR forms identified the property as significant under local criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g), and identification with (b) was an error. 40 Although it is inferred that the "The Village" is a smaller portion of the current City of Saratoga and referenced often in the context by Archives and Architecture, it is not defined in regard to development or the boundaries. 41 Archives & Architecture, LLC, 'Bellicitti Ranch" [DPR forms], Heritage Resources Inventory, Prepared for the City of Saratoga, 2009. 42 Ibid. HIRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 34 Resolution 21-071 Page 135 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC Jr ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE The Project Area as a whole, which includes the ca. 1870 barn, 2002 house, ca. 1990 Shed 1, 2012 Shed 2, and associated landscape, was evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. As the ca. 1870 barn is the only building within the Project Area that meets the age requirement for CRHR-eligibility, the ca. 1870 barn is also evaluated for individual eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The following section provides an overview of historic significance of the built environment resources within the Project Area. California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the CRHR through several methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register -listed properties are automatically listed in the CRHR. Properties can also be nominated to the CRHR by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. To qualify for listing in the CRHR, a property must possess significance under one of the four criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity consists of evaluating seven variables or aspects that include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. According to the OHP, the criteria for evaluation for eligibility for listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria and include seven characteristics are defined as follows: • Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property. • Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). • Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. • Feeling is the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The following section examines properties eligibility for listing on the CRHR. CRHR Evaluation The following section evaluates the Project Area as a whole for eligibility for listing in the CRHR under four applicable CRHR criteria, utilizing significant themes that were found to be potentially associated with the Project Area. The Project Area was evaluated for site -specific historical significance, as well as under the following themes and associated periods of significance: historic agriculture, encompassing two periods: early agriculture in Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1850 — ca. 1880 and orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1880— ca. 1965. The following section also evaluates the ca. 1870 barn for individual eligibility for listing in the CRHR, under the following themes and associated HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 35 AK Resolution 21-071 Page 136 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION periods of significance: historic agriculture, encompassing two periods: early agriculture in Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1850—ca. 1880 and orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1880 — ca. 1965; and, Vernacular barn architecture in Santa Clara County, with a period of significance of ca. 1850-1945. 1. (Event): Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, are both associated with agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley that includes early agriculture and farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1850 to ca. 1880, and fruit orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1880 to ca. 1965. Based on research findings, it appears the Project Area was part of a larger swine and grain farm owned by W. D. Rucker as early as ca. 1870. During this time, grain was one of the dominant agricultural crops in the area, and both the ca. 1870 barn and the Project Area as a whole appear to represent this significant period of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance corresponding with the ca. 1870 construction of the earliest extant agricultural building on the property until ca. 1880, the end of the theme's period of significance. The second agricultural era associated with the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn is orchard farming, which began during the late nineteenth century. Fruit orchards began to dominate the agricultural land throughout the Santa Clara Valley around ca. 1880, with a peak in production in the 1920s, a decline at the end of World War II, and a rapid transition from agricultural to residential land use from 1950 to ca. 1965. Orchard farming at the Project Area likely began several decades prior to the Bellicitti's ca. 1945 purchase and subsequent operations at the property and was continued by Angelo and Harry Bellicitti through the middle of the twentieth century. As such, both the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, are associated with significant agricultural events in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance that corresponds with the theme: ca. 1870 — ca. 1965. Both the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn appear to be significant under CRHR criterion 1 for association with the significant agricultural periods in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1870 — ca. 1965. However, the Project Area as a whole does not have sufficient integrity to this respective period of significance needed to appropriately convey this area of significance to warrant eligibility for listing in the CRHR, as explained in the integrity section below. 2. (Person): Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Despite extensive research, it does not appear that the Project Area as a whole, nor the ca. 1870 barn, are associated with the lives of individuals or families that are important to local, California, or national history to warrant eligibility under the CRHR. There is no information was found to show that W. D. Rucker, L. Walker, or Mrs. M. R. Stanfield made important, identifiable contributions to local, State, or National history in a way that is directly associated with the Project Area. While the Bellicitti Family appear to be significant in local Saratoga and Santa Clara Valley History, the Bellicitti Ranch does not appropriately embody or signify any substantial identifiable contributions that the HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 36 Resolution 21-071 Page 137 1TEVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Bellicittis have made to local history.43 Therefore, neither the Project Area as a whole nor the ca. 1870 barn appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2. 3. (Construction/Architecture): Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values. The ca. 1870 barn is a good example of a Vernacular barn related to agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that displays a central gable that projects above two side shed -roof wing additions. The barn follows the general form of other barns that were constructed during the era, and displays the Vernacular, characteristic central front -facing gable flanked on either side by shed -roof additions. While the design and form have been slightly modified over time to accommodate changes in use from grain farming to orchard farming, the ca. 1870 barn nevertheless follows the general form and design of barns within Santa Clara County during this period. As such, the ca. 1870 barn appears to be a representative example of Vernacular architecture and form related to agriculture, which has specific design and form characteristics that represent a regional variation identified with the Santa Clara Valley. Despite some integrity loss, as explained in the integrity section below, the ca. 1870 barn appears to convey a significant Vernacular architectural theme related to barn design and form in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Santa Clara County, with a period of significance of ca. 1870. Therefore, the Project Area as a whole does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3; however, the ca. 1870 barn appears eligible for individual listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3. 4. (Information potential): Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Criterion 4 most commonly applies to resources that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archaeological research question. While most often applied to archaeological sites, Criterion 4 can also apply to buildings that contain important information. For a building to be eligible under Criterion 4, it must be a principal source of important information, such as exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if a study can yield important information, such as how local availability of materials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development. The Project Area does not have the ability to convey information potential that is unique or unknown in regard to an architectural style, as the Vernacular aspects of the extant historic built environment — the ca. 1870 barn —does not appear to be unique to this building. In addition, the Project Area was not evaluated for archaeology, and so it cannot be determined if the Property contains associated archaeological deposits that will yield, or has the potential to yield, information important to the 43 The Bellicittis' Allendale Road may be more closely associated with the agricultural operations and broader lives of the family. However, due to extensive alterations over time to that nearby property, it is likely that the Allendale Road property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey significance associated with the Bellicittis' contributions to local history. HRE for 18500 Marshall lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 37 Resolution 21-071 Page 138 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Integrity The following section provides details that specifically address integrity of the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn. Both the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, were found to be significant under CRHR criterion 1 for representing two periods of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley: early agriculture (ca. 1850 — ca. 1880), and orchard farming (ca. 1880 — ca. 1965). As these two agricultural eras make up a single continuum, both the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn are assessed for integrity related to this comprehensive ca. 1870 —ca. 1965 period of significance. The ca. 1870 barn was also found to be significant under CRHR criterion 3, as a representative example of Vernacular barn architecture and form that prevailed in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1850 — 1945, with a period of significance associated with the ca. 1870 date of construction. As such, the integrity of the ca. 1870 barn is also assessed for ability to convey architectural significance under this theme. • Location. None of the extant buildings associated with the Project Area, including the ca. 1870 barn, appear to have been moved. Therefore, the Project Area and ca. 1870 barn retain integrity of location. • Design. Integrity of design is applicable to the Project Area as a whole with regard to spatial arrangement and extant contributing features, as these are the elements that convey the property's "design" as it relates to its various agricultural uses over time. While the orientation of the built environment within the Project Area remains generally intact from both agricultural periods (ca. 1870 — ca. 1880 and ca. 1880 — ca. 1965), several alterations to the property over time have impacted integrity of design, including the following: demolition of the ca. 1870 house; construction of the 2002 house; removal of 10 acres from the property for the construction of the adjacent school; and, the removal of the historic grain fields and majority of orchards. The ca. 1870 barn has undergone several alterations, including a shed addition at the south elevation, a contemporary trellis addition at the north elevation, and the introduction of new openings and infill of existing openings. While much of this work occurred after the barn's ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance related to agriculture, the barn continues to retain its general form and design from this period. Additionally, the ca. 1870 barn overall continues to retain the general form and design from the ca. 1870 period of significance to appropriately represent the architecture of a Vernacular barn in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of design, and the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of design. • Setting. The setting within the Project Area has changed significantly since the two agricultural periods of significance. Most of the grain fields and extensive orchards that historically spanned the property have been removed since ca. 1965, with the exception of a small area of historic orchards. Other impacts to the setting of the Project Area include the demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, and construction of the adjacent 1960s school, which required a further reduction in acreage of the property. The setting in the area surrounding the Project Area has become suburban and semi -rural, with several large residential lots interspersed with some land with historic orchards. Many of the nearby HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 38 Resolution 21-071 Page139 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION houses were constructed in the 1980s and later. Additionally, the late 1960s construction of the adjacent school on the western one-half of the Bellicitti Ranch also contributed to loss of integrity of setting. Therefore, the setting within and surrounding the Project Area, as well as the ca. 1870 barn, has changed dramatically since the two associated agricultural periods of significance. Therefore, neither the Project Area nor the ca. 1870 barn retain integrity of setting. • Materials. With the demolition of the ca. 1870 house and construction of the contemporary 2002 house, the Project Area does not retain integrity of materials to either of its periods of significance. While the ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, including replacement of some historic siding and introduction of contemporary materials with the additions, the building nevertheless continues to display the overall historic materials from its three periods of significance. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of materials, and the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of materials. • Workmanship. The aspect of workmanship is not applicable to the Project Area as a whole. The ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, however, the building continues to exhibit its original wood -frame construction and historic wood siding that convey workmanship from the ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance related to agriculture, and a ca. 1870 period of significance related to architecture. Therefore, workmanship is not applicable to the Project Area; however, the ca. 1870 barn retains integrity of workmanship. • Feeling. With the demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, removal of 10 acres from the property for the construction of the adjacent school, and the removal of grain fields and the majority of historic orchards, the Project Area only retains the feeling of an historic agricultural property from its ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance with the extant ca. 1870 barn and few remaining areas of historic orchards. While the property retains a general sense of a past agricultural use, the loss of these critical components has impacted integrity of feeling of the Project Area as a whole. While the ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, including changes to form with the construction of the south addition and trellis at the north elevation, the building continues to exhibit the feeling of a Vernacular barn constructed in ca. 1870 in the Santa Clara Valley. Additionally, the ca. 1870 barn continues to evoke the feeling of a barn utilized for agriculture through the two associated agricultural periods, spanning ca. 1870 — ca. 1965. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of feeling; however, the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of feeling. • Association. The demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, removal of the grain fields and majority of historic orchards have weakened the Project Area's integrity of association, as it no longer contains these critical elements that were associated with agriculture across both significant eras. Despite being altered over time, the ca. 1870 barn continues to display the general form, materials, and design that conveys its direct association with agricultural operations in the Santa Clara Valley from its HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 39 Resolution 21-071 Page 140 , EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION comprehensive ca. 1870— ca. 1965 period of significance, as well as Vernacular barn architecture in Santa Clara County from ca. 1870. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of association; however, the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of association. While the Project Area as a whole was found to be significant under CRHR criterion 1, it is not able to appropriately convey either its association with the early agricultural period in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1870 — ca. 1880, or its association with orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1880 — ca. 1965. The ca. 1870 barn was found to be individually significant under CRHR criterion 1 for association with historic agricultural themes, as well as CRHR criterion 3 as an example of Vernacular barn architecture and form in Santa Clara County from ca. 1870, and continues to retain six of seven aspects of integrity that convey these three themes, and their respective periods of significance. CONCLUSIONS In compliance with CEQA regulations and guidelines, and the City of Saratoga's historic preservation policies and ordinances, EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian, Brian Matuk, M.S. conducted research and a field survey to evaluate the Bellicitti Ranch and its related built -environment to determine if they qualify for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850). The evaluation determined that the Project Area as a whole represents two significant periods of agriculture under CRHR criterion 1, but due to lack of integrity, was ultimately not found to be eligible for listing in the CRHR under that theme. However, as the Project Area (Bellicitti Ranch) is a locally designated Heritage Resource, it is considered an Historical Resource under CEQA. The ca. 1870 barn appears individually eligible for listing in the CRHR under criterion 1, as it represents significant historic periods of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1870 — ca. 1965, as well as under criterion 3, as a representative example of the prevailing Vernacular barn architecture and form in Santa Clara County during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with a period of significance of ca. 1870. As the ca. 1870 barn was found to retain sufficient integrity to convey these three themes under CRHR criteria 1 and 3, the ca. 1870 barn is individually eligible for listing in the CRHR, and therefore considered to be an Historical Resource under CEQA, distinct from the Project Area as a whole. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to lack of overall integrity of the property, EDS recommends the City remove the Bellicitti Ranch from local listing and adjust the designation to apply to the significant ca. 1870 barn only, which would eliminate the need for mitigation related to the Bellicitti Ranch as a whole under CEQA. If the City does not choose to remove the Bellicitti Ranch from the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory, appropriate mitigation measures HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 40 Resolution 21-071 Page 141 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION could be advised, as the relocation of the ca. 1870 barn would almost certainly weaken the Bellicitti Ranch's integrity to render it ineligible for local listing. The evaluation determined that the ca. 1870 barn was significant under CRHR criterion 3 and retains sufficient integrity to convey this significance and qualify for individual listing in the CRHR. Therefore, in addition to the Bellicitti Ranch, the ca. 1870 barn currently qualifies an individual Historical Resource under CEQA. As such, EDS recommends appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project on the ca. 1870 barn EDS recommends the following: • Conduct 3D laser scanning of the entire ca. 1870 barn, including the additions. • Relocation of the intact ca. 1870 barn (original gable portion as a priority and, if feasible, the south and north wing additions) to a donor site within an appropriate setting. If dismantling, and reconstructing. Prior to the relocation, a 3D laser scan of the entire ca. 1870 barn should be completed to ensure that the existing condition of the ca. 1870 barn are accurately and appropriately documented, and to assist in reassembly of the barn to assist in labeling and packing the barn for reassemble within an appropriate setting. The priority for dismantling and reconstruction is to ensure the original gable portion of the barn is reconstructed, and If feasible, the shed additions (which flank the original gable form to the south and north of the barn) can be disassembled as well and reconstructed. However, if not feasible, the shed additions that flank the original gable form of the barn (excluding the stables and he southern -most addition) can be reconstructed (see details in the reconstruction section below). • Reconstruction of the ca. 1870 barn. If proven by a professional in the field of relocation of historic buildings and/or restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings, such as barns, is deteriorated beyond the point of repair, then reconstruction, based on the 3D laser scanning, is an option. In addition, portions of the building i.e. the south and north shed additions, may be reconstructed at a later date if the original form of the barn is relocated — as a creative and phased appreciate using both rehabilitate and reconstruction If this method is chosen, then 3D laser scanning of the entire barn will also be required and must include the production of both 3D scans, as well as 2D CAD drawings, prior to the demolition or partial demolition of the barn. Feasibility In consultation with the City of Saratoga and the owner during an onsite visit to the subject property on April 24, 2019, it appears that the most feasible mitigation is 3D laser scanning the entire ca. 1870 barn, the dismantling and relocation of the center gable portion of the barn, and the reconstruction (based on 3D laser scans) of the south and north shed additions. The relocation and reconstruction of a portion of the barn is an appropriate mitigation to address impacts to historic resources. If the relocation and reconstruction of the barn is approved, it is recommended the that plan include the following: 3D Laser Scanning of the ca. 1870 barn Prior to relocation or reconstruction, EDS recommends that an as -built survey is executed using 3D laser scanning, and that 2D CAD documentation is created from the scanned data in AutoCad. 3D laser scanning will provide archival quality 3D and 2D printed and digital drawings that can be utilized to ensure the reassembly or reconstruction of the ca. 1870 barn is carried out accurately and appropriately. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 41 Resolution 21-071 Page 142 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Relocating the ca. 1870 barn The California SHPO summarizes Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 4852(d)(1), which refers to moving Historical Resources: "relocation of an historical resource may constitute an adverse impact to the resource. However, in situations where relocation is the only feasible alternative to demolition, relocation may mitigate below a level of significance provided that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource and the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (14 CCR Section 4852(d)(1))." The California SHPO provides further guidance to this effect: "in most cases the use of drawings, photographs, and/or displays does not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by demolition or destruction of an historical resource (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)). However, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. In this context, recordation serves a legitimate archival purpose. The level of documentation required as a mitigation should be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource." To successfully relocate a building, the following guidelines are suggested. First, the "dismantling" efforts must be planned out fully in coordination with the contractors such as architects, architectural historians, 3D imaging company, and construction crews. These efforts should also address issues such as weather delays, damage, and even rental fees. These events may occur and there should be a predetermined course of action should these events take place. In addition, it should be determined that the contractor "dismantling" the building has sufficient equipment and appropriate tools for the job, as well as experience with historic built environment resources. In addition, adequate insurance coverage is imperative when considering deconstructing a historic building. It is recommended that at a minimum worker's compensation and liability insurance of $2,000,000 is carried. This along with having good standing, providing reliable references, as well as being knowledgeable and having the right tools for dismantling are important aspects in selecting contractors or enlisting volunteers with professional or related experience. Although it is important to understand the costs and risks (both financial and material) inherent in such an undertaking, it is also important to understand that there is a chance that the fabric of the building will be damaged, and the context in which the structure existed historically will change. Careful planning will be necessary in order facilitate transport, and appropriate preparations will be required at both the old and new locations. Also, despite the fact that preservationists generally do not promote this practice, moving a building may in fact be an effective way to preserve a threatened structure. Relocation may enhance or even spare a valuable historic resource, thus extending its utilitarian, economic, aesthetic, and historic benefits. Finally, key elements to note are as follows: • Before deciding to move a building, it is advisable to assess its present condition, to thoroughly investigate potential donor sites, to gain an understanding of the moving process itself, and to estimate the associated costs. • Careful planning is essential for successful execution of the project. Numerous professionals can contribute expertise in the process, including architects and engineers, contractors, professionals, financial officers, and local officials. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 42 Resolution 21-071 Page143 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Reconstructing the ca. 1870 barn Reconstructing of the shed additions that flank the original gable portion of the ca. 1870 barn, based on feasibility, appears to be the most appropriate mitigation measure for this section of the barn. The reconstruction should be completed within a reasonable amount of time from the date the barn is relocated and reassembled at its new location. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 43 Resolution 21-071 Page 144 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION ffl *.j I [91C :Z1� ��� Archives & Architecture. "Bellicitti Ranch" [DPR forms]. Heritage Resources Inventory. Prepared for the City of Saratoga. 2009. Archives & Architecture. County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the County of Santa Clara. December 2004, Revised 2012. Archives & Architecture. Heritage Resources Inventory. Prepared for the City of Saratoga. 2009. Bellicitti, John. [Phone communication]. 28 January 2019. Brainard, Henry A. "Our County No. 4". 1880 Santa Clara County, Brainard Agricultural Atlas. 1880-1889. Brainard, Henry A. "Quito District" [map]. 1880 Santa Clara County, Brainard Agricultural Atlas. February 1886. "Harry Louis Bellicitti" [obituary]. San Jose Mercury News. 21 November 2009. Marrazzo, Frederick W. Italians in the Santa Clara Valley, Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2007. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guild to American Houses. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Munro -Fraser, J.P. 2009. McMillan, J. G. "County of Santa Clara" [map], 1903. "The San Jose Fairs." Pacific Rural Press. 9 October 1886. California Digital Newspaper Collection. "Santa Clara Valley Fair —Premiums Awarded." Pacific Rural Press. 13 October 1883. California Digital Newspaper Collection. Saratoga Historical Society, "They Called It Saratoga." http://www.saratogahistory.com/History/called _saratoga.htm#industrialtown. Accessed January 18, 2019. Thompson and West. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County. San Francisco: Thompson and West, 1876 [San Jose: Smith and McKay Printing Co., reprinted 1973]. Tyler, Norman, Ilene R. Tyler, and Ted J. Ligibel. Historic Preservation, An Introduction to the History, Principals, and Practices. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 2009. "W. D. Rucker." Pacific Rural Press. 6 October 1883. California Digital Newspaper Collection. "Wealthy Retired San Jose Business Man Dies." San Francisco Chronicle. 22 December 1915. HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 44 Resolution 21-071 Page 145 Ak EVANS ARCHAEOLOGY DE SHAZo, INC HISTORIC PRESERVATION Appendix A: DPR Forms HRE for 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County 45 Resolution 21-071 Page 146 State of California El The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 28 P1. Other Identifier: Primary# HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date * P2. Location: _ Not for Publication ❑x Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara County *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West C. Address 18500 Marshall Lane *Resource Name or#: Bellicitti Ranch and Date 1980 T 8S ; R 1W of of Sec 22 ; MD B.M. City Saratoga Zip 95070 d. UTM: Zone 10S, 589271 mE/ 4124488 mN e. Other Locational Data: The approximate 10-acre property is located on the west side of Quito Road approximately 2.25 miles west-northwest of the Saratoga Village, within Assessor Parcel Number 397-02-111. The parcel is bound to the north by two adjacent parcels, to the south by Sobey Road, and to the west by Marshall Lane Elementary School. *P3a. Description: The ca. 1870 barn consists of an original three -bay form with a central gable or monitor roof, shed -roof stables attached to the west elevation, a shed -roof addition attached to the south elevation (south addition), and a trellis addition attached to the north elevation that appears to have been constructed within the past fifteen years, given contemporary materials. The central monitor roof is clad in contemporary asphalt shingles, while the roofs of the stables and south addition are clad in sheets of corrugated metal. The front, east elevation shows the barn's distinct original three -bay form and monitor roof, with the shed -roof addition attached to the south elevation, and the trellis addition attached to the north elevation. While the west elevation of the original three -bay form is clad in horizontal droplap siding, the shed -roof addition at the south elevation is clad in wood board siding. (See Continuation Sheet Page 2) *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2—Single-family property HP33 — Farm / ranch *P4. Resources Present: ■ Building Structure - Object __ Site District - Element of District -_ Other P5b. Description of Photo: East elevation facing northwest, 1/14/2019 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: ■ Historic Prehistoric Both ca. 1870 *P7. Owner and Address: Bellicitti Family Trust 18500 Marshall Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 *P8. Recorded by: Brian Matuk, M.S., Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 6876 Sebastopol Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472 *P9. Date Recorded: 1/14/2019 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Brian Matuk, M.S. and Stacey De Shazo, M.A. (2019): A Historic Resource Evaluation for the Bellicitti Ranch at 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California *Attachments: -]NONE ■Location Map ■Continuation Sheet -Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record -District Record _ Linear Feature Record -Milling Station Record -Rock Art Record -Artifact Record Photograph Record ■ Other (List): Sketch map DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information Resolution 21-071 IL'!I State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 2 of 28 (Continued from Primary, Page 1) There is a vertical tongue -and -groove wood siding clad door that hangs and roll along a track at the center of the three bays, with metal hardware. Directly above this door is a hinged hayloft door, which appears to be clad in the same vertical tongue -and -groove wood siding as the door below. The southern bay has a squared opening, and the northern bay has an opening with angled corners. At the time of the field survey, the wood door that rolled along the track at the squared opening at the southern bay was lying on the ground adjacent to the opening. This door consists of vertical wood siding with metal operational hardware. The west elevation of the shed -roof addition has a set of double doors adjacent to a single hinged door —all clad in wood boards. The south elevation of the ca. 1870 barn consists of both the south addition and the attached stables. The south elevation of the south addition is clad in corrugated metal siding with an exposed wood sill plate below, and no fenestration. The south elevation of the stables consists of vertical wood siding with an opening for a window and one for a door. The building's west elevation consists mainly of the attached stables. It appears that part of the west elevation of the stables was originally clad in vertical wood siding, and some areas are currently clad in sheets of corrugated metal. The south addition visible near the southern end of the elevation, and consists of a patchwork of wood boards with an aluminum sliding sash window. The upper portion of the west elevation of the original three -bay form is visible behind the stables, and consist of unpainted droplap siding. Within the central bay, there are three openings —one of which consists of a wood louver vent. The functions of the other openings could not be determined at the time of the field survey. At the time of the field survey, a contemporary storage container blocked the direct view of the north elevation; however, access at the interior showed that there are three openings along this elevation that all display the angled corners. The north elevation of the stables is clad in the same corrugated metal sheets that occurs at the west elevation. The interior of the ca. 1870 barn shows the distinct 3- bay plan; however, the building's alterations are visible with the cutting and infilling of various openings, as well as various replacement siding and interior wood components that appear to have been added overtime. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 140 State of California -1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 3 of 28 r East elevation of the ca. 1870 barn, with the south shed -roof addition visible at left, facing northwest. Center bay at the east elevation of the ca. 1870 barn, facing west. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 14`J: State of California J Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 4 of 28 Detail of metal operational hardware and track associated with the door at the center bay. Door that appears to be associated with the squared opening in the southern bay at the east elevation, visible at upper right. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 M State of California J Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Page 5 of 28 South elevation of south shed -roof addition at ca. 1870 barn, with roof of original three -bay form visible in background. Detail of south elevation of the stables, facing northeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 Page 151 State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 6 of 28 West elevation of ca.1870 barn with shed -roof addition at the south elevation visible at right, facing northeast. West elevation of ca. 1870 barn with stables in foreground, facing east. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 State of California ' Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 7 of 28 Detail of trellis attached to the north elevation of the ca. 1870 barn, with contemporary storage container located underneath, facing southeast. East and north elevations of ca. 1870 barn with attached contemporary trellis, and detached contemporary storage container, facing southwest. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 11,315 State of California _1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 8 of 28 North and west elevations of ca. 1870 barn with contemporary metal storage container and trellis visible at left, and the north elevation of the stables visible at center, facing southeast. Interior of the center bay of the ca. 1870 barn, view from sliding door at east elevation. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 104 State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 9 of 28 Interior of the center bay of the ca. 1870 barn, view toward wall between center bay and northern bay. Interior of the southern bay of the ca. 1870 barn, view from door opening at east elevation. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 State of California :1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial [d(orQPIil_l�[ark&T.TWI Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 10 of 28 Contemporary Buildings There are three contemporary buildings within the Project Area that were constructed between ca. 1990 and 2012. While these buildings do not reach the 50-year age criteria for CRHR-eligibility, they are nevertheless documented below for clarification of the extant built -environment at the Project Area. ca. 1990 Shed 1 Shed 1 is a ca. 1990 shed located directly to the west of the of the 2002 house, along the western fence that encircles a side yard associated with the house. This building currently serves an auxiliary function to the 2002 house, but was likely constructed to serve the earlier, nonextant ca. 1870 house, which was replaced by the 2002 house. The side -gable roof of this ca. 1990 shed is relatively steep in pitch, and clad in contemporary asphalt shingles with exposed rafter tails and wood fascia along the gable ends. The building appears to be of simple, single -wall wood -frame construction atop a wood post and concrete pier foundation. The exterior is clad in wood boards with the corner posts and double plates exposed, and wood louver vents in the gable ends. There is a door at the east elevation that consists of the same wood boards as the exterior, and appears to open to a patio near the northeast corner of the 2002 house. The north elevation of the ca. 1990 shed has an aluminum sliding sash window. South and east elevations of Shed 1, facing northwest. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 ion State of California -1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 11 of 28 North and west elevations of Shed 1, facing southeast. 2012 Shed 2 Shed 2 was constructed in 2012, and is located to the west and south of the ca. 1870 barn that appears to serve as a storage shed for agricultural uses. This side -gable building is similar in plan to the ca. 1990 Shed 1 located across the dirt pathway. The building is situated on a wood post and concrete pier foundation, and the side gable roof is moderate in pitch and clad in contemporary asphalt shingles. The exterior is clad in unpainted wood board siding, with metal louver vents in the gable ends and a wood -board door with contemporary metal strap hinges. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 15/ State of California J Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 12 of 28 East and north elevations of Shed 2, facing southwest. West and south elevations of Shed 2, facing northeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 Ibb State of California 'D Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 13 of 28 2002 house The 2002 house is located approximately 80 feet west-southwest of the ca. 1870 barn. The house is rectangular in plan with a main side -gable plan, and appears to have experienced some alterations. The house is contemporary, replacing a previous ca. 1870 house associated with the original agricultural development of the property. Given the lack of direct associative significance to historic agriculture, and due to its recent date of construction, it does not appear that the house has any potential to contribute to the historic significance of the Bellicitti Ranch, nor does it appear to have the potential to convey any historic theme that warrants individual evaluation. As such, the house itself is not described in this section. East and north elevations of the 2002 house, facing southwest. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 15y State of California 0 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 14 of 28 West and south elevations of the 2002 house, facing northeast. South elevation of 2002 house, facing north. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 e iou State of California -1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 15 of 28 Associated Landscape The current landscape appears to show changes over time, including an unpaved driveway from Marshall Lane, remnants of the historic fruit orchards planted in the 1920s, mature trees including a coast redwood and palm likely located near the 2002 house likely planted in ca. 1900, as well as areas of contemporary wood fencing that creates the boundaries for a side yard to the west and south of the 2002 house. With the exception of the contemporary wood fencing, it appears that all landscape features appear to pre -date the 2002 house, and were extant during the property's periods of agricultural use. There is a substantial amount of land within the Project Area that once served as orchards or vineyards, but have since been removed of this use and these crops. Mature coast redwood located directly to the west of the 2002 house, facing north. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 Page161 State of California -1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 16 of 28 Bellicitti Ranch from Marshall Lane, view toward 2002 house (center -left) and ca. 1870 barn (center -right, behind vegetation), facing south. Northern end of the parcel, facing northwest toward house on neighboring parcel to the north (APN: 397-02- 111). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 u<z State of California -1 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 17 of 28 Western portion of the Bellicitti Ranch property, facing southwest. Historic orchard There is an area within the 9.53-acre Project Area that consists of what appears to be part of an historic orchard associated with the original 20-acre Bellicitti Ranch property. Today, the remaining orchards cover approximately 50,000 square feet located to the south of the 2002 house and to the east of the ca. 1870 barn. This appears to cover approximately 15% of the orchard area shown at the property in a 1948 aerial photograph. The remaining fruit trees consist of apricots, and prunes, as well as what appears to be nut trees as well. In addition, there are several citrus trees along the front of the house that were not a part of the orchard but planted for use by the Bellicitti family, and appear to consist of orange trees. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 ua1 State of California 7 Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 18 of 28 Remnant of historic orchard located to the south of the 2002 house, near the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch property, facing southwest. Quito Road visible in background. Remnant of historic orchard located near the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch, facing northwest toward the ca. 1870 barn (center -right) and 2002 house (right). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 104 State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 19 of 28 Paved bridle path located along Sobey Road at the southern end of the Bellicitti Ranch property. Detail of a tree tag attached to one of the trees within the historic orchard near the south of the Bellicitti Ranch property. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 100 State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 20 of 28 Previous Documentation Heritage Resource Inventory (updated in 10/17) and Archives & Architects, 2009 In 1991, the Bellicitti Ranch was listed on the City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory (HPC Resolution HP-91-01), and in 2009, as part of a city-wide Historic Resource Inventory completed by Archives and Architects, DPR forms (Appendix B) were completed that identified the building as being eligible for significance, under local criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g) (listed below)': a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga; c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the National style, type and period; e) the property embodies unique physical characteristics that represent an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood'. f) the property represented a significant concentration or continuity, or buildings unified by past development. g) the property embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. The DPR forms states the following regarding the Bellicitti Ranch property's potential eligibility for listing in the CRHR: "Bellicitti Ranch also appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion (3), as the barn and property embody the distinctive characteristics of the National style for agricultural buildings from Saratoga's Early American period."' The integrity, as required as part of the evaluation for significance, states, "Although the house shown on a previous recordation form has apparently been demolished, somewhat affecting the overall setting within the property, the barn retains its historic design, workmanship, materials, along with its original location These 2009 DPR forms identified the Bellicitti Ranch property as locally significant under Saratoga's local eligibility criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g); however, the section that follows lists (b) and not (g) as applicable criteria. This appears to be an error, as the site -specific information presented in the DPR forms did not reveal any important persons significant in local history. Therefore, it can be surmised that 2009 DPR forms identified the property as significant under local criteria (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g), and identification with (b) was an error. 2 Although it is inferred that the "The Village" is a smaller portion of the current City of Saratoga and referenced often in the context by Archives and Architecture, it is not defined in regard to development or the boundaries. 3 Archives & Architecture, LLC, 'Bellicitti Ranch" [DPR forms], Heritage Resources Inventory, Prepared for the City of Saratoga, 2009. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 Ibb State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 21 of 28 and large agricultural setting, and the historical associations and feelings of the property are generally maintained.114 EDS Comments Although the 2009 DPR forms lack the sufficient details and evaluation necessary to determine eligibility for the CRHR, the Bellicitti Ranch is nevertheless locally listed, and is therefore considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. CRHR EVALUATION The following section evaluates the Project Area as a whole for eligibility for listing in the CRHR under four applicable CRHR criteria, utilizing significant themes that were found to be potentially associated with the Project Area. The Project Area was evaluated for site -specific historical significance, as well as under the following themes and associated periods of significance: historic agriculture, encompassing two periods: early agriculture in Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1850 — ca. 1880 and orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1880— ca. 1965. The following section also evaluates the ca. 1870 barn for individual eligibility for listing in the CRHR, under the following themes and associated periods of significance: historic agriculture, encompassing two periods: early agriculture in Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1850 — ca. 1880 and orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1880 — ca. 1965; and, Vernacular barn architecture in Santa Clara County, with a period of significance of ca. 1850-1945. 1. (Event): Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, are both associated with agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley that includes early agriculture and farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1850 to ca. 1880, and fruit orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1880 to ca. 1965. Based on research findings, it appears the Project Area was part of a larger swine and grain farm owned by W. D. Rucker as early as ca. 1870. During this time, grain was one of the dominant agricultural crops in the area, and both the ca. 1870 barn and the Project Area as a whole appear to represent this significant period of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance corresponding with the ca. 1870 construction of the earliest extant agricultural building on the property until ca. 1880, the end of the theme's period of significance. The second agricultural era associated with the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn is orchard farming, which began during the late nineteenth century. Fruit orchards began to dominate the agricultural land throughout the Santa Clara Valley around ca. 1880, 4 Ibid. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 ua State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 22 of 28 with a peak in production in the 1920s, a decline at the end of World War II, and a rapid transition from agricultural to residential land use from 1950 to ca. 1965. Orchard farming at the Project Area likely began several decades prior to the Bellicitti's ca. 1945 purchase and subsequent operations at the property, and was continued by Angelo and Harry Bellicitti through the middle of the twentieth century. As such, both the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, are associated with significant agricultural events in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance that corresponds with the theme: ca. 1870 — ca. 1965. Both the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn appear to be significant under CRHR criterion 1 for association with the significant agricultural periods in the Santa Clara Valley, with a period of significance of ca. 1870 — ca. 1965. However, the Project Area as a whole lacks sufficient integrity to this respective period of significance needed to appropriately convey this area of significance to warrant eligibility for listing in the CRHR, as explained in the integrity section below. 2. (Person): Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Despite extensive research, it does not appear that the Project Area as a whole, nor the ca. 1870 barn, are associated with the lives of individuals or families that are important to local, California, or national history to warrant eligibility under the CRHR. There is no information was found to show that W. D. Rucker, L. Walker, or Mrs. M. R. Stanfield made important, identifiable contributions to local, State, or National history in a way that is directly associated with the Project Area. While the Bellicitti Family appear to be significant in local Saratoga and Santa Clara Valley History, the Bellicitti Ranch does not appropriately embody or signify any substantial identifiable contributions that the Bellicittis have made to local history.' Therefore, neither the Project Area as a whole nor the ca. 1870 barn appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2. 3. (Construction/Architecture): Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values. The ca. 1870 barn is a good example of a Vernacular barn related to agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that displays a central gable that projects above two side shed -roof wings. The barn follows the general form of other barns 5 The Bellicittis' Allendale Road may be more closely associated with the agricultural operations and broader lives of the family. However, due to extensive alterations over time to that nearby property, it is likely that the Allendale Road property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey significance associated with the Bellicittis' contributions to local history. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 1bb State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 23 of 28 that were constructed during the era, and displays the Vernacular, characteristic central front - facing gable flanked on either side by shed -roof bays. While the design and form have been slightly modified over time to accommodate changes in use from grain farming to orchard farming, the ca. 1870 barn nevertheless follows the general form and design of barns within Santa Clara County during this period. As such, the ca. 1870 barn appears to be a representative example of Vernacular architecture and form related to agriculture, which has specific design and form characteristics that represent a regional variation identified with the Santa Clara Valley. Despite some integrity loss, as explained in the integrity section below, the ca. 1870 barn appears to convey a significant Vernacular architectural theme related to barn design and form in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Santa Clara County, with a period of significance of ca. 1870. Therefore, the Project Area as a whole does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3, however, the ca. 1870 barn appears eligible for individual listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3. 4. (Information potential): Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Criterion 4 most commonly applies to resources that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archaeological research question. While most often applied to archaeological sites, Criterion 4 can also apply to buildings that contain important information. For a building to be eligible under Criterion 4, it must be a principal source of important information, such as exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if a study can yield important information, such as how local availability of materials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development. The Project Area does not have the ability to convey information potential that is unique or unknown in regard to an architectural style, as the Vernacular aspects of the extant historic built environment —the ca. 1870 barn —does not appear to be unique to this building. In addition, the Project Area was not evaluated for archaeology, and so it cannot be determined if the Property contains associated archaeological deposits that will yield, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. INTEGRITY The following section provides details that specifically address integrity of the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn. Both the Project Area as a whole, and the ca. 1870 barn, were found to be significant under CRHR criterion 1 for representing two periods of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley: early agriculture (ca. 1850 — ca. 1880), and orchard farming (ca. 1880 — ca. 1965). As these two DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 I0V State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 24 of 28 agricultural eras make up a single continuum, both the Project Area as a whole and the ca. 1870 barn are assessed for integrity related to this comprehensive ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance. The ca. 1870 barn was also found to be significant under CRHR criterion 3, as a representative example of Vernacular barn architecture and form that prevailed in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1850— 1945, with a period of significance associated with the ca. 1870 date of construction. As such, the integrity of the ca. 1870 barn is also assessed for ability to convey architectural significance under this theme. • Location. None of the extant buildings associated with the Project Area, including the ca. 1870 barn, appear to have been moved. Therefore, the Project Area and ca. 1870 barn retain integrity of location. • Design. Integrity of design is applicable to the Project Area as a whole with regard to spatial arrangement and extant contributing features, as these are the elements that convey the property's "design" as it relates to its various agricultural uses over time. While the orientation of the built environment within the Project Area remains generally intact from both agricultural periods (ca. 1870 — ca. 1880 and ca. 1880 — ca. 1965), several alterations to the property over time have impacted integrity of design, including the following: demolition of the ca. 1870 house; construction of the 2002 house; removal of 10 acres from the property for the construction of the adjacent school; and, the removal of the historic grain fields and majority of orchards. The ca. 1870 barn has undergone several alterations, including a shed addition at the south elevation, a contemporary trellis addition at the north elevation, and the introduction of new openings and infill of existing openings. While much of this work occurred after the barn's ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance related to agriculture, the barn continues to retain its general form and design from this period. Additionally, the ca. 1870 barn overall continues to retain the general form and design from the ca. 1870 period of significance to appropriately represent the architecture of a Vernacular barn in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of design, and the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of design. • Setting. The setting within the Project Area has changed significantly since the two agricultural periods of significance. Most of the grain fields and extensive orchards that historically spanned the property have been removed since ca. 1965, with the exception of a small area of historic orchards. Other impacts to the setting of the Project Area include the demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, and construction of the adjacent 1960s school, which required a further reduction in acreage of the property. The setting in the area surrounding the Project Area has become suburban and semi -rural, with several large residential lots interspersed with some land with historic orchards. Many of the nearby houses were constructed in the 1980s and later. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 25 of 28 Additionally, the late 1960s construction of the adjacent school on the western one-half of the Bellicitti Ranch also contributed to loss of integrity of setting. Therefore, the setting within and surrounding the Project Area, as well as the ca. 1870 barn, has changed dramatically since the two associated agricultural periods of significance. Therefore, neither the Project Area nor the ca. 1870 barn retain integrity of setting. • Materials. With the demolition of the ca. 1870 house and construction of the contemporary 2002 house, the Project Area does not retain integrity of materials to either of its periods of significance. While the ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, including replacement of some historic siding and introduction of contemporary materials with the additions, the building nevertheless continues to display the overall historic materials from its three periods of significance. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of materials, and the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of materials. • Workmanship. The aspect of workmanship is not applicable to the Project Area as a whole. The ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, however, the building continues to exhibit its original wood -frame construction and historic wood siding that convey workmanship from the ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance related to agriculture, and a ca. 1870 period of significance related to architecture. Therefore, workmanship is not applicable to the Project Area; however, the ca. 1870 barn retains integrity of workmanship. • Feeling. With the demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, removal of 10 acres from the property for the construction of the adjacent school, and the removal of grain fields and the majority of historic orchards, the Project Area only retains the feeling of an historic agricultural property from its ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance with the extant ca. 1870 barn and few remaining areas of historic orchards. While the property retains a general sense of a past agricultural use, the loss of these critical components has impacted integrity of feeling of the Project Area as a whole. While the ca. 1870 barn has experienced several alterations overtime, including changes to form with the construction of the south addition and trellis at the north elevation, the building continues to exhibit the feeling of a Vernacular barn constructed in ca. 1870 in the Santa Clara Valley. Additionally, the ca. 1870 barn continues to evoke the feeling of a barn utilized for agriculture through the two associated agricultural periods, spanning ca. 1870— ca. 1965. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 eiii State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: Bellicitti Ranch Page 26 of 28 Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of feeling; however, the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of feeling. • Association. The demolition of the ca. 1870 house, construction of the 2002 house, removal of the grain fields and majority of historic orchards have weakened the Project Area's integrity of association, as it no longer contains these critical elements that were associated with agriculture across both significant eras. Despite being altered over time, the ca. 1870 barn continues to display the general form, materials, and design that conveys its direct association with agricultural operations in the Santa Clara Valley from its comprehensive ca. 1870 — ca. 1965 period of significance, as well as Vernacular barn architecture in Santa Clara County from ca. 1870. Therefore, the Project Area does not retain integrity of association; however, the ca. 1870 barn does retain integrity of association. While the Project Area as a whole was found to be significant under CRHR criterion 1, it is not able to appropriately convey either its association with the early agricultural period in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1870 — ca. 1880, or its association with orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley from ca. 1880 — ca. 1965. The ca. 1870 barn was found to be individually significant under CRHR criterion 1 for association with historic agricultural themes, as well as CRHR criterion 3 as an example of Vernacular barn architecture and form in Santa Clara County from ca. 1870, and continues to retain six of seven aspects of integrity that convey these three themes, and their respective periods of significance. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) Resolution 21-071 Page 172 State of California ❑ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 27 of 28 *Resource Name or# Bellicitti Ranch *Map Name: San Jose West, Calif *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1980 t w. Resource Location Map Bellicitti Ranch 18500 Marshall Lane, Saratoga orchard Santa Clara County, CA ca. 1870 (APN 397-02-111) barn Legend Belliciti Ranch F ca. 1870 Barn Contemporary Buildings shed 1 2002 house Santa Clara County orchard 0 170 340 Feet EVANS DE SHAZO, INC .1R uALUL—Y Ills" -RI, 1RI:1I:R\'11— WIR ffivill,l��' � a I sL!ME ,- rn t OR �l _ �! ,\ Y"1112 A, r` Ja'1i%I riv lt�R�l;• Township 8 South / Range 1 West I Section 22 r 0.5 1 Ivides I DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) * Required information Resolution 21-0 Page 173 Page 28 of 28 *Resource Name or # Bellicitti Ranch *Drawn by: Brian Matuk, M.S. *Date of map: February 1, 2019 DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow. 071 EVANS ARCHAEOLOGY DE SHAZO HISTORIC PRESERVATION A SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES REVIEW OF THE THE PROPOSED CA. 1870 BELICCITTI BARN RELOCATION PROJECT WITHIN THE "HERITAGE ORCHARD" IN SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: John Beliccitti 40plusmxr@sbcgloba1.net SUBMITTED BY: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian stacey@evans-deshazo.com April 5, 2021 (updated May 18, 2021) Resolution 21-071 Page 175 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................3 HERITAGEORCHARD LOCATION..............................................................................................................................3 REGULATORYSETTING.............................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT..........................................................................................................................3 THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.................................................................................................5 HERITAGEORCHARD MASTER PLAN......................................................................................................................................6 HeritageOrchard Preservation Plan.........................................................................................................................7 METHODS................................................................................................................................................................ 7 BRIEFAGRICULTURAL HISTORY................................................................................................................................7 EARLY SANTA CLARA VALLEY AGRICULTURE (CA. 1850 — CA. 1870)...........................................................................................7 SANTA CLARA VALLEY AND SARATOGA FRUIT ORCHARDS (CA. 1870 —CA. 1965).........................................................................9 BRIEF OWNERSHIP HISTORY OF THE HERITAGE ORCHARD..................................................................................... 11 SITEVISIT............................................................................................................................................................... 11 STANDARDSREVIEW............................................................................................................................................. 18 STANDARDS REVIEW ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................. 22 HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN REVIEW AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................22 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Belicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the "Heritage Orchard" in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page ii Resolution 21-071 Page 176 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION INTRODUCTION Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) review of the proposed relocation of the original portion of the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" (ca. 1870 barn) to the "Heritage Orchard" (Project) located at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, Santa Clara County within Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 397-30-053. The City of Saratoga is proposing to relocate the ca. 1870 barn to the Heritage Orchard, which consist of a 13.9-acre portion (Project Area) of the 24.9-acre property at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The Heritage Orchard is owned by the City of Saratoga and includes approximately 13.9-acres of prune, plum, apricot, and cherry trees. The Heritage Orchard was designated as a City park in 1984 in recognition of the City's agricultural heritage; and in 1988 it was locally -listed as a Heritage Landmark by the City, and in 2000 it was nominated as a California Point of Historical Interest by the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission but was not formally listed. Currently, the ca. 1870 barn and the Heritage Orchard are considered a Historical Resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2020, the Saratoga City Council also adopted the "Heritage Orchard Master Plan",' which was developed by the Heritage Preservation Commission to guide the City regarding the care and preservation of the Heritage Orchard. The current proposed Project consists of relocating the ca. 1870 barn (original gable portion of the barn, as detailed in the separate HIRE, will be moved) to a location (to be determined) within the Heritage Orchard. The impacts to the ca. 1870 barn within its current location have been mitigated under CEQA; however, the City of Saratoga, in compliance with CEQA has requested a Standards review to access potential impacts to the Heritage Orchard as a result of the relocation Project. The following Standards review was completed utilizing the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation guidelines and various National Park Service (NPS) Historic Preservation Briefs. The Standards review was conducted by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A., who exceeds the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History. The results of the Standards review are presented herein. HERITAGE ORCHARD LOCATION The Heritage Orchard includes an approximate 13.9-acre portion of the 24.9-acre property at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California (APN 397-30-053). The 13.9-acre Project Area is bounded by Saratoga Avenue on the north, Fruitvale Avenue on the east, Wildcat Creek on the south, and the Sacred Heart Catholic Church and School on the west. REGULATORY SETTING The Project is subject to compliance with CEQA, the Standards, and the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluating properties, and the preparation of Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 3 Resolution 21-071 Jk Page 177 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC J'�ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Pursuant to California State law, the City of Healdsburg is legally responsible and accountable for determining the environmental impact of any land use proposal it approves. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1). There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State OHP. These are: • Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A "building" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. • Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter. Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels. • Object: Construction primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers. • Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs. • Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally. According to the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are: (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 4 Resolution 21-071 Page 178 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC J�'ARCIIAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The Standards (codified as 36 CFR 67) defines "Rehabilitation" as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values." The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy, and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 5 Resolution 21-071 Page179 EVANS V DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Zo. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN The Hertiage Orchard Master Plan was developed in part by the City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Committee (HPC) and as adopted by the City in August 2001 and updated October 2020. The HPC Committee works in conjunction with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and City agencies and departments to provide oversite and guidance to the City of Saratoga regartding the preservation and protection of the Heritage Orchard. The Heritage Orchard Master Plan is a working document that provides the community of Saratoga a guideline for operations, maintenance, and development of the Heritage Orchard, while "minimizing disruption and safeguarding the existing unique character and health of the orchard". The vision statement of the Heritage Orchard Master Plan is the following, "The vision for the Heritage Orchard is to preserve, in perpetuity, the rich agricultural history of Saratoga for the education, involvement and enjoyment of the community'z and "vision statement builds upon the achievements of the previous Master Plan for preservingthis scenic symbol of Saratoga's agricultural history, as well as continuing to involve the residents of Saratoga in the unique life of a working orchard."' Z City of Saratoga, "Heritage Orchard Master Plan", August 2001 (updated October 2020). 3 Ibid. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 180 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *"'ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Heritage Orchard Preservation Plan The Heritage Orchard Master Plan Includes a section, the "Orchard Preservation Plan", which specifically addresse the preservation of the. The following section is taken directly from this section, "A primary objective of the management of the Heritage Orchard is the preservation of the orchard in perpetuity. The HPC has also determined that the highest level of protection to preserve the Heritage Orchard in perpetuity requires an amendment to the original City Council resolution that includes a legal land survey showing the boundaries of the orchard. The original City Council Resolution No. 00-049, adopted by the Council on October 4, 2000, noted that the orchard "should be maintained in perpetuity for the enjoyment of generations to come." However, the resolution did not specifically reference the necessary land boundaries, an official survey, acreage, or elements of the orchard. In order to further ensure the protection of the orchard and provide important addenda to theMaster Plan, it is recommended that the City of Saratoga commission updated boundary, topographic and intensive level historic surveys of the Heritage Orchard. It is advised and imperative that the City Council issue an amendment to Resolution No. 00-049 that references the updated land surveys. The reference would ensure that none of the documented, surveyed orchard site would be vulnerable to sale or boundary limitation by future City Councils or adverse consequences due to actions by others. With the goal of protection in perpetuity in mind, it is strongly advised that an attorney review the options and documents, affording the strongest legal wording for the amended resolution." METHODS The methods used to complete the Standards review included historical research related to orchard history, the history of the Project Area, a site visit to photograph the Heritage Orchard and surrounding area, which is needed to complete the Standards review analysis. EDS utilized the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation guidelines and various National Park Service (NPS) Historic Preservation Briefs to assess potential impacts to the Heritage Orchard as a result of the proposed Project and to provide guidance to the City ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)(1)) to the Heritage Orchard, which is considered a historical resource under CEQA. EDS also reviewed the guidelines and requirements outlined City of Saratoga's Heritage Orchard Master Plan related to the history and current condition of the orchard. BRIEF AGRICULTURAL HISTORY The following context provides a brief overview of the agricultural development of Santa Clara Valley and City of Saratoga. EARLY SANTA CLARA VALLEY AGRICULTURE (CA. 1850 — CA. 1870) Beginning as early as the 1850s, Santa Clara Valley was one of California's foremost agricultural regions. By Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 7 Resolution 21-071 Jk Page 181 EVANS V DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION the late 1860s, the Santa Clara Valley was mostly developed with grain crops, with wheat production accounting for 30% of California's total wheat crop in 1854.4 Throughout the 1870s, the fertile valley remained a wheat and grain capital, as well as a place where the growing wine industry thrived, as many vineyards were planted in the lush soil; and the viticultural industry continues to be a part of the Valley's agricultural base today. However, wheat and grain crops soon proved unable to withstand droughts in the Santa Clara Valley, and by the late 1870s and early 1880s, fruit orchards began replacing the grain crops throughout Santa Clara Valley, marking the beginning of the significant period of orchard farming in this region. By the late nineteenth century, wheat and barley were almost totally abandoned, and orchard crops, such as apricots, plums, prunes, and cherries, became the dominant agricultural crop. Accompanying this rise in orchard development was a need for fruit processing plants, and several canneries and fruit processing facilities soon developed in the Santa Clara Valley. This was supported by the construction of the Southern Pacific and South Pacific Coast railroads, and rail spurs were constructed at canneries and fruit processing plants to allow for easy loading and transportation of fruite products to cities and states throughout the United States (U.S.) as well as ports that also shipped canned fruit overseas. Many Italian immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries found their way to California in search of opportunity in the rich agricultural areas and booming cities. Italian immigrants in Saratoga and the larger Santa Clara Valley came from all regions of Italy, bringing different cultures that varied by region or village.' Historian Frederick W. Marrazzo asserts that Italians were drawn to the Santa Clara Valley in the late nineteenth century because "it reminded them of their villages in Italy" in topography and climate.6 The large availability of land allowed these immigrants to buy property at a fair cost and begin tending it for agriculture —an opportunity that was not possible in Italy.' Participating in the prevailing agricultural practices of the area, Italian -owned farms often focused on fruit production, such as apricot, cherry, pear, and prunes, as well as wine grapes (Figure 1).8 a Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, Prepared for the City of Saratoga, 2009, 22. ' Frederick W. Marrazzo, Italians in the Santa Clara Valley (Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2007) 8. 61bid, 8. ' Ibid, 28. 8 [bid, 27, 29, 31. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 8 Resolution 21-071 Page 182 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC #/')ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 1. ca. 1910 postcard of a prune orchard in the City of Saratoga (courtesy of the City of Saratoga). SANTA CLARA VALLEY AND SARATOGA FRUIT ORCHARDS (CA. 1870 — CA. 1965) By the turn of the twentieth century, the fertile land of Santa Clara Valley continued to develop. During this time, agriculture was focused on on fruit and walnut orchards that began dominating the landscape in ca. 1870 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). During this time, the Southern Pacific and South Pacific Coast railroad lines built throughout the area facilitated the transport of fruit in various levels of production, from the orchards to the canneries to the consumer. Through the early twentieth century, fruit and nut orchards dominated the landscape around Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley, with peak fruit production occurring in the 1920s. Increasing land prices and various costs of agriculture put pressure on large landowners to sell their agricultural land for development, and as a result, many orchards around Saratoga were subdivided to allow smaller farmers to cultivate small plots of land - as little as three acres - to serve as "highly specialized 'fruit ranches"' that only produced one type of fruit.9 During this time, fruit production, fruit canneries and fruit packing companies were abundant in the area around the Santa Clara Valley, which included 18 canneries, 13 dried - fruit packing houses, and 12 fresh -fruit and vegetable shipping firms that operated during the 1920s and 1930s. Beginning after the end of World War II (WWII), agricultural land in the Santa Clara Valley and the town of Saratoga gradually gave way to suburban housing, with residential developments in and around Saratoga expanding outward. The end of WW II in 1945 also ended the heyday of orchard farming in the Santa Clara Valley, as orchards were rapidly removed to accommodate new suburban housing. Farmers around Saratoga lobbied annexation of their land by the City of Saratoga to protect their orchards from encroaching suburban 9 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, City of Saratoga, 2009, 26. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 9 Resolution 21-071 Page 183 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ) ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION development of San Jose. However, this residential development eventually took hold, with the period between 1950 and 1969 signaling an acceleration in the replacement of orchard -covered land with residential subdivisions in the Santa Clara Valley.10 By the early 1970s, the suburban development eventually took hold, and there were very few parcels with orchards still in cultivation around Saratoga and the larger Santa Clara Valley. In 1972, the City of Saratoga "bought 11.3 acres of orchard land, which included a portion of the current Heritage Orchard, where the City intended to build a new library".11 In 1973, the City purchased an adjacent 4.2-acres of orchard land, and in 1977, an additional 2.6 acres were purchased." Figure 2. ca. 1900 photograph of fruit orchards in bloom located near present-day Saratoga (California State Library Digital Collections). 10 Archives & Architecture, LLC, Heritage Resources Inventory, City of Saratoga, 2009, 47. 11 Ibid. 12 After 1977 it is not known when the additional acreage was added to the Property. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 10 Resolution 21-071 Page184 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *`�"ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION AZUMlfw,* Fnne Hill& Ssnia C"ia" Srsll- r. 1 Figure 3: ca. 1909 postcard of the Saratoga foothills showing the fruit orchards and agricultural fields (courtesy of the San Jose Public Library, California Room). BRIEF OWNERSHIP HISTORY OF THE HERITAGE ORCHARD The following ownership history was taken in part from the Heritage Orchard Master Plan The Heritage Orchard was originally part of a 13,310-acre Mexican land grant known as "Quito Rancho" given to Jose Zenon Fernandez and Jose Noriega by Governor Juan Alvarado in 1841.13 The land grant included present-day Saratoga, Campbell and Cupertino. By the 1880s, the land that consists of the Heritage Orchard was owned by the Marion family. By the 1920s, the property was owned by F.C. Cox, who farmed apricots and prunes within the land, including within the Heritage Orchard, for 30 years. By the 1950s, the land was owned by William Milton Seagrave who was related to F.C. Cox as possibly his uncle or grandfather. William was married to Josephine Mary "Margaret" Mevio; William died in 1968. Between 1972 and 1977, the land that includes the Heritage Orchard was purchased by the City of Saratoga. In 1984, the Heritage Orchard was designated as a City park in recognition of the City's agricultural heritage. SITE VISIT On March 6, 2021, EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., completed a site visit of the Hertiage Orchard. During the site visit, Ms. De Shazo photographed the Heritage Orchard and its immediate environment. The following section includes brief details of the site visit, including photographs and features of the orchard. 13 Ogden Hoffman, 1862, Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Numa Hubert, San Francisco. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 11 Resolution 21-071 Page 185 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC 'V')�ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION The Heritage Orchard is situated within a corner property, bounded on the east by Fruitvale Avenue and on the northwest by Saratoga Avenue (Figure 4). The Heritage Orchard includes 30 to 40 rows of fruit trees, including prune, plum, apricot, and cherry. The orchard is laid out in a square or rectangular grid pattern, and each fruit type appears to be planted in different sections of the orchard. Adjacent to the orchard is the Saratoga Library (constructed in 2003) and associated parking lot (construction date unknown). Figure 4. Aerial photograph showing the Heritage Orchard, the Saratoga Library and parking lot (blue arrows), the potential locations of the ca. 1870 barn (green circle; orange circle; and blue circle), and the immediate surrounding environment. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 12 Resolution 21-071 Page 186 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *'�'ARCHAFOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure S. Photograph of the Heritage Orchard entrance, the Saratoga Library (left) and the parking lot (right). Figure 6. Photograph of fruit trees within the Heritage Orchard, facing southwest. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 13 Resolution 21-071 Page 187 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC #/�)ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 7. Photograph of the fruit trees within the Heritage Orchard, facing southwest. Figure 8. Photograph of fruit trees within the Heritage Orchard, facing south. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 14 Resolution 21-071 N. Page188 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 9. Photograph of the parking lot and fruit trees facing south. Figure 10. Photograph of fruit trees within the Heritage Orchard, facing southwest. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 15 Figure 11. Photograph of fruit trees within the Heritage Orchard, facing southwest. Figure 12. Photograph of a two -track dirt road between the rows of fruit trees, facing southeast. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 16 Resolution 21-071 AN Page 190 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 13. Photograph of the two -track dirt road between the rows of fruit trees, facing southeast. Figure 14. Photograph of the two -track dirt road that leads to a small open area that appears to have been unplanted since at least the 1990s, and might currently be utilized for packing and loading fruit during harvest season. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 17 Resolution 21-071 Page 191 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Figure 15. Another photograph of the open, unplanted area within the Heritage Orchard, facing southeast. Figure 16. Photograph of the fruit orchard along the southwest boundary near Wildcat Creek, facing northeast. STANDARDS REVIEW The Standards review was conducted at the request of the City of Saratoga to ensure compliance with CEQA Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 18 Resolution 21-071 Page192 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC 'f')�ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION and the Standards for Rehabilitation to make certain that the Project will not adversely affect the Heritage Orchard. The following analysis was completed utilizing the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. EDS' analysis of the Project's compliance with the Standards is presented below, which focuses on the relocation of the original portion of the ca. 1870 barn within the Heritage Orchard and provides recommendations as to where the ca. 1870 barn should be placed within the orchard. Some of the Standards may not apply to the Project, and are noted as such. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. EDS Response: Currently, the orchard is a working fruit orchard and the proposed Project will not change the current use of the Heritage Orchard as a working orchard. EDS Analysis: The proposed Project complies with Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. EDS Response: The City of Saratoga chose the Heritage Orchard for the relocation of the ca. 1870 barn, which was previously located within a fruit orchard, to preserve the strong reference to the original site known as the "Bellecitti Ranch" where the ca. 1870 barn will be relocated. If the ca. 1870 barn is constructed within the open, unplanted area of the Heritage Orchard, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, or in another area currently void or with sparse fruit trees, there will be no significant alteration to trees and planting grid aka the "material or features" within the Heritage Orchard. Also, the addition of the ca. 1870 barn will not alter any specific spaces within the orchard that need to be avoided. EDS Analysis: The proposed Project complies with Standard 2. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. EDS Analysis: One of the ways to preserve historic buildings, such as the ca. 1870 barn, is relocation to a new and appropriate site. For the relocation of the ca. 1870 barn, careful consideration was taken when choosing the Heritage Orchard site. The relocation of the ca. 1870 barn, though it is not original to the Heritage Orchard, can enhance and extend the use of the resource as a working fruit orchard. However, the introduction of the barn may create a false sense of historical development that must be addressed to ensure an understanding that, although the barn was originally associated with orchard farming in Saratoga, it was not originally located within the Heritage Orchard. EDS Recommendation: To ensure that the introduction of the ca. 1870 barn (Figure 17) to the Heritage Orchard will not create a false sense of historical development, EDS recommends that the building includes visible signage, possibly with several options for displaying multiple signs within the orchard (i.e., on a post, in a permanent fence or stone marker, etc.) and on the building. EDS Analysis: With incorporation of the recommendation above, the proposed Project will comply Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 19 Resolution 21-071 Page193 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION with Standard 3. Figure 17: East elevation of the ca. 1870 barn (original gable portion of the barn, as detailed in the separate HRE, will be moved) with shed additions, which will not be be moved to the Heritage Orchard,14 facing northwest. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. EDS Response: N/A EDS Analysis: Standard 4 does not apply to the proposed Project. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. EDS Response: The proposed Project does not appear to directly affect any finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Heritage Orchard. However, distinctive features may include the square or rectangular grid pattern and tree rows planted within the Heritage Orchard. EDS Recommendations: As previously mentioned, if the ca. 1870 barn is constructed within the unplanted, open area of the Heritage Orchard, as shown in previous Figure 14 and Figure 15 and in Figure 18 below, or in another area that does not currently contain any fruit trees, or where appropriate for the setting, and where there will be no significant alteration to "material or features" 14 If the City of Saratoga would like to add additions or make changes to the ca. 1870 barn in the future after it is moved of the Heritage Orchard site, EDS recommends the preservation plan is updated to incorporate appropriate additions and changes. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 20 Resolution 21-071 Page 194 EVANS DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION within the Heritage Orchard. If fruit trees need to be removed, EDS recommends that the trees are carefully removed and planted in appropriate areas that are currently void of fruit trees, following the guidance of the Heritage Orchard Preservation Plan. EDS Analysis: With incorporation of the recommendation above, the proposed Project will comply with Standard 5. Figure 18. Aerial photograph showing the Heritage Orchard, the Saratoga Library and Parking lot (blue arrows), the potential locations of the ca. 1870 barn (green circle; orange circle, and blue circle), and the immediate surrounding environment. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. EDS Response: N/A EDS Analysis: Standard 6 does not apply to the proposed Project. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. EDS Response: N/A Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 21 Resolution 21-071 Page195 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC *--4'ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION EDS Analysis: Standard 7 does not apply to the proposed Project 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. EDS Response: Unknown EDS Analysis: Standard 8 is unknown. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. EDS Response: N/A EDS Analysis: Standard 9 does not apply to the proposed Project. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. EDS Response: Although the proposed Project does not include any new construction, it does include the relocation of the original portion of the ca. 1870 barn. The ca. 1870 barn can be removed in the future, and therefore the form and integrity of the Heritage Orchard will remain intact. EDS Recommendations: No Recommendations. EDS Analysis: The proposed Project complies with Standard 10. STANDARDS REVIEW ANALYSIS A project that has been determined to conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties can generally be considered to be a project that will not cause a significant impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)(1)). Therefore, if the City of Saratoga implements the recommendations provided in the above section for Standards 3 and 5, the proposed Project will comply with the Standards. In addition, Standard 8 is unknown to EDS at this time; although there may be previous studies and documents available to the City that could assist the City in making this determination. HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN REVIEW AND ANALYSIS EDS Review: The "recommendations for implementation" on page 15 of the Heritage Orchard Master Plan states: "Add an agriculture structure (such as but not limited to, a barn) to educate and engage the community".15 Education is a primary element in successful preservation, and as such, the introduction of the ca. 1870 barn to the Heritage Orchard is not only in compliance with the Master Plan but may encourage the preservation of the Heritage Orchard if the building is utilized for community educational programs. However, is City of Saratoga, "Heritage Orchard Master Plan", August 2001 (updated October 2020). Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 22 Resolution 21-071 Page 196 EVANS & DE SHAZO, INC ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION care should be taken when determining the location of the ca. 1870 barn, as the Master Plan does consider the potential impact to trees if a building is introduced. Finally, the Heritage Master Plan states that "with the addition of an appropriate agricultural structure, programs could be incorporated to promote education and the engagement of the community. Any structure will be placed in such a way as to minimize impact on orchard trees." EDS Analysis: The proposed Project complies with the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. CONCLUSIONS EDS completed a Standards review for the proposed relocation of the original portion of the ca. 1870 barn to the Heritage Orchard, which is located within a 13.9-acre Project Area, which is a portion of the 24.9-acre property at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, Santa Clara County (APN 397-30-053) to determine if the proposed relocation Project will impact any historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code CCR § 15064.5. The Standards review was completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., who exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History. EDS has determined that if the City of Saratoga implements the recommendations within items 3 and 5 of the Standards review section of this report, and understands that Standard 8 is unknown to EDS at this time and should be addressed by the City, then the proposed Project will comply with the Standards and the proposed Project would meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Furthermore, EDS determined that the proposed Project complies with the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Review for the ca. 1870 "Bellicitti Barn" Relocation Project within the Heritage Orchard in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Page 23 Resolution 21-071 Page 197 CORNERSTONE ®. EARTH GROUP Type of Services Fault Investigation Project Name 18500 Marshall Lane Location 18500 Marshall Lane Saratoga, California Client Hayden Land Company LLC Client Address 15732 Los Gatos Boulevard, #101 Los Gatos, California 95032 Project Number 851-4-1 Date May 1, 2019 Prepared by Craig S. Harwood, P.G., C.E.G Senior Project Geologist Danh Tran, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Quality Assurance Reviewer 1259 Oakrnead Parkway I Sunnyvale, CA 94085 "r <O8 245 4600 I F'408 245 4620 www.cornerstoneea rth.corn RECEIVE® JUN 2 6 20111 CffyOFSARATOGA r,\NEER/NG CRAIG S. O v HARWOOD Cn • No.2275 • 1220 Oaklaro Bouievard. Suite 220 1 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 7 925 988 950C I F 925 988 9501 0 Resolution 21-071 Page 198 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1.2 Scope of Services--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 SECTION 2: GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Regional Geoloigc Setting---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 2.2 Local Geoloigc Setting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 SECTION3: FAULTING.............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 The Range -Front Fault System --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 3.2 Fait Regulatory Zonation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 3.3 Published Fault-Themed Mapping----------------------------------------------------------------------6 SECTION 4: SITE-SPECIFC FAULT INVESTIGATION............................................................... 7 4.1 Aerial Photo Review-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 4.2 Site Reconnaissance----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 4.3 Field Fault Trenching Investigation --------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 4.4 Inferences from the Investigation-----------------------------------------------------------------------8 SECTION5: CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................10 SECTION 6: LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................10 SECTION7: REFERENCES.......................................................................................................12 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: SITE GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3: REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIGURE 4: VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 5: CITY'S GMP REGULATORY MAP FIGURE 6: FAULTS/FOLDS/LINEAMENTS (HITCHCOCK & KELSON) FIGURE 7: 1965 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE FIGURE 8: GEOMORPHIC SURFACES (HITCHCOCK & KELSON) FIGURE 9: LOG OF TRENCH T-1 FIGURE 10: LOG OF TRENCH T-2 FIGURE 11: LOG OF TRENCH T-3 1259 Oakrnead Parkway I Sw-r walo CA 9,1085 T 408 2d5 4600 I F ,108 2 •to 20 w,.v.v cornervcreearth -,on- '270 Sorin9brook Road Suite 101 I w3 rl t Creek. C)% 9:1597 T 925 988 9500 I F 925 988 9501 Resolution 21-071 Page199 CORNERSTONE ma's EARTH GROUP Type of Services Project Name Location SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Fault Investigation Fault Investigation at 18500 Marshall Lane 18500 Marshall Lane Saratoga, California This fault investigation was prepared for the sole use of Hayden Land Company, LLC for the property located at 18500 Marshall Lane in Saratoga, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to investigate the site with respect to surface traces and evaluate the hazard of fault surface rupture occurring at the site. Certain published maps show a trace or traces of the Shannon Fault crossing the site and/or adjacent to the site. The city of Saratoga Ground Movement Potential Map shows a "Pf' zone trending through the southwest corner of the site due to the mapping of the Shannon fault by Cotton, Shires and Associates (2013). The conclusions on the hazard of fault surface rupture hazards contained in this report are for your forward planning, cost estimating, and preliminary project design. No maps were available at the time of our field investigation however a site topographic map with preliminary lot layout was made available during the preparation of our report. We were provided with the following documents: Site Plan, 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane, March, 2019, prepared by CBG Civil Engineers. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 18500 Marshall Lane in Saratoga, California and is bordered by Marshall Lane on the north, by Quito Road on the east, by Sobey Lane on the south, and by an existing school site (Marshall Lane Elementary School) on the west (see Figure 1). The site contains an existing residence and barn structure as well as small storage structures within the east -central portion of the site. The remainder of the site is as open fields with Oak tress scattered in clusters. The proposed development will consist of nine residential lots, an interior access drive, and detention basin within the northeast property corner. The proposed single family residences will be of wood frame construction The property is on a very gently inclined northerly sloping alluvial surface with approximately 12 to 15 feet of relief from the southwest property corner to the north property line. One exception occurs in the southeast property corner where a southeasterly downslope faces southeast and transitions of a nearly level area at the southeast property line. There is approximately 20 feet of topographic relief across this portion of the property. 1259 Oakmead Farkwav I Surryvale CA 9,1085 T ,108 2d5 4600 I F JO8 2<.5 =1620 ww ".cornerstcreear;hr_orr '270 Sonngbrook Road. Suite 101 1 W3 rut Creek. CP. 911597 7 925 988 9500 I F 925 988 9501 Resolution 21-071 Page 200 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP The far southeast corner of the property is located within a City Fault Hazard Zone (Zone "Pf"). To our knowledge the site has not been previously investigated by any geologic consultants and the city did not have any geologic investigations available for adjacent parcels bordering and/or near the subject site. Our fault investigation is part of a due diligence process in a real estate transaction which is well in advance of a development application. Accordingly, the city's geologic consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) was not involved in our fault investigation. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services included; reviewing published geologic maps and stereo aerial photos covering the general area of the site, performing a reconnaissance and mapping of the site, and conducting a subsurface investigation consisting of three fault trenches. The results of the study are summarized in this report, along with supporting graphic figures depicting the various pertinent publications and exploratory excavations. 1.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAM The exploration for our fault investigation consisted of excavating, examining and documenting (graphically logging) three trenches excavated with a track -mounted excavator. Upon the completion of the logging process, the trenches were backfilled by pushing the spoils back into the trench excavations, and track -walking the surface of the trench backfill at the ground surface. Depending upon the final development scope and layout, some of these trenches may need to be re -excavated to their original depths, and re -compacted during mass grading operations. The field exploration is described in detail in Section 4, and the graphic logs of the trench logs are included in the Appendix. Trench locations along with mapping of site -specific geologic features are presented in Figure 2. SECTION 2: GEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting The site is located within an area where the south bay -area alluvial plain abuts the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The San Francisco bay area is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that stretches from the Oregon border nearly to Point Conception. In the San Francisco Bay area, most of the Coast Ranges has developed on a basement of tectonically mixed Cretaceous- and Jurassic -age (70- to 200-million years old) rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Younger sedimentary and volcanic units locally cap these basement rocks. Still younger surficial deposits that reflect geologic conditions of the last million years or so cover most of the Coast Ranges. Movement on the many splays of the San Andreas Fault system has produced the dominant northwest -oriented structural and topographic trend seen throughout the Coast Ranges today. This trend reflects the boundary between two of the Earth's major tectonic plates: the North American plate to the east and the Pacific plate to the west. The San Andreas Fault system and its associated major branching faults is about 40 miles wide in the Bay area and extends from the San Gregorio Fault near the coastline to the Coast Ranges -Central Valley blind thrust at the 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 3 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 201 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP western edge of the Great Central Valley as shown on the Regional Fault Map, Figure 3. The San Andreas Fault is the dominant structure in the system, nearly spanning the length of California, and capable of producing the highest magnitude earthquakes. Many other subparallel or branch faults within the San Andreas system are equally active and nearly as capable of generating large earthquakes. Right -lateral movement dominates on these faults but an increasingly large amount of thrust faulting resulting from compression across the system is now being identified also. 2.2 Local Geologic Setting The site is in an area adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains where alluvial fan deposits have shed sediments from the adjacent mountain range and formed alluvial fans which extend toward the bay to the northeast (Wentworth et al., 1999; Brabb and Others, 2000; California Geological Survey, 2002). The subtly undulating hillsides along the northeast edge of the foothills are underlain by folded. and faulted older geologic formations. Pleistocene fans predominate against the range front and Holocene alluvial fans are more common nearer to the bay. These fans have been incised by various northeast trending creeks and drainages. Northeasterly trending streams and creeks incise the older formations and alluvial fans and locally form terraces (Refer to Figure 4, Vicinity Geologic Map). The immediate area of the site is mapped as underlain by Late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Qpaf) (Helley, 1990; Helley et al., 1994; Wesling and Helley, 1989; California Geological Survey, 2002). Based on the relative distribution of geologic formations in the immediate area, it is assumed that the Qpaf geologic unit in the immediate area is underlain at depth by the Santa Clara Formation and in turn, by Tertiary age sedimentary units at greater depths. Holocene stream terrace deposits ("Qht") overlie the Qpaf unit within a topographically low area in the southeast corner of the site. Further detail regarding the Qht unit is as follows: "Stream terrace deposits judged to be latest Holocene (<1,000 years) in age based on records of historical inundation, the identification of youthful meander scars and braid bars on aerial photographs or orthophotoquadrangles, and/or geomorphic position (elevation) very close to the stream channel. Stream terraces are deposited as point bar and overbank deposits by major streams. Stream terrace sediment includes sand, gravel, silt, and minor clay, is moderately to well sorted, and is moderately to well bedded (CGS, 2002; Knudsen and others, 2000). The Qpaf unit is described by Wesling and Helley (1989) as Pleistocene Alluvial Fan Deposits: "Brown, dense, gravelly and clayey sand or clayey gravel that fines upward to a sandy clay. Qpaf deposits are restricted to the southern part of the quadrangle, extending only a few kilometers from the southern border. Alluvial fan surfaces typically have slopes (toward the basin) of about 0.0075 to 0.010 (7.5 to 10 m/km) but may be as high as 0.015 (15 m/km)." The CGS (2002), based on a compilation of 259 geotechnical tests taken within the San Jose West Quadrangle, describes this unit as Late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits: 27% lean clay, 27% sand, 21% gravel and 25% other soil constituents. Knudsen and Others, (2000) described the SECTION 3: FAULTING The mapping of faults depicted on published geologic maps is based largely on the method of projection using remote sensing techniques (aerial photos, Lidar InSAR imagery) and 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 4 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 202 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP generalized structural and stratigraphic relationships collected at relatively sparse data points. Rarely are site -specific studies incorporated into these large scale publications. 3.1 The Range -Front Fault System The property is located near the southwestern margin of the Santa Clara Valley, an elongate northwest -trending extension of the San Francisco Bay structural trough that is bounded on the east by the Diablo Range and on the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains. The uplift of the Santa Cruz Mountains over the past 2 to 3 million years has been partially accomplished by movement along a belt of range -front thrust faults, including the Monte Vista - Shannon fault system. In general, these faults dip southwestward and presumably merge with, or terminate at, the San Andreas fault at depth. Though not as active or capable of producing as large magnitude earthquakes as the San Andreas, some of the thrust faults have offset Pleistocene or younger geologic units and have uplift rates generally less than 1 mm/year (Kennedy and Hitchcock, 2004). 3.2 Regulatory Fault Zonation Due to the geologic mapping within the city limits by Cotton, Shires and Associates, a surface trace of the Shannon Fault extends through the neighborhood just beyond the southwest property corner. Accordingly, the city's fault regulatory zone ("Pf' zone) clips the very southwest corner of the site (the City of Saratoga's Ground Movement Potential Map is included as Figure 5). Santa Clara County provides a conservative regulatory zone extending along the Monte Vista -Shannon Fault which includes the entire site and areas extending a few hundred feet beyond the site in a northwesterly trend (Santa Clara County, 2002). This regulatory zonation as delineated in boundaries on maps is based on arbitrary boundaries established along projected fault surface traces lines. The Shannon Fault does not meet current criteria for fault hazard zonation according to the State of California Fault (i.e., an earthquake Fault Zone). These regulatory maps are used as triggering mechanisms for triggering the need for site -specific fault evaluations. 3.3 Published Fault-Themed Mapping Published maps showing the Monte -Vista -Shannon fault system trending through the immediate area include those of: Rogers and Williams 1974; Hitchcock and Kelson 1994; CDMG, 1998; Wentworth et al., 1999; Santa Clara County Planning Department, 2002; Dibblee and Minch, 2007; Catchings et al., 2007. It is common for compilers of published maps to adopt earlier published mapping without field verification, thus leading to the impression that the locations of faults have become more certain over time. This should be understood when conducting fault surface rupture hazards assessments. The most pertinent maps regarding faulting in the area of the site are those of Hitchcock and Kelson (1994), Catchings et al., (2007), and Cotton, Shires and Associates (2013). The publication of Hitchcock and Kelson compiled (as of 1994) previous mapped faults and aligned these faults with zones or areas where concentrations of aerial photo lineaments have been observed. Hitchcock and Kelson (1994) show a northwesterly trending fault in the immediate 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 5 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 203 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP area. This surface trace trends northwesterly through the rolling hills just south of the site with a trend of N550W (see Figure 6). The USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database have designated this fault that meanders along the range front as the Monte Vista -Shannon fault whereas the city's geologic consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) has identified it as the Shannon Fault. The mapping of Hitchcock and Kelson shows a series of aerial photo lineaments (discontinuous linear tonal contrasts) seen on black and white aerial photos. They treated these features as potential faults. It should be noted that tonal features seen in aerial photos are sometimes related to faulting, and sometimes have other origins, (i.e. buried natural or manmade drainage ditches, pioneering agricultural patterns, legacy grading patterns or fence lines, or obscured development patterns). One of these mapped features (tonal contrast) trends into the western portion of the site (see Figure 7). We considered this interpretation during our field investigation and conducted an exploratory trench (Trench T-3) on the projection of this particular feature. Another tonal lineament projects just south of the southwest property line. That generally coincides with the mapped Shannon fault shown on the various mentioned published maps. SECTION 4: SITE -SPECIFIC FAULT INVESTIGATION 4.1 AERIAL PHOTO REVIEW As part of our investigation, we reviewed a series of historical aerial photographs covering the area of the site. Those years included: 1948, 1960, 1965 and 1981. The earlier photos covering the period prior to widespread development in the area (1948 and 1965) were insightful. Those photos show the site as an extensive orchard but with a residence and a barn located in the east -central portion of the property. The remainder of the property existed as open, undeveloped land. Vague tonal lineaments occur just west of the property and on one of these trends slightly into the western portion of the site where Hitchcock and Kelson have mapped them (See Figure 6, and 7). A tonal contrast that is located just southwest of the site aligns with a secondary tonal contrast located further south. We infer these contrasts are associated with the mapped trace of the Shannon Fault as generally plotted by on the City's GMP Map (Figure 5). !!y'31<ir:�XtZ7 XITITF�L A reconnaissance of the site and immediate vicinity was performed by our Certified Engineering Geologist on March 12, 2019 for the purpose of observing and recording data and field relations onto a base map (Site Geologic Map, Figure 2). The focus of this reconnaissance was the area immediately surrounding the site, however we also reconnoitered the channel and adjacent streamside terraces along San Thomas Aquanis Creek both to the northeast and the southeast of the site. Based on our observations and review of historical aerial photos it is apparent that the site has been in agricultural mode (orchard trees) extending back to at least the early part on the century, and most probably prior to that. The current property owners have owned the land since at least the early part of the century and indicated that the fields have been extensively tilled and disced. There is no evidence of previous grading or placement of fills at the site 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 6 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 204 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP 4.3 FIELD FAULT TRENCHING INVESTIGATION In terms of methodology, the primary objective of our logging of trench exposures was to establish the stratigraphic section and maintain lateral control of the stratigraphic and structural details throughout the trench exposures. Overlapping relationships between stratigraphic subunits and details within the overlying and underlying beds were noted wherever certain beds pinched out of the section laterally, or where channelized cut -an -fill structures were observed. Three trenches were excavated with an excavator and cleaned, logged and inspected by Cornerstone's Certified Engineering Geologist. The trenches were excavated to depths ranging from 6.5 to 12.5 feet with 8 feet being the typical depth. Some portions of the trenches were supported with hydraulic "Safety Shores" however other portions were provided with terraced sidewalls due to the fact that caving was encountered in portions of the trenches where clean gravels were more common. We focused our logging on the southeasterly trench wall for Trench T-1 and T-3 but logged the southwesterly wall. We followed certain features across to the opposing trench wall where they were exposed further by cleaning of soil smear. In general, the exploratory trenches encountered residual soils, old alluvial fan deposits (Qpaf) and stream terrace fluvial deposits (Qht). The residual soil has formed insitu in response to climatic weathering processes. We have identified this deposit as an "A horizon" soil which, in terms of pedochronological classification is a deposit that generally oxidized and leaches clay and silt into the subsoils ("B-horizon") over time. Trench T-1 was located with the intention of potentially encountering evidence of faulting as the majority of published maps (and the city's GMP map) show a trace of the Shannon Fault trending through the neighborhood just southwest of the southwest property corner. The trench exposed an undisturbed section of old alluvium capped by a Pleistocene soil. The Pleistocene age determination was due to observations of the relative degree of weathering, soil coloration and the relative proliferation of translocated clays in the subsoil horizon. The overall pattern of stratigraphic sequence displayed the following sedimentary structures; bottom.set beds, gravelly point bar and poorly developed channel features all typical of a meandering stream depositional environment. The exposed sedimentary sequence result from two to three distinct flood events defined by fining upward sequences of gravelly material and basal reactivation depositional surfaces. A line of large flattened clasts forms a continuous horizon at a depth of approximately 3.5 feet. These clasts contain silica coatings on the base of the clasts. Silica tends to precipitate at the wetting front, the maximum depth to which rainfall percolates during the average year. This weathering phenomenon requires thousands of years to develope, and lends to the established interpretation that these alluvial fan deposits are Pleistocene in age. Trench 2 was located within the southeastern corner of the site partially with the idea of clearing an area of faulting at the southwest edge of the likely building site area on that terrace. The terrace within the southeastern portion of the site transitions into a lower (Holocene) stream terrace (geologic mapping unit "Qht"). This trench varied from 9.5 to 12.5 feet in depth and extended for a lineal distance of 75 feet. The trench exposed an undisturbed section of old alluvial fan deposits (Qpaf) capped by Pleistocene soils and, further to the southeast, 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 7 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 205 000RNERSTONE EARTH GROUP transitioned into a section consisting of terrace deposits (Qht) overlying the older Qpaf unit. The terrace deposits were capped by Holocene soils (determined through the same criteria as the Pleistocene soils were). The old alluvium consisted of a sedimentary sequence consists of two to three distinct flood events defined by fining upward sequences of gravelly material and laterally prograding gravel bars, localized channeling, and discontinuous (laterally scoured) overbank deposits. The overall pattern of stratigraphic sequence displayed features all typical of a meandering stream depositional environment. The trench transitioned into younger (Holocene) terrace deposits at a point where the westerly edge of the stream terrace exists. A thick colluvial wedge southeast of Station 45 (45 feet south of the north end of the trench) displays this relationship of the old terrace edge backfilling over the terrace surface as the stream meandered toward the east. The underlying Old alluvium is undisturbed below this colluvial wedge. Trench T-3 was located near the western property line with the intention of intersecting the area of the aerial photo lineament (per USGS fault/Fold database) that is projected into the western margin of the site (see 1965 Aerial Photograph, Figure 7). The trench exposed an undisturbed section of alluvial fan deposits (Qpaf) capped by a Pleistocene age residual soil. The exposed sedimentary sequence consists of two to three distinct flood events defined by fining upward sequences of gravelly material. Stratigraphic structures seen in this trench include; bottom Set beds, gravelly point bar deposits, and poorly developed channel features all typical of a meandering stream depositional environment. Additionally, a distinct lateral edge of a channel was encountered at Station 28 where laterally prograding gravel bars scoured and filled (deposited) against an older unit. Water seeping out of the clean gravels near this contact suggests surface water is concentrated along this former channel edge. Our inference is that the tonal lineament seen in the aerial photos projected into this area may be due to a localized concentration of water which is confined to the edge of this channel which may extend for a few hundred feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory trenches are shown on the Site Geologic Map (Figure 2). Detailed trench logs are presented as Figures 9, 10 and 11. 4.4 Inferences from the Investigation The depositional facies encountered within the trench excavations includes; laterally prograding gravelly point bar deposits, channel fill, and discontinuous overbank deposits. The sedimentary structures within all of the Qpaf subunits were well developed and the gravels were commonly well rounded, with flattened clasts being common. The flattened clasts were imbricated locally providing paleocurent directions. Horizons of gently dipping flattened gravels provided indicators of bedding orientation as well as revealing the direction of laterally prograding gravel bars. The stratigraphic and structural patterns exposed within the trench excavations suggest an earlier (Pleistocene) meandering stream emanating from the local drainage (San Thomas Aquanis) located just to the southeast of the site. Paleocurrent indicators suggest the stream course flowed north and northwest with minor southwesterly and northeasterly meanders (as evidenced by the point bars structures). Detailed depictions and descriptions of the encountered geologic units is provided on the trench logs (Figures 9, 10 and 11). 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 8 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 206 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP The encountered Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Qpaf) appear to have emanated from the channel of the ancestral San Thomas Aquanis Creek channel. The Terrace deposits appear to represent an abandoned stream course that was subsequently dissected by the modern San Thomas Aquanis Creek. In their comprehensive study of deformation along the rangefront, Hitchcock and Kelson (2004) found that northeasterly draining streams coming out of the rangefront are impacted by Quaternary faulting (compressional uplift) and typically display streambed convexity (concave -downward warping of the stream bed) as well as variations in stream course sinuosity. These characteristics are associated with previously mapped traces of the Monte Vista, Shannon, or Cascade faults, or zones of lineaments. Streambed convexities typically consist of a relatively shallow -gradient reach, followed by a steeper reach that generally is coincident with mapped fault traces or zones of lineaments. High stream sinuosity is typically found just downstream of steep stream sections, and directly downstream of zones of lineaments or mapped faults. Our review of topographic quadrangle maps and our reconnaissance of the area indicates that San Thomas Aquanis creek maintains a short steep section approximately where the Shannon Fault trace trends generally through the creek, and displays a much greater sinuosity just northeast of the mapped fault surface trace (as mapped by Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2013). SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Faulting and Surface Rupture The southwest corner of the site is located within a fault hazard zone ("Pf' zone) according to the City's Ground Movement Potential Map. Our field investigation indicated the trenches (T-1, T-2 and T-3) were not crossed by any faults, Our field investigation indicated the southwest corner is the site (located within a fault regulatory zone) is not crossed by a fault. As we could not disprove the existence of a fault southwest of the south end of our trench T-1, we have included a recommended fault -foundation setback in that portion of the site based on a 25 foot fault setback (See Figure 2). Additionally, an aerial photo lineament shown as projecting into the west -central portion of the site in some of the published maps as a possible fault (Hitchcock and Kelson, and USGS) was explored through our trench T-3. However, our investigation suggests a stratigraphic origin for this aerial photo tonal lineament, rather than a faulting origin. Specifically, this feature is most likely a buried channel within the stratigraphic sequence. Secondary evidence collected in the course of this evaluation (primarily through a field reconnaissance and inference) suggests the mapping of Cotton Shires and Associates, showing the Shannon Fault trending along the base of the undulatory hillside located just south of the site is largely correct. This notion is consistent with the geomorphic analysis of stream course anomalies along the range front fault system by Hitchock and Kelson (1994). SECTION 6: LIMITATIONS This report, an instrument of professional service, has been prepared for the sole use of Hayden Land Company LLC specifically in support the development of the property located at 18500 Marshall Lane in Saratoga, California. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report have been formulated in accordance with accepted engineering 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 9 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 207 LECORNERSTONE fl EARTH GROUP geologic and geotechnical engineering practices that exist in Northern California at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred. Conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the soil conditions encountered during our limited subsurface exploration. If variations or unsuitable conditions are encountered during the construction phase, Cornerstone must be contacted to provide supplemental recommendations, as needed. Hayden Land Company LLC may have provided Cornerstone with plans, reports and other documents prepared by others. Hayden Land Company LLC understands that Cornerstone reviewed and relied on the information presented in these documents and cannot be responsible for their accuracy. Cornerstone prepared this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to see that the recommendations contained in this report are presented to other members of the design team and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and that appropriate actions are taken to implement the geotechnical recommendations during construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present time for the development as currently planned. Changes in the condition of the property or adjacent properties may occur with the passage of time, whether by natural processes or the acts of other persons. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur through legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond Cornerstone's control. This report should be reviewed by Cornerstone after a period of three (3) years has elapsed from the date of this report. In addition, if the current project design is changed, then Cornerstone must review the proposed changes and provide supplemental recommendations, as needed. An electronic transmission of this report may also have been issued. While Cornerstone has taken precautions to produce a complete and secure electronic transmission, please check the electronic transmission against the hard copy version for conformity. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Cornerstone will be retained to provide observation and testing services during construction to confirm that conditions are similar to that assumed for design, and to form an opinion as to whether the work has been performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. If we are not retained for these services, Cornerstone cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Cornerstone's report by others. Furthermore, Cornerstone will cease to be the Geotechnical- Engineer-of-Record if we are not retained for these services. 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 10 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 208 0 CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP SECTION 7: REFERENCES Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geologic map of the Palo Alto 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2332, 1:100,000 scale. Brabb, E.E. and Dibblee, T.W., 1979, Preliminary geologic map of the Castle Rock Ridge quadrangle, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open - File Report OF-79-659, scale 1:24,000. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, Official map of Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:24,000. California Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zones, San Jose West Quadrangle, Official Map released February 7, 2002, 1:24,000 scale. California Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Jose West Quadrangle, SHZR 058, Official Map released February 7, 2002, 1:24,000 scale. Catchings, R.D., Gandhok, G., Goldman, M.R., and Steedman, Clare, 2007, Near -surface structure and velocities of the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains and the western Santa Clara Valley, California, from seismic imaging: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-2007- 1039, scale 1:50,000. Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., 2013, Ground Movement Potential Map, City of Saratoga, California, Their Proj. No. G5042, Date, April, 2013. Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2007, Geologic map of the Cupertino and San Jose West quadrangles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-351, scale 1:24,000. Hanson, R.T., Zhen Li, and C.C. Faunt (2004), Documentation of the Santa Clara Valley regional ground-water/surface-water flow model, Santa Clara County, California: Scientific Investigations Report SIR2004-5231 , 75 p. [http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2004-52311. Haugerud, R.A. and Ellen, S.D., 1990, Coseismic ground deformation along the northeast margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Field trip guide to neotectonics of the San Andreas Fault System, Santa Cruz Mountains, in light of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: Schwartz, D.P. and Ponti, D.J. editors, U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 90-274, 38 p. 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 11 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 209 DCORNERSTONE 0 EARTH GROUP Helley, E.J., 1990, Preliminary contour map showing elevation of surface of Pleistocene alluvium under Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-90- 633, scale 1:24,000. Helley, E.J., Graymer, R.W., Phelps, G.A., Showalter, P.K., and Wentworth, C.M., 1994, Quaternary geology of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California: a digital database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-94-231, scale 1:50, 000. Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic investigations of deformation along the northeastern margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report, OF-94-187, scale 1:24,000. Kennedy, D.G. and Hitchcock, C.S., eds., 2004, Seismic Hazard of the Range Front Thrust Faults, Northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains/Southwestern Santa Clara Valley: Association of Engineering Geologists San Francisco Section Field Trip Guidebook, March 27, p. 1 to 6. Knudsen, K.L., Sowers, J.M., Witter, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., and Helley, E.J., 2000, Preliminary maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine -county San Francisco Bay region, California: a digital database, U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report 00-444. Santa Clara County Planning Office, Geologic Hazard Zones — Spatial Data http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Spatial Data/Pages/County- Geolog is-H azard-Zones-Data. aspx Schmidt, K. M., Ellen, S. D., Haugerud, R. A., Peterson, D. M., and Phelps, G. A., 1995, Breaks in pavement and pipes as indicators of range -front faulting resulting from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near the southwest margin of the Santa Clara Valley, California: Sorg, D. H. and McLaughlin, R.J., 1975, Geologic map of the Sargent- Berrocal Fault Zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California; U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-643. Terratech, Inc., 1985, Geology of the Lower Saratoga Hillside Area, City of Saratoga, Map Sheet 21, Their Proj. No. 3595, Wentworth, C.M., Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J., and Graymer, R.W., 1999, Preliminary geologic map of the San Jose 30 X 60-minute quadrangle, California: a digital database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-98-795, scale 1:100,000. Wesling, J.R., and Helley, E., J., Geologic Map of the San Jose West Quadrangle, Santa Clara County: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-89-672, scale 1:24,000. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED: Geomorphic features on the following aerial photographs were interpreted at the U.S. Geological Surrey in Menlo Park as part of this investigation: 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 12 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Page 210 FCORNERSTONE . EARTH GROUP Date Flight Frames Scale - September 26, 1948 GS-HR-2 173,174 1:20,000 black & white August 23, 1960 GS-VACY-2 58,59 1:30,000 black & white May 15, 1965 SCL-8 122, 123 1:12,000 black & white February 20, 1981 GS-VEZR-2 58,59 1:25,600 black & white 18500 MARSHALL LANE FAULT INVESTIGATION Page 13 851-4-1 Resolution 21-071 Pag 211�. LL s oya � •r O U o m 0 m U ti u N O� m - WIN _0 G co ILL N - n p OFE E Q u m m m m co .o m Vrgininrore c - - a o u x' > ? o, Ql1114a Qrs,e•yuo 4•tl rn o a rn 0 z z s z O - NNe•Nn»nRems[:;. CIDU) C eniai, br Mune't Au 9 a lC 3 S o a 3 a ° D o c S C U o ` a z p U o tlure Arc �,r O U) u LO m to a,ib°,°tV 00 m r S o z � E - _ .i E ..-... ...- '- c� o Pd oL _..QuitoAd....-: a a J J W a = cr 43 le 'J Z o _ Oy V3 Oy V Ow e(�Q�A ISBN .:S n Il UU v Z n c (i -S:nnl°ga —Ar Rd = val alugn Sunnyea:e Rd �u 1,! Rd S-. y V � u o Resolution 21-071 Page 212 I cmi� O N O C CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP � � 1 I T �r a ,nmt,% ° T xD -• ^D m •° vow m°° r m x o 0 n o v 0 o � Too 'cmo n 3R �� n°—' QU O fO T < F S S 3 N N 5 a N N ? d r- ry O O t0 C 61p Ul 'O l z O O O C !.S W z 0 N ..� O O. m N C 7 0 O E`p O O O = O C y ^ W 0 m m y O ry m a o o. m 3 ° N a +5 d m 2 9x N S , N N 3a2r Nv ° mm c O ° °• p N Ur12 T 0 X 0 � Site Geologic Map 851-4-1 18500 Marshall Lane ft—N.— Saratoga, CA Figure 2 onto APHI 2019 or,.nur RRN Resolution 21-071 Page 213 g I f 71 op I Regional Fault Map CORNERSTONE 8514-1 FlguroNumWr M 1 18500 Marshall Lane Figure 3 E EARTH GROUP Saratoga, CA Apil 2019 RRN Resolution 21-071 Qhf2 Older alluvial fan deposits 'one �� Fault- dashed where approximate, N (Holocene) dotted where concealed Alluvial fan deposits Qpf (Upper Pleistocene) Ph QT$c Santa Clara Formation 0 2000 4000 (Pleistocene and Pliocene)r Base: USGS, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30x60-Minute Quadrangle, APPROXIMATE SCALE FEET California. by Wentworth. Blake. McLauahlln. and Gravmer. 1999 CORNERSTONE � 851-4-1 ® EARTH GROUP 18500 Marshall Lane ����mb,, Saratoga, CA Figure 4 Resolution 21-071 r i j kVrAawAfjF04 MIEN b IMF _ ;G: I Sun ` br. Ps - `N s y`_ b I --, EXPLANATION j FllmlveN stibia GmunU Ih Pnl Irnllor Prrr F I Au r r'gsPL tort! ylvuM Iv mwerxkry ekvv sbvea mWNmn oY eN,VN.Wmr,,wru.nnWvr/ „nuv r[vl 'Sbr'� o11M y,pJnd w,lacenkis. rela!•vU1In•nfW manlb lndy M1e wlxocl rn dravvti.bMn.l•,w PI Lp•r: alpperrlr„r rx.r.,,., .,u!nre k,w �..prx+ ,,w LaM fo,l Deco 0 SUn unlmnrtlWelpd ymnWvrnulnb!Iveurtin <luw .nlv nnlN,vu w,1u„AynuNmel ..,.ems..... r.., r.... ynlUp flapSfupKU lu lvllkmprn arW [pl WrcYWy uuruova vx�M xw•ru,!s ,Amoy <I, Wq Je!!IIWa1e NdIWd%f1e1xIJ0 antlenlbplUrnC W,vnd pn prnw•!p rnmsrnteN ueep sbP"s lJns(apla,GioyPd CtfaraclerreeU yY.Seasanbll,_.•.elrvu Dyvm>WPv Attrlemunl .$V' r3onk+n[nl/M sv)vrten � ;v v Ma ta.,y ama•..,xrmmk:.,,rrr, x, ..,. nr.r, let! ,J......a, A,yas wish s!ynifl—I Potenlial for Gmund Nioxament ®®® PlmY, S..PlvmryflevP.N. yvMrv1,x,•amax, b,..unmdmn,w)tmn,x[J-I". wepU 'Md� r+e+'�n,xrt!,rnw,K, :r.�,�,r .. nr.r,•!u ..., r,rn,r„ru w Nn uy r Inn shrmy[9. W W rorcb W Nevpsal Wbrti,l fi/ r,bpnNf fuup[I lu IpolueU aalfe,nrnl anurp, pYern•nl b,Mererny Pal on rMJnpleN flttW tv slvvY 0,p,m aN rAkre Pla[enknl rndy nut nary owl rrWrmm,xyl _- fPYufpnlbnf `•� Ps un>mNJ,,mnm,J4lnvW n>verml. NxWm,rN k., umn,pmm•n mr.,.xa.My.mb,n .. InNnaIYN>!ev4 dmp, suUttt IJ anarex!,xxlNlx,q ,Lmnxq, fvllxxmnl r,rnl s W! W n[•p - "{ WMlemon nnta,Jtu,e>ro rnlrvpvU qnk Cnslurrry G.W., S—J[vanW IN 11-1 ?N lholY[k.un[rxopdvinl malrrrnl wmmx•ly mv,a loan 1p leWu,InxNma, u,r rrrrna•rvre ' ��.Po`i Ip YkvY skpes. WOpNIU Udrp lm,rUlFny Pdt Gob,r,dJ.al,ndW.n,,�l>JJ/mnv.x,InM>NY.aIm4..om,rt�,m[nler,u•cvdrenan•tl 0 1000 2000 Yn.v 1»Im GMUWkne yJwJ arras nr>y'nplM fiaN.1N.cInJ i�3.ti."e'?a?d41";�".-sS:•'T.iuYd2. Base by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., Ground Movement APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET) Potential Map - Plate 1, dated April 2013 City's Ground Movement Potential Regulatory Map ProlYgNymbYr CORNERSTONE 851-4-1 EARTH R ®U P 11100 Marshall Lane Fy mNymbe Figure 5 W. Saratoga, CA a,k April 2019 omwneyRRN solu n zj�uti c0 LL m Ir' �.� � •�+.,.L 1+ i.. �^ • � ..ry .y a 0 m m ¢ me -• c � 8 � _ Li 6 — 1 �O� •��,r I' 7(�:. i-..A k F� c �'7,y _ is a ®i e w i 4 o y y r ool ii r2 I. HN %Go �. a! T s r L; m m u1 }a a , s , /� ag f.i 6>b9 c Y Nibrs if 8 ¢ m N r` z D 00 1 a. -�•. ~ f � � � amE a m om •■ wp 1i S : f * b.,v. .� •�h4�,•[y .'Yy � •) �'` � � O p= O Gomm �V u 17.5 �'v7,ac�,`,j•;tis�hF ?t i. '" "`"`� /��� '� ;. -anm wm�to' \\\ \ maommL- 'S c E S a m o m 9 maim ^ tir,, �- '. .. .q '�`'� � •dl c� t :4 c m m t m m m m't MY O-r3mmmamo mm `{ _ ALV�i.� .i �• TCmmO OO_ mm Ja � .. l ` ui # m4mmcao 14 am m °"1'� ` -� 'ter �! oRu._... ;'J.a. ,•,� d N W n u a o oa 22 m C N v V ,r�. -.{ ox,.' , 'i� 4 + t J^ .� - y c• O c c c m_ o o, m 3 m E CD 7 CD_- \p _I= LLI LL -71 F 3 J C o CL m"m" Resolution 21-071 Z I af af jam- � ICO L� ra ffUT� �WIW .S'+y; F,�»'•� 10 tf g�iy; >r Zak ._!' ` NO' -j" �i�.L -F*1v Rct. ti 61 �,:� :_ Y `'�. � s��r$5Q_ .FxJPc,q.•�, �`�' 7�'� 1(,.1 z. � cl r ! ,�� r a 7 sa'G'.d .yl. �r�,� 'ire: ...... K' i--.�.. ° d•`p��+•! :'aFTd rs✓ � caG � ri>7 � �� :o M. � �.� u'9E*'� •� x! a c>` K � � � 9em'�'J oa7 x r '_a z l.. u -. .. $�• dN � / s 14 '/v%Tv'lSa,pL "•_.! / /� I� ..r 'P 5e •4r s Y �b1 rah s t" e t ��� � 7 �: 1 •�)� t} - _.._. .ail S _. 0 r �! (D = ! ! 1 1'• I � 'per `7 ,1. � ig '1i " i ,1 1, � •f6 r o 00 cm co �Il m 0000 '`\ i' ��• .� 1 Fi `_--� i^ f � � / - _,.F+�+v. i S 9 � o m A m � GNLO I 'r % •i.: ,�.' rtK._7 'F ` '� Si C �, > .{.;„ co �r .�� Yi. 1i3:• \i �..': � l' /r #;1 w• � ^ .�:• - ,'j;� m m e m m G @ 8 e C � a U (G U " � •off.- �% ;\�: .r� ai�t � r .,�. 8 LU a Ile1, � l �• Yi. f - - �' -m LU 4.',}t, y` ", `?%• \'�tix,sc ^mac ,. .rga �/ ��// u w Ar CM ffE a pmA L4° Han M. mG _ u� 8-2 �I9 mhL- 3 m=a • °` I •` /�yyCq.Sq., _.;.#xx=.p \ C u °-nm.m� mm..t ♦ > 1 : ))•Y A Y^\> t 't " I-i9 > �c9nP •' uE� 1� �, ^r :b�"'fib\ �" �4 4 t✓� 3mm>,uma0 mom' _ T 5 mw�90 �o mmm omu� emmm r .y/ t�:e_? r fD mm3.mE w mcE�I z 3`mn aC mn i`u ot e'$ z°c °w O G Ilt WY LLJ U O pp 5 W H= Ea O N Q � X oy 9a c3 K a g wo N� mV f nA c 1° Al E-o a e �E mm age 219 anogyaag :auiiyoieW zz I °I Io �ZN i o� N a I o 44. 0 I F= o O (Q V 0 U 00 E u u9 Q. a J _ —82 m ® O 11 I ° I. a r ` f0 � • z ° C I O C O C O W .rri I d a- co N C W 2 co �� mm u W IpU\ b 'O al •• l c �N r�0 co a e b�U z C if 2,0 C am O 0 N =H. Ez IM QI a z z z z CL cy 0( > o m m N •-- •N D� N W -> O 0 0 0'U j N N E MR. p`� N N f�A .. 0 N YnI O E. M � 0 N 0 U J [V 0 C9 w E�o«�0� �o ZW. O C > .t.. O_ N O le A ro a Oa. J v=8E C aom� C �3a ,:= moi=`E c0� ya> W 0 y0 �vE�'c mdm�' A�•°� a 0 0 NN'NO (�OI�N UEa Z o i0m m`mE-6-rT m v0 0 o m �cm w din m e J�a N N N Molag aeg:auijgoietN age 220 .— Z c ^ W LO II Z m !1 m N m m o m >_ v m E v e m E m E o= I 7I o C E m= ic-. 'a v E m E E V •q' m m o. O a y N E I U) ji _m !] LL co a ° Z in } = LON mvov 4.z �i In N c�W O f7p U'� �v w'N o o• 1O C�"v •o _ ¢' .. 9 vl •. '� °� F ? C Q c m o o m a m C7 o c o a c c c 'c CD 3.0 'o � m m c o _ $ °c o 122m 1°op .41 •pOE 1 W i�c vaN �30 mT0 y? I I 1 m a T`O inE�m •°ya w •°E'o i.> mEo r`pvL o � = N- m� O ��o O= a om� ��� N o � .O = N ww� °� : ► j Z = m x vi>m v)�mo mKa ago m�v a�E S�v C �° W lE v Cz m z 3 !n co o � 1, ;�I •. I n l l) I I m 6m � o � Em 3 o N D o m rn acm s .°.1 r•jI� \1'' O y I7 Ap• I N ~ m p•., v �•+' o V m u o me 3 0 m E m N a o m m= .c m m n` c E V = t u it � �'� •i � Ih� = R'O N UO Z u. 0 2 L OQ U W 0 N fkW Z i , •,I I� 1\ m I �+ i o 1 O I � I I 0 1 n 17 1 ' I I ' N I I an�ogy -au 'age 221 ._-__---- r o co Cc jj 5. N co m _ ' ° M Z f6 O° ��� F: JQ I �; � U 1 F y Z O i U {0 ED i CD Do ZD I z ''�.• I.�i I � m U N p�eee, //I U U C U a �m zD .1• 'I. m �0 0 ai Pl I'I. a Li .,r. • m m ,n o C/9 = ' 1N. C o. > 2 la L Z°° .• �� C y CO Z C y O m ,wrl BE 9 m c� o o c @ '1 = ® a O Ol O CA O— •O n .I•f C y C m d 0 m O Z Z Z Z Z a N N E m m Z LJ Z � rnm '>° m 'm 0 `l c o 2 a 2 N C m Im N C m C m C C N i' uI 91 o v m u .o E a v y E E 'o d m m m E `w E E o.U; E E o. t° y E E- E m E n E TN m - O .. m _'o m m v • 1•.� I m M m v q-, .. _ m v L c od' % , L" .10."� �a E 64 my ''�° •o.o U� o O1W cry= v�.o CC, y n 10 mini, °' 3vo c} 3'na minim mN m am 2 U, 3 'mC' • °I��� O 2a Q `cE cQ> ,1 ~ f9 m w3a m .c ao e .moc nvAn�o` vc7 mw m anO9o;Ca m oi 33c 33c o.c W c ac '" c w E D d m v Tt v v m 'fl ° m •o i I F o y v co « vl mm C7 0 N m C7 m E m m ul cm 2 Z ° �°� m Z�oE Arov 2 of o=� N UN Cm m cn o ii'n N N N N O ®N anojaj3 eeg �auijy��eW Resolution 21-071 Page 222 CCTV ®f SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1274 MEMORANDUM TO: Nicole Johnson, Planner II DATE: July 22, 2019 FROM: Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Geologic Peer Review (S5029) RE: Belliciti, Nine -Lot Subdivision GE019-0014 18500 Marshall Lane At your request, we have completed a geologic peer review of the subject application using: • Fault Investigation (report) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc., dated May 1, 2019; and • Vesting Tentative Map (8 sheets) prepared by CBG Civil Engineers, Inc., dated June, 2019. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office's files, completed a recent reconnaissance of the site and site vicinity, and have been in contact with the Project Geologist. We did not observe open trench excavations logged as part of the referenced Fault Investigation. DISCUSSION According to the referenced plans, the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing parcel in to nine lots intended for single family residences. Additional site improvements include a proposed Bioretention area, roadway, and utility improvements. Project grading for subdivision level improvements will likely be limited to the excavation of the bioretention area, along with associated drainage and roadway improvements. SITE CONDITIONS The subject site is a relatively gentle terrace located on Pleistocene alluvial deposits; a younger Holocene deposit is located in the vicinity of the southwest property corner. Recent trench excavations and investigation by the Project Geologist have characterized the encountered alluvium in this area as being deposited by a paleo- meandering stream environment. The Project Geologist notes weathering characteristics within exposed excavations consistent with older Pleistocene deposits. As part of the investigation the Consultant also reviewed regional and local geologic maps, aerial photographs, and performed mapping of the site and a reconnaissance of the site vicinity including nearby stream terraces and geomorphology of active stream channels neighboring the site. The proposed subdivision is located partially within a City potential fault rupture zone (Pf) associated with a mapped trace of the Shannon Fault, which lies southwest of the site. During our site reconnaissance we did not observe any suspect scarps on the property. Site drainage is generally characterized by infiltration or Resolution 21-071 Page 223 Nicole Johnson Page 2 July 22, 2019 S5029 sheetflow ultimately intercepted by San Tomas Aquinas Creek. The subject site does not appear to be located within a 100-year floodplain; however, it is located in a FEMA delineated Zone X which corresponds to 1000- year floods or 100-year flood plains where the water height is not expected to exceed one foot above the ground surface. The referenced Fault Investigation does not include geotechnical subsurface borings or geotechnical engineering evaluations for site construction. The subject site is not located within a State delineated earthquake - fault setback zone, liquefaction or earthquake induced landslide hazard zone. Previous investigators (USGS and others) have mapped alignments of the Shannon Fault crossing corners of the property. The Consultant has noted tonal lineaments and these mapped traces of the Shannon fault that cross or may impact the property and has completed trench excavations to investigate the geologic conditions that may correspond to these identified features. The Consultant has concluded that the Shannon fault lies, as mapped, southwest of the property. The Consultant reports encountering geologic channel fill and scour features in exploratory trench excavations that correspond to the identified tonal lineament. This tonal lineament has previously been mapped as a discontinuous trace or splay of the Shannon Fault (USGS Fault and Fold Database). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed subdivision is constrained by potential ground deformation during a moderate to large local earthquake, existing shallow fill materials, and very strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geologist appears to have completed a fault investigation for the proposed subdivision that is in general conformance with the standard of geologic practice in the area. Typically, when fault trench or test pit excavations are planned within the City, the City Geologist is notified to allow for inspection and peer review of open and cleaned excavation sidewalls. The majority of the subject site is composed of relatively gentle slopes (<10 percent in grade). Younger Holocene alluvium neighboring the property and the active stream channel has been identified by the California Geological Survey as susceptible to liquefaction hazards. We typically recommend completion of a soils report to identify the geotechnical engineering constraints of a property prior to design and construction, or building permit approval of subdivision -level improvements. We understand that subdivision requirements regarding flood hazards will be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Floodplain Evaluator. We recommend geologic approval of the vesting tentative map with consideration of the following item: Subdivision Geotechnical Investigation - If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director, a preliminary geotechnical investigation should be completed for the proposed development to identify potential geotechnical engineering constraints (including liquefaction) related to the proposed subdivision level improvements and anticipated future residences. The Geotechnical Investigation should consist of, but not necessarily limited to: subsurface borings and logs, laboratory testing, geotechnical feasibility and preliminary recommendations for site preparation and grading, drainage design, and foundation design including seismic design criteria, as applicable, consistent with the prevailing standard of geotechnical practice. This investigation may be completed and submitted as part of building permit applications for subdivision level improvements and should be reviewed and approved by the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. Resolution 21-071 Page 224 Nicole Johnson Page 3 LIMITATIONS July 22, 2019 55029 This geologic peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geologic profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. DTS:CS:TS age2Resolution21-071 age 25 u NIXA60N TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Cr 18500 Marshall Lane Traffic Impact Analysis CM Prepared for: Dutchints Development LLC ® April 10, 2020 Me Oro • Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 .. Hexagon Job Number: 19AV04 Phone: 408.971.6100 9 Client Name: Seth Wheelock San Jose • Gilroy • Pleasanton • Phoenix www.hextrans.com ® Areawide Circulation Plans Corridor Studies Pavement Delineation Plans Traffic Handling Plans Impact Fees Transportation Planning Traffic Calming Traffic Control Interchange Analysis Parking Plans Traffic Simulation Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic Signal Design Travel Demand Forecasting Resolution 21-071 Page 226 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 10, 2020 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1 2. Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................................8 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions...................................................................................................17 4. Other Transportation Issues..........................................................................................................22 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay......................................5 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay...............................................6 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service............................................................................................... 14 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates...................................................................................................... 18 Table 5 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary ................................................................................ 21 Table6 Queueing Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 23 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections...................................................................................................2 Figure2 Site Plan................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities....................................................................................................................10 Figure4 Existing Sidewalks.............................................................................................................................. 11 Figure5 Existing Transit Services..................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 Existing Lane Configurations and Existing Traffic Volumes............................................................... 13 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution and Project Trip Assignment........................................................................ 19 Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes................................................................................................. 20 ,. NIXA60H Resolution 21-071 Page 227 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10. 2020 Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed residential development at 18500 Marshall Lane in Saratoga, California. The project site is located west of Quito Road, between Marshall Lane and Sobey Road. The project would construct nine detached single- family residential units. Access to the site would be provided via a new private roadway off Marshall Lane. The project would also make sidewalk improvements along the frontage of the site. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The traffic study includes an analysis of the weekday AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) of traffic at one signalized intersection and two unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Project Trip Generation The trip estimates for the proposed uses are based on trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The rates published for Single -Family Detached Housing (210) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed project. The project is estimated to generate six trips during the AM peak hour (two inbound and four outbound), and eight trips during the PM peak hour (five inbound and three outbound). Intersection Level of Service Results The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service, with and without the project. When measured against the City of Saratoga's significant impact criteria, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project (see Table ES-1). While the project would not impact nor increase the average delay at the signalized intersection of Quito Road and Pollard Road, a detailed description of the traffic operation at this intersection is provided. Overall, the intersection operates at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. However, the eastbound right turn movement on Pollard Road is very heavy and long queues exist during the morning peak -hour. During the peak -period of the morning commute, traffic turning right frequently needs multiple cycles to get through the intersection. ., HEXAGON �a e i Resolution 21-071 Page 228 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Other Transportation Issues The site plan shows adequate site access and on -site circulation, and no significant operational issues are expected to occur as a result of the project. The project would not have an adverse effect on the existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in the study area. Although the proposed project would not affect existing school -related traffic conditions on Sobey Road, an analysis is provided that describes the traffic circulation at the Marshall Lane Elementary School during morning drop off and afternoon pick up time periods. The analysis shows that traffic on Sobey Road is very heavy for about 15 minutes in the morning just before school starts. While traffic going to the school doesn't incur much delay turning into Sobey Road from Quito Road, returning vehicles after student drop-off experience long delays getting through the intersection of Sobey Road and Quito Road. Traffic on Sobey Road backs up into the entrance of the school's parking lot and it takes about three to four minutes to get through the intersection with Quito Road. However, this condition lasts only for about 15 minutes. No operational issues were observed at pick-up time when school lets out in the afternoon. HEXAGON Page I ii `o1 0 • m U U m U U (U • 't Lo O U') 00 It U') O N O N LO O ■ N N — N O 't LO m V) co It O O N O N LO O N N — N U k hLN W L • U U U m U U U cu M LO Co. V' O V- O (V C)N LO Q N — N— N Q m N V' — (D LO CO V p V O N O N V) N N N 00 U Q 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N N N � 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O O O O O O L r r f r r r 0 C c C C C c G G G M • /G^ ^^G Q Q ^G^ LL LL LL ■ • Q � Q -C vi O N • ,O^ V/ .2)� V, E (D ^, 0 E U U a) 3: o n 0 Cn O 2 o O U .L CU a c a) O 0 a U U N T N N >(B N � O U � U a) �� m cu 70U O c J O co Q U) L O 0 N co .c > O L Q L SZ N S N 5 C� ^^ G LL VJ O ch C O N cu cu m Q t. 70 70 70 0 ca cB m O O O N o L w fl� Q 0C 0 O O O H O U U .t. 7 7 O O (D N O O 0 N co o U t — Resolution 21-071 Page 230 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA 1. Introduction ril 10, 2020 This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed residential development at 18500 Marshall Lane in Saratoga, California. The project site is located on the west side of Quito Road, between Marshall Lane and Sobey Road (see Figure 1). The project would construct nine detached single-family residential units. The site plan of the project is presented on Figure 2. There is currently one single-family home on the site, which would be demolished. Access to the site would be provided via a new private roadway off Marshall Lane. The new road would intersect as a T-intersection with Marshall Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Quito Road. The project would also make sidewalk improvements along the frontage of the site. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the residential development were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority CMP. A County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis was not required because the project would generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips. The traffic study includes an analysis of the weekday AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) of traffic at one signalized intersection and two unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is only required if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips generated by the proposed project added to the freeways in the area would be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of service was not performed. Study Intersections A traffic operational analysis was conducted at the following intersections: 1. Quito Road & Marshall Lane (unsignalized) 2. Quito Road & Pollard Road 3. Quito Road & Sobey Road (unsignalized) u I UMON Page 1 1 Resolution 21-071 Page 231 18500 Marshall Lane Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections HEXAGON NORTH NW to Sm4 Resolution 21-071 Page 232 18500 Marshall Lane \ - MARSHALL LANE .I It PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WTHIN r e AOiNIN0N1�U01 o�xcDRsw _ REECONS]RU cr AMP \ k _ vAPoABIE LS_ R=20.W / - N59'46']] W ]01.90' Ik084T0.15" > / - APN 397-02-033 ;2 I I ( Q / / 81^ I I40 PIPRIVATE 48.1161 SF I I I I — — _ J_ N89'43'IB•W 29459'_ _ I ROAD I N89'4}'IB•W ' r� I - 30IV s ^ 9 40,245t SF I I 11 Ip o g ° / SOE �/ (BIgtETENTIOM 1 IV q'N OSCWENW i 42.564E I 1 fA�• jN / / 189' 1J4' \ Op3OW0 PO / ¢ � APPROMMIE DRIPIINE OF EX TREES TO O 8 REMNN (nP) \\ U I -a - m ^ \\, \� 40.4165 SF A \ • 4 \ � 202' J ti I tc !-� - R 20 PARCEL A 35,903t SF 218• . 1 (EVAE, SSE, ME, NLE) \ -_-____ R- 0 ----- 10, 7 R 40 19 `\ 45,5971 SF 6 51,377E Sf 42,434E SF ' ._ --- --- I E%18NC ASPHALT MAL TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH RECONSTRUCT ECONSTRUCT RRAMP WAN(. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIO1N TO FUTURE 10'WAY. _ EX RAN, to NB714'00 E ]50.5]' - �— SOBEY ROAD 02I t I .. HIXA60N Figure 2 Site Plan 1 NORTH Nd Eo 9mb Resolution 21-071 Page 233 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA 10, 2020 Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM and PM peak hour of traffic on a typical weekday occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 o'clock in the morning and between 4:00 and 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were based on traffic counts conducted in October 2019. The study intersections were evaluated with a level of service analysis using TRAFFIX software in accordance with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Scenario 2: Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the proposed project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. Traffic studies typically include analysis of a "background" scenario which includes traffic generated by approved and under construction projects in the project vicinity. Per City staff, there are no approved or under construction projects within the project vicinity. Therefore, a background scenario was not evaluated. The study also describes existing conditions of school traffic associated with the Marshall Lane Elementary School, which is located just west of the project site. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts and field observations. The following data were collected: • Existing traffic volumes • Existing lane configurations • Signal timing and phasing • Intersection traffic control • Applicable trip generation rates • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Transit service Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free -flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. ,. HEXAGON Page 1 4 Resolution 21-071 Page 234 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA Signalized Intersections 10, 2020 The City of Saratoga evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The City of Saratoga level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or Up to 10.0 short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle 10.1 to 20.0 lengths. C Operation with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer 20.1 to 35.0 cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D progression, long cycle lengths or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and 35.1 to 55.0 individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 80.0 This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over Greater than 80.0 saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Transportation Research Board,2000 Highway Capacity Manual, (Washington, D.C., 2000) Unsignalized Intersections The City of Saratoga does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. The correlation between average control delay and level of service for unsignalized, stop -controlled intersections is presented in Table 2. Note that for unsignalized intersections under two-way stop control, the level of service is reported for the worst approach. Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all -way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. Level of service calculations at the unsignalized intersections were based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) method. The TRAFFIX software was used to apply the 2000 HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at unsignalized intersections. This method is applicable for one-way, two-way and all -way stop -controlled intersections. At side street stop -controlled intersections, controlled delay is calculated only for the stop -controlled movements, not for the intersection as a whole. ,. �� IIIMON Page 1 5 Resolution 21-071 Page 235 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway CapacityManual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. City of Saratoga Significant Intersection Impact Criteria April 10, 2020 Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on the City of Saratoga's level of service standards. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Saratoga if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better for non-CMP intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under existing plus project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable level (LOS E or F at non-CMP intersections and LOS F at CMP intersections) under existing conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical -movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand -to -capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. Note that traffic impacts caused by the project are typically compared to background conditions. Since there are no approved projects or projects under construction in the vicinity of the project, background conditions were not evaluated for this project. Therefore, project impacts were measured against existing traffic conditions. Intersection Operations: Queuing Analysis The analysis of intersection level of service is often supplemented with an analysis of intersection operations for selected intersections where the project would add a significant number of left -turning or U-turning vehicles. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high -demand turning - movements at signalized intersections. Vehicle queues are estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of "n" vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: '� u 'i IXA60N Pa g e 1 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 236 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 P (x=n) = kn e - (I) n! where: P (x=n) = probability of "n" vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane X = Avg. # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) for signalized intersections, the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future left -turn storage requirements at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur for 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length longer than the 951h percentile queue would only occur for 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left -turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the "design queue length." For unsignalized intersections, the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles using the controlled delay for the particular movement, Then, steps 2 and 3 described above are applied to estimate storage requirements for left -turn movements at the unsignalized intersection. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions, including the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intersection operations. Chapter 3 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and presents the intersection operations under existing plus project conditions. Chapter 4 presents the analysis of other transportation related issues, including an analysis of queuing at selected turn movements, an evaluation of site access and on -site circulation, parking, and potential impacts on bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities. ��i � u UMON Page 1 7 Resolution 21-071 Page 237 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA 2. Existing Conditions W. Ix211011 This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 85 and SR 17. SR-85 is a six -lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends north from its starting point at US-101 in south San Jose to where it ends in Mountain View, where it again joins with US-101. Access to the site is provided via its interchanges with SR 17 and Saratoga Avenue. SR-17 is a four- to eight -lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends south to Santa Cruz and north to 1-280 in San Jose, at which point it makes a transition into 1-880 to Oakland. Access to the site is provided via its interchange with Lark Avenue. Local access to the site is provided by Quito Road, Pollard Road, Marshall Lane, Sobey Road, and Ravenwood Drive. These roadways are described below. In the vicinity of the project site, there are two schools: Marshall Lane Elementary School and Rolling Hills Middle School. The locations of these two school and their pick-up/drop-off areas are also described below. Quito Road extends in a north -south direction starting at Los Gatos -Saratoga Road in the south and terminating at Saratoga Avenue in the north. In the vicinity of the project site, Quito Road is a two-lane roadway and runs along the eastern boundary of the project. Quito Road provides access to the project site via Marshall Lane. Pollard Road is a four -lane roadway aligned in a mostly east -west orientation in the vicinity of the site. Pollard Road extends eastward from Quito Road to Burrows Road and then turns southeast to connect with Knowles Drive. Access from Pollard Road to the project site is provided via Quito Road. Pollard Road also serves as the southern boundary of Rolling Hills Middle School, and there is a school pick- up/drop-off area located on the north side of the street. Marshall Lane is a two-lane local roadway that runs between Quito Road and Marilyn Lane. Access to the site will be provided via a new road from Marshall Lane. The new road is approximately 300 feet west of the Quito Road/Marshall Lane intersection. Marshall Lane is one of three streets that provide access to the nearby Marshall Lane Elementary School. The other two streets are Ravenwood Drive and Sobey Lane. u HEXA60N Page 8 Resolution 21-071 Page 238 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Sobey Road is a two-lane loop road circumnavigating the residential areas west of Quito Road. Sobey Road serves as the southern boundary of Marshall Lane Elementary School and provides access to the school pick-up/drop-off areas. In the north, Sobey Road intersects with Quito Road approximately 400 feet south of Pollard Road. It connects to Quito Road again approximately 1.1 mile to the south. Ravenwood Drive is an east -west local residential street, which runs between Quito Road and Marilyn Lane, where it dead -ends in a cul-de-sac. Ravenwood Drive provides direct access to Marshall Lane Elementary School via Marilyn Lane. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Quito Road has Class II bicycle lanes from Allendale Avenue to the south to Saratoga Avenue to the north. South of Allendale Avenue, Quito Road is designated as a Class III bike route. Narrow Class II bike lanes are also provided along Allendale Avenue between Chester Avenue and Quito Road Pollard Road has bicycle lanes on some sections. The bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 3. Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project area shown on Figure 4. Near the project, along the westside of Quito Road asphalt sidewalks exist. Sidewalks along Pollard Road are mostly made of concrete. A short section on the northside of Pollard Road approaching the intersection with Quito Road is in asphalt. A narrow asphalt sidewalk is also present along the southside of Marshall Lane and a partially elevated asphalt walkway runs along the northside of Sobey Road. Sidewalk width varies between 3 feet and 6 feet which meets ADA standards for width. However, the vertical grade may not meet current ADA standards. ADA ramps are also present at the curbs. However, electric poles and light poles located on the sidewalks along Quito Road may cause obstruction to pedestrians and individuals with disabilities. Pedestrian crossings at Quito Road and Pollard Road are protected with crosswalks present on the east and north legs of the intersection. Existing Transit Service Transit service in the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Route 37 provides service between West Valley College and the Capitol Light Rail Station. Within the study area, Route 37 operates along Quito Road and Pollard Road with 30-minute headways during mid -day and commute hours. The bus stops closest to the project site are on Quito Road at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Quito Road and Ravenwood Drive, which is about 750 feet from the project site Route 57 provides service between West Valley College and Great America in Santa Clara. Within the study area, Route 57 operates along Quito Road and Allendale Avenue with 30-minute headways during the AM and PM peak commute hours. The bus stops closest to the project site are located at the intersection of Quito Road and Montpere Way, which is about 1/3 of a mile from the project site. These bus routes and nearby bus stops are shown on Figure 5. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations of the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 6. HEXAGON Page 1 9 Resolution 21-071 Page 239 18500 Marshall Lane Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .. HEXAGON NORTH Not to S® Resolution 21-071 Page 240 18500 Marshall Lane .� HIXA60N Figure 4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 1 NORTH Nol toS . Resolution 21-071 Page 241 18500 Marshall Lane Allendale Ave Ravenwood Dr OaQuito Oaks Way Marshall Ln a CU Marshall Lane Elementary School Sobey Rd Saratoga LEGEND _ = Site Location OQ = Study Intersection = Local Bus Route O = Bus Stop HEXAGON m 0 a O Campbell 0 O� CD O a a Cr m n Figure 5 Existing Transit Routes i NORTH Not to &tale Resolution 21-071 Page 242 18500 Marshall Lane 1 I Marshall 4, Ln T 0 �D Cif 3 Sobey Rd 1 0 J D p o' Marshall Lane Elementary School Sobey Rd LEGEND r; ® Pollards O a T �► Rd j i 0 3 D OD: Marshall Ln Saratoga = Site Location O= Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 100 = Traffic Signal A = Stop Sign .. HIXA60N Quito Oaks Way Campbell 1� v D pollardld „ 1 cfl .� ao �co co, co co Marshall Ln i 31(7) T 72(30) Z R LO CA Cl) aM o � J V owl 2 3 CEO co v v M co �I L 673(262) N 1 202(98) 1 Rdbay T �, Pollard 183(67) T 6' 0 12(6) Z v rCD o Cl) e' o co OC3 D Figure 6 Existing Lane Configurations and Volumes NORTH NWOS-% Resolution 21-071 Page 243 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Saratoga standards. The results of the analysis show that the signalized study intersection currently operates at an acceptable level, LOS C or better, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic (see Table 3). At the two stop -controlled study intersections, the average delay reported in Table 3 reflects the worst movement. The LOS calculation shows that the worst movements at both Quito Road and Marshall Lane and Quito Road and Sobey Road, are experiencing delays corresponding to LOS C under existing conditions. The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 1 Quito Road and Marshall Lane OWSC AM 10/02/19 24.4 C PM 10/02/19 19.1 C 2 Quito Road and Pollard Road Signal AM 10/02/19 22.9 C PM 10/02/19 10.5 B 3 Quito Road and Sobey Road OWSC AM 10/02/19 22.8 C PM 10/02/19 15.4 C Notes: Control Type Definitions: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control 2 Intersection level of service for OWSC intersection is represented by the delay for the stop controlled approach Intersection level of service for all other control types is represented by average delay for all movements. Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Quito Road and Pollard Road Intersection Signal timing data was collected during the AM and PM peak hours on a weekday at the intersection of Quito Road and Pollard Road. The traffic signal has three phases: Southbound Through/Left with westbound Right Turn Overlap Southbound Through, Northbound Through/Right Westbound Right/Left There are pedestrian crossings on the north and east side of the intersection. The green phase for these pedestrian crossings are activated with push buttons. Morning Peak Hour Operations During the early part of the morning peak hour, the signal cycle length is approximately 35 to 45 seconds and the intersection operates smoothly with minor delays and short queues. Around 8:00 o'clock traffic gets significantly heavier because of increasing commute traffic combined with school uUMON Page 1 14 Resolution 21-071 Page 244 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10. 2020 traffic when parents start dropping off their students at Marshall Lane Elementary School. The cycle length maxed out at approximately 90 seconds and long queues form on Quito Road and on both the right and left turn lanes on Pollard Road. Almost all vehicles in the westbound left turn lane are from parents dropping off students at Marshall Lane Elementary School, resulting in much longer than average delay at the intersection. These conditions last only for about 15 minutes. The maximum green time for the westbound left turn movement is about 25 seconds and during the peak school drop off period, vehicles often wait two cycles to get through the intersection. The right turn movement on Pollard Road is very heavy (673 vehicles during the peak -hour in one lane) and the vehicle queue frequently extends past Bearden Drive. Right turning traffic on Pollard Road (and through traffic on Quito Road) often needs to wait two or sometimes three cycles to get through the intersection traffic because (a) the green time is too short to serve the entire queue of traffic and (b) traffic on Quito Road spills back at its downstream intersection with Allendale Avenue all the way to Pollard Road, preventing northbound through and westbound right turning vehicles to get through the intersection. Northbound traffic on Quito Road occasionally extends beyond Sobey Road and southbound traffic on Quito Road often extends beyond Marshall Lane. These long queues occur mainly during the 15-minute time period when school traffic coincides with the morning commute traffic. After school traffic dissipates, traffic conditions improve, however, commute traffic in the westbound right turn lane continue to be heavy and often need multiple cycles to get through the intersection. Pedestrians observed at this intersection included a mix of students, their parents, and other. Most of the pedestrians were students, sometimes accompanied by adults walking toward the school in the morning. Very few bicyclists were observed at this intersection. Middav School Hour Operations During the midday school peak hour, between 2 and 3 o'clock, traffic is very light at the intersection. Cycle lengths are very short, and the intersection operates with minimal delay on all approaches. Very few bicyclists and pedestrians were observed at this intersection during this time. Afternoon Peak Hour Operations During the PM peak hour, the southbound left and through movements were observed to be heavy. However, conflicting traffic for the southbound left turns (northbound through and westbound left) is very light and don't use much of the intersections' capacity. During the peak period, the cycle length is approximately 60 seconds and most of the green time is used by southbound through and left traffic. Although southbound traffic is heavy, the queues almost always cleared in one cycle. Note that southbound traffic on Quito Road is very heavy between Saratoga Avenue and Allendale Avenue. On this segment, traffic moves slowly because long queues buildup at the signalized intersection of Quito Road and Allendale Avenue and southbound traffic needs more than one cycle to get through the intersection. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic is very light during the afternoon peak hour, Only one pedestrian and three bicyclists were observed crossing the intersection. Quito Road and Marshall Lane Intersection Morning Peak Hour Operations At the Quito Road and Marshall Lane intersection, relatively heavy northbound left -turn and eastbound right -turn traffic was observed during the peak drop-off period at Marshall Lane Elementary School. Most of this traffic consist of vehicles from parents dropping of students at the school. The northbound left -turn queue on Quito Road occasionally filled up the left turn pocket and extended into the northbound through lane. Since there is only one northbound through lane along this section of Quito Road, northbound traffic was affected by the occasional left -turn lane spillover at the Marshall Lane intersection and spillback from upstream intersections. The eastbound right -turn traffic queue was UUMON Page 1 15 Resolution 21-071 Page 245 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 approximately four to five cars during the drop-off period. However, these conditions only lasted a short period of time. Midday School Hour Operations During the midday school peak hour, between 2 and 3 o'clock, traffic is very light, and no operational issues were observed. Afternoon Peak Hour Operations During the PM peak hour, the southbound queue at Quito Road and Pollard Road frequently spilled back to the Marshall Lane intersection. Since eastbound traffic on Marshall Lane is very light, one to two vehicles were observed at any given time, this did not create operational problems. Very few bicyclists and pedestrians were observed at this intersection during any of the time periods. Quito Road and Sobey Road Intersection Morning Peak Hour Operations At the Quito Road and Sobey Road intersection, heavy southbound right -turn and eastbound left -turn traffic was observed during the peak AM drop-off period of Marshall Lane Elementary School. Most of the westbound left -turn traffic at the Quito Road and Pollard Road intersection was headed to the school and turned right onto Sobey Road. No queues were observed on the right turns. Returning vehicles from the school's drop off area traveling eastbound on Sobey Road caused long queues at the intersection with Quito Road. Most of the traffic turned left at this intersection and cars needed to wait for a gap in the northbound and southbound traffic stream on Quito Road before they could enter the intersection. During the approximately 10 to 15-minute drop-off period, queues spilled back all the way to the Marshall Lane Elementary school entrance to the parking lot. It took approximately three to four minutes to drive from the school parking lot to the Sobey Road and Quito Road intersection. More than 50% of the peak hour traffic on Sobey Road occurs within the 15-minute drop off period. Although school traffic on Sobey Road experience relatively long delays, this condition only occurs for a short period of time. There is a KEEP CLEAR pavement marking at the intersection and vehicles traveling northbound on Quito Road generally allow traffic from Sobey Road to turn left when traffic slows down approaching the intersection with Pollard Road. Occasionally traffic turning left from Sobey Road couldn't proceed because the northbound queue on Quito Road extends beyond Sobey Road. Although traffic at this intersection is heavy and queues are longer than average during the school's drop off period, this conditions only lasts a short period of time. Outside the drop off period, traffic flows smoothly at this intersection. Midday School Hour Operations Marshall Lane Elementary School dismisses at 2:35 PM. During the mid -day peak periods, peak pick- up traffic occurred within 10-15 minutes after school dismissal. The pick-up traffic patterns at study intersections are similar to the drop-off traffic patterns described above, but with much less traffic and shorter vehicle queues because midday traffic is much lighter than AM and PM peak hour commute traffic. Afternoon Peak Hour Operations During the PM commute hour, there were no operational issues observed. No pedestrians and very few bicyclists were observed at this intersection during any of the time periods. HEXAGON P a g e 1 1 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 246 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions 10, 2020 This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project. It begins with a description of the transportation system under existing plus project conditions and the method by which project traffic is estimated. A summary of levels of service under existing plus project traffic conditions is presented in this chapter. Existing plus project conditions are represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Transportation Network under Existing Plus Project Conditions The transportation network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network except for the access to the site and sidewalk improvements made by the project. The existing driveway off Marshall Lane that provides access to the single-family home would be removed and a new private street would be constructed as part of the project. The new 40-feet street would intersect with Marshall Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Quito Road. Additionally, the project would also make the following improvements to the transportation system: • Widen Marshall Lane between the new private street and Quito Road by two feet • Widen the sidewalk on the southside of Marshall Lane between the new private street and Quito Road to ten feet • Remove the existing asphalt trail on the northside of Sobey Road and construct a ten -foot walkway between Sobey Road between the entrance to the school and Quito Road. • The site plan shows a widened sidewalk on the westside of Quito Road between Marshall Lane and Sobey Road to six feet. However, the City has requested the development to provide a five- foot sidewalk and a two feet buffer on the westside of Quito Road between Marshall Lane and Sobey Road Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed residential development was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. PPI-14 u �i UMON Page 1 17 Resolution 21-071 Page 247 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Trip Generation Through empirical research, data has been collected that correlate to common land uses and their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The trip estimates for the proposed uses are based on trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The rates published for Single -Family Detached Housing (210) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed project. The project would construct nine new single-family homes and the existing residential unit would be demolished. Thus, the project would increase the development on the property site by eight units. The project is estimated to generate six new trips during the AM peak hour (two inbound and four outbound), and eight new trips during the PM peak hour (five inbound and three outbound). The project trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates Single Family' 8 d.u. 9.44 76 0.74 2 4 6 0.99 Notes: ' ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Land Use Code 210: Single -Family Detached Housing. Average rates e)pressed in trips per dwelling unit. 2 The net increase in single family units is nine proposed units - one eAsting unit = eight additional units Trip Distribution Peak hour project traffic was distributed to the transportation network based on the existing trip distribution patterns in the project vicinity (see Figure 7). It is expected that most of the trips to/from the proposed project would be from the freeway. It is expected that 45% of the trips would travel via Pollard Road and 45% of the trips would come to and from Quito Road north of the project site. Both these roads provide access to SR 85 and SR 17. 10% of the trips are expected to travel via Quito Road, south of the project site, which connects to Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Trip Assignment The peak -hour trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the project trip distribution patterns. Figure 7 shows the assignment of project trips at each study intersection and the project driveways. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to the adjusted existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 8. ,.IXA60N �� U Page 1 18 Resolution 21-071 Page 248 18500 Marshall Lane 1 I N Marshall Ln 2(1) 2(2) —Z 3 So bey Rd Marshall Lane Elementary School Sobey Rd I i i i LEGEND J C R1 w W rI _ = Site Location OQ = Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak -Hour Trips "% H = Trip Distribution .. (HEXAGON 1(2) w c cD Pollard o Rd °a O 0 0 O� Marshall Ln Saratoga c 0 n Quito Oaks Way us 0 Campbell m 0 0 in D \ 0 6 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution and Project Trip Assignment 1 NORTH Nat to Sala I Resolution 21-071 Page 249 18500 Marshall Lane 1 2 co sco 00 M cco Marshall Ln i 33(8) I 74(32) Z LO L M M O Cn o= awl 3 co rn Cl) N �- Sobey Rd i 183(67) T IN 12(6) Z cm M c >, M Marshall Lane Elementary School Sobey Rd LEGEND 6�1 G3* C.0M N L 674(264) 1 202(98) Pollard Rd I Co ;� o P_ CO M �a C7 � Marshall Ln Saratoga _ = Site Location OQ = Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 'h1. H IXA60N �Ulrak8�Way c 0 n i< d) o � ,\ o Campbell ' m 0 1 o a AO O� 1 c� a� ,o polla�a Ra I t } 0 c �a Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes 1 NORTH Nol to Sok Resolution 21-071 Page 250 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results of the analysis show that the signalized study intersection would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The addition of project trips would not cause the signalized intersections to degrade from existing operating levels. The delay at the one-way stop -controlled intersection of Quito Road and Marshall Lane would increase by one second during the AM peak -hour. As a result, the corresponding level of service would change from a LOS C to LOS D. During the PM peak hour, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS C with the addition of project traffic. Since the City of Saratoga does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections and LOS D or better is considered an acceptable level of service, the unsignalized intersection of Quito Road and Marshall Lane would continue to operate acceptably in the AM and the PM peak hour. The one-way stop -controlled intersection of Quito Road and Sobey Road would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and the PM peak hours of traffic. The addition of project trips would not cause the unsignalized intersection to degrade from existing operating levels or increase the delay. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary 1 Quito Road and Marshall Lane OWSC AM 24.4 C 25.4 D PM 19.1 C 19.5 C 2 Quito Road and Pollard Road Signal AM 22.9 C 22.9 C PM 10.5 B 10.5 B 3 Quito Road and Sobey Road OWSC AM 22.8 C 22.8 C PM 15.4 C 15.4 C Notes: Control Type Definitions: OWSC = One -Way Stop Control 2 Intersection level of service for OWSC intersection is represented by the delay for the stop controlled approach. Intersection level of service at the signalized intersection is represented by average delay for all movements. hi U IXA60H P a g e 1 2 1 Resolution 21-071 Page 251 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 4. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project, including: • Queuing analysis for selected movements at the study intersections • School traffic on Sobey Road • Potential impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities • Site access and circulation • Parking • VMT Analysis • Construction Evaluation Turn Pocket Queuing Analysis The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for selected intersection turning movements. This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. The following turn movements were selected for evaluation: • Quito Road and Pollard Road — westbound left turn, westbound right turn, southbound left turn • Quito Road and Marshall Lane — northbound left turn As shown on Table 6, the existing queues in the westbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane during the AM peak -hour and the southbound left turn lane for the Quito Road and Pollard Road intersection during the AM and PM peak hours, exceed the 95th percentile. The proposed project would add very few vehicles to roadways and would not increase the queue length at any of the movements at these intersections. It should be noted that, during the morning school drop-off peak period, the queues would be longer for a short period of time because school traffic is heavily concentrated during a 15 to 20 minute time period. The calculated northbound left turn queue with peak hour factor adjustment for the Quito Road and Marshall Lane intersection shows a 95th percentile queue of one vehicle. However, during the AM peak hour, northbound left turn queues were observed occasionally during the school drop-off time. These queues are highly peak oriented. Since the peak hour factor adjusts for peak fifteen minutes and the school drop off likely spans for a shorter time, the occasionally observed queues are not reflected in this calculation. .. NUMON Page 1 22 O N O N O ca a> a ti O O • pj O LO O O N CT } ti M O Oj 0 0 `-' LO O N O } C 0) U E g > O � U) Q E O • C 0 U L U 0 O U 0) • N U U Pl- O O i0 O} ti LO O O LO O} -0 N CA O N O CA a) O N m • NN O N U C i C .O � C 'C U 41 C � Y (000) N�NOZ �M� N� LO�Z 7 c Q N M E O LO O Z3 ( C U m U E - O O N o In O T LO Z N CD Cl) O O LO r � O r- LO Z U N O O_ a)r N N N O m c c - c - U C 7 • - U > (0 N � � O N O 00 N M} � 'It CD N O M O M} U � ■ • y E ■ O m U C 0 • > ( E • U C N CD 00 O CA r c6 O LO LO O ql Z LO N N O O N 06 O LO CO O O (O Z O -O ■ co N (O M N U (B U N U L U S U C O O O U U N � O CD■ O } a) � O � } � O co N LO M COO N U) CO E2 N O O _0 w • N_ -p O O (0 C U C O 'O N -O N M 0 O M 0 LO LO O M M Z co O M O LO O Z O 0 Q Q N O N M M 0 N M M u) O ' L C N C N o > E E U c +-� V N a U c -O U c -O N ^ C -C C U cu a3 . Z LL m Q nf 3� y Q Z N cog� N N N } =aa = a T g= N N -a N c o 0 _ _ •� N N N N N a a� E L L O N C C d E N f6 o o � 0 c N 7 E 7 d o o N 7 U L U (6 (0 d U L L vJ _N U 7 � cr L Qr W U> Q Q� 0)� to Q W ci > Q Q�0') C/) Q M N m m d Resolution 21-071 Page 253 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 School Traffic on Sobey Road Marshall Lane Elementary School is located approximately one quarter mile southwest of the project site. Marshall Lane and Sobey Road provide direct access to the school parking lots and student pick- up/drop-off areas. The school starts at 8:20 AM and lets out at 2:35 PM. On Wednesdays, the school starts at 8:20 AM in the morning and is let out at 1:35 PM. Sobey Road serves as one of the three entrance roads to Marshall Lane Elementary school. Compared to Marshall Lane and Ravenwood Drive, which are the other two roads to the school, Sobey Road is the primary entrance and is being used by most of the school traffic. In the AM peak hour, when peak school traffic overlaps with commute traffic, queues at Quito Road and Sobey Road extend all the way to the Marshall Lane Elementary school parking lot. Because of these long queues from the school parking lot many vehicles turn right onto Sobey Road and continue southward. Other vehicles turn left onto Sobey Road towards Quito Road. During the busy drop off period, it takes approximately three to four minutes to get to Quito Road. Northbound traffic on Quito Road south of Sobey Road is not very heavy, however, the heavy westbound right turns at Quito Road and Pollard Road require much of the green time resulting in queues on northbound Quito Road occasionally extending past Sobey Road. Potential Impacts on Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit As mentioned earlier in this report, the project would improve the pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the site. These improvements would have a positive impact on pedestrians because they provide additional space for pedestrians and create greater separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Given that the project is very small and would not generate much traffic, it is anticipated that bicycle usage would be very low and would not cause an impact on the bicycle facilities. Existing transit service to the study area is provided by VTA bus services running along Quito Road. It is expected that a very small percentage of the residents would use the bus. Two VTA bus routes serve the site, which combined operate eight buses per hour. This level of bus service is expected to accommodate a potentially very small number of project trips. Site Access and On -Site Circulation Site access and on -site circulation were evaluated using commonly accepted transportation planning principles. This review is based on the project site plan prepared by CBG Civil Engineers dated October 2019, shown on Figure 2. Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site's access road with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. The project proposes a full access T-intersection with Marshall Lane, approximately 300 feet west of the Quito Road and Marshall Lane intersection. The private internal road is designed to be 40 feet wide and ends in a cul-de-sac with a 40-foot radius. The street runs in the center of the project site and provides access to the nine single-family homes which all have individual two -car parking garages. Garbage collection trucks would pick up trash from each individual unit. The private road is sufficiently wide for the garbage truck which can turn around at the cul-de-sac. The private street design meets the City of Saratoga requirements of a cul-de-sac that serves 12 or fewer residential lots (City of Saratoga Code 10-30.320) to have two 11 feet travel lanes with and a cul-de-sac radius of 40 feet. The project would generate two and five inbound trips and four and three outbound trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Under existing plus project conditions, the driveway would operate at LOS A with a delay of 2.9 seconds in the AM peak hour and 2.7 seconds in the PM peak hour. H LXA60H T Resolution 21-071 Page 254 18500 Marshall Lane Residential Development TIA April 10, 2020 Recommendation: The project entrance should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Marshall Lane. Any landscaping, parking, and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers entering and exiting the site. Parking Supply The project is required to have two covered parking spaces within a garage for each single-family dwelling unit as determined by the Planning Commission to be adequate (City of Saratoga Code 15- 35.030). For the nine single-family dwelling units proposed, the project should provide a minimum of 18 parking spaces. In addition to individual two -car garages provided for each home, there is also street parking available for guests and residents along the private road and cul-de-sac. Therefore, there would be sufficient parking for the residents and their guests. Vehicle Miles Travelled Pursuant of SB 743, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the finalized Updates to the CEQA Guidelines in November 2017. The guidelines stated that Level of Service will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA and considers vehicle -miles -travelled (VMT) the most appropriate measure of transportation impact. For the project site (TAZ 497), the Year 2020 Plan Bay Area model forecasted daily VMT is 20.9 vehicle -miles travelled per resident. In comparison, the forecasted City of Saratoga average daily VMT per resident for all zones (taz's 493,494,495,496,497,498) is 20.1. Therefore, VMT per resident for the project would be slightly higher that the citywide average. Given that no standard approach or guidelines have been adopted by the City of Saratoga (adoption is not required until July 2020), the VMT information is provided only for information. Construction Evaluation Project construction would temporarily affect off -site circulation due to potential travel lane closures, detours, closure of sidewalks, and increased truck traffic to and from the development site. Project construction activities should follow the City requirements and the applicant should coordinate with the City to develop a construction management plan to minimize disruptions to the overall traffic circulation in the project area. h'6.1] NEXA60H Peg, i 2 Resolution 21-071 Page 255 18500 Marshall Lane Traffic Study Technical Appendices April 10, 2020 Resolution 21-071 Page 256 Appendix A Traffic Counts Resolution 21-071 All Traffic Data Services Inc. (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata. net Location: 1 QUITO RD & MARSHALL LN AM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 07A5 AM - 08A5 AM Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (619) 406 0.84 964 (1,831) 1 � oulTo RD MARSHALL LHm m o 0 (128) 0 _,jJ L. 112 4— 31 1 N 4-- 0.44 W 0.86 E 103 0 S r (109) 72 � 1 t rc OUITORD ! ■ (671) 460 0.96 1,027 (1,902) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-0 0�--► 01-- 0 i 6 J i N 1. IIJt- o _JW E 0 —► rr 1 2,�1 0 4-0 0--► Peak Hour - Pedestrians MARSHALL LN QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Tum Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 .0 3 161 0 0 0 25 0 189 1,146 1 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 2 251 0 0 0 38 2 294 1,362 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 5 230 0 0 0 61 3 300 1,517 1 0 0 7:45 AM 0 2 0 6 0 18 252 0 0 0 84 1 363 1,536 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 5 0 17 0 48 217 0 0 0 103 15 405 1,484 1 0 1 8:30 AM 0 5 0 9 0 2 221 0 0 0 82 0 319 1 0 0 8:45 AM 0 1 0 3 0 0 223 0 0 0 83 1 311 2 0 0 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lights 0 31 0 72 0 94 925 0 0 0 382 18 1,522 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 13 Total 0 31 0 72 0 94 933 0 0 0 388 18 1,536 Resolution 21-071 (303) 216-2439 vvvvvv. a I Itrafficdata. net Location: 2 QUITO RD & POLLARD RD AM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (661) 432 0.72 1,052 (1,899) 1 i QUITO RD j 1 (1,440) 4— L 673 N � 8 75 �0 y W 0.84 E r 202 0.78 y S ..y 436 0 1 r` (631) o 0 o N POLUtRD RD QUITO RD 1 i (547) 363 0.76 544 (976) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-9 0m-►I i ) 1 N 1, lit_ 0 i .%W gib E �0 y ( r0 p ! -inn trC-0 1 *--0 0--. Peak Hour - Pedestrians 4-••29 10 m-� i 9 i N W-xE ! 0 1 ::0 )�F POLLARD RD QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 700 AM 0 12 0 85 0 0 86 15 0 11 12 0 221 1,306 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 17 0 126 0 0 127 9 0 20 19 0 318 1,620 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 27 0 154 0 0 91 15 0 31 28 0 346 1,851 0 0 2 7:45 AM 0 32 0 171 0 0 99 31 0 42 46 0 421 1,850 2 0 7 8:00 AM 0 99 0 182 0 0 87 42 0 72 53 0 535 1,771 7 0 20 8:30 AM 0 22 0 146 0 0 63 27 0 54 33 0 345 2 0 5 8:45 AM 0 27 0 130 0 0 84 21 0 38 42 0 342 0 0 2 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Lights 0 198 0 666 0 0 378 165 0 267 158 0 1,832 Mediums 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 16 Total 0 202 0 673 0 0 379 165 0 271 161 0 1,851 Resolution 21-071 (303) 216-2439 www.alitrafficdata.net Location: 3 QUITO RD & SOBEY RD AM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (553) 365 0.64 559 (988) 1 i QUITO RD SOBEY RD ^> o o L (275) 0 J 224 N 183 � r. 0.48 W 0.78 E 195 y 0 ~ S r , 2 (265) n t r� QUITO RD 1 i (341) 194 0.90 417 (786) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-0 1.0 i 0.:)J 1N1. 6L 0_jW �E 0 .* T 1 0-1nn trc 1 4-0 0-0 Peak Hour - Pedestrians SOBEY RD QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 7:00 AM 0 11 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 20 7 126 683 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 15 0 1 0 2 121 0 0 0 23 13 175 871 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 21 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 38 10 158 977 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 28 0 0 0 2 110 0 0 0 58 26 224 968 0 0 1 ~ 0 0 37 110 314 921 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 96 0 8 0 8 83 0 0 0 49 37 281 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 22 0 5 0 0 65 0 0 0 48 9 149 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 16 0 0 0 2 91 0 0 0 50 18 177 0 0 0 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lights 0 183 0 12 0 41 375 0 0 0 174 183 968 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 8 Total 0 183 0 12 0 41 376 0 0 0 182 183 977 Resolution 21-071 r r r (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata. net Location: 1 QUITO RD & MARSHALL LN PM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (1,692) 874 0.97 459 (869) ! � OUITO RD MARSHALLLI, (48) 0 J ! L 18 41- N 4— 7 � � 0.42 W 0.94 E 37 -.# 0 ~S r --* (55) 30 ^ * �+�• 1 n 1 1 QUITO RD 1 1 (1,718) 896 0.88 462 (888) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-0 0--* t 0'«1 1 N %. UlL t OJW —S—E � 0-* r 0-1 q irk 1 i - -0 _-. F 4-0 0—► Peak Hour - Pedestrians 4—O O—,L W?E ! o ! 4— MARSHALL LN QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Tum Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 0 1 0 8 0 3 100 0 0 0 194 3 309 1,288 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 13 89 0 0 0 185 6 295 1,343 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 3 0 22 0 5 110 0 0 0 217 6 363 1,373 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 3 0 3 0 1 91 0 0 0 223 0 321 1,349 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 2 117 0 0 0 202 1 325 1 0 0 5:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 110 0 0 0 226 0 339 1 0 0 5:45 PM 0 1 0 4 0 2 108 0 0 0 202 2 319 0 0 0 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 0 7 0 30 0 10 445 0 0 0 858 8 1,358 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 15 Total 0 7 0 30 0 10 452 0 0 0 866 8 1,373 Resolution 21-071 i (303) 216-2439 www.ailtrafficdata.net Location: 2 QUITO RD & POLLARD RD PM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (1,719) 903 0.95 455 (885) ! QUITO RD o o > 0 L �` 262 (683) N 0 4- 360 yW 0.92 E r 98 0.84 y S 638 1 r (1,161) QUITO RD ! t POLLARD RD (944) 467 0.85 297 (588) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-0 0--* a t �«1 1 1. N liL 0 i 1vv �E �0 •y S Jl- 1 Ir0 1 `, 1 o o1�y *-0 0--* Peak Hour - Pedestrians POLLARD RD QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 0 30 0 48 0 0 52 28 0 110 91 0 359 1,457 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 22 0 60 0 0 46 12 0 100 85 0 325 1,521 1 0 0 4:30 PM 0 31 0 67 0 0 48 23 0 149 88 0 406 1,560 1 0 0 4:45 PM 0 14 0 54 0 0 36 30 0 138 95 0 367 1,534 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 26 0 61 0 0 52 16 0 118 91 0 364 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 21 0 64 0 0 48 25 0 114 108 0 380 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 17 0 61 0 0 51 29 0 105 103 0 366 0 0 2 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 0 97 0 257 0 0 191 103 0 528 367 0 1,543 Mediums 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 1 0 6 2 0 17 Total 0 98 0 262 0 0 193 104 0 534 369 0 1,560 Resolution 21-071 All Traffic Data', (303) 216-2439 www.al Itrafficdata. net Location: 3 QUITO RD & SOBEY RD PM Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles (939) 484 0.90 313 (589) 1 i Q11T0 Ro SOBEY RD (181) 0 91 67 N� ~ 0.81 W 0.96 E (149) 6 Z� � 1 r QUITO RD ,�. i (776) 404 0.88 251 (458) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles 4-0 0--* i° .� t Nl. O,W E 4— 0-0 —S `1- 0-1 n C, 1 i - -0 - -F 4-0 0--� Peak Hour - Pedestrians 4-0 0 L i i W A E 1 0 1 4- 4--o o--+� SOBEY RD QUITO RD QUITO RD Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 0 22 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 101 19 200 738 1 0 0 4:15 PM 0 9 0 0 0 1 46 0 0 0 84 26 166 749 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 21 0 3 0 3 51 0 0 0 95 22 195 770 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 21 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 89 19 177 786 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 10 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 92 23 187 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 17 0 1 0 4 54 0 0 0 108 27 211 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 19 0 3 0 0 60 0 0 0 100 17 199 0 0 0 Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vehicle Type U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lights 0 65 0 6 0 5 242 0 0 0 398 85 801 Mediums 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 7 Total 0 67 0 6 0 5 246 0 0 0 398 86 808 Resolution 21-071 Page 263 Appendix B Level of Service Calculations RWMMn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-1 Page 264 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existinq AM Intersection #1: Quito Road & Marshall Lane S i gnat=U ncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Final Vol: 18 388 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 7 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: Na Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 31 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.250 0 0 0 � Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 2.1 0 72 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 0 0 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 94 933 0 S i gnat=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------I----------II---------------II--------II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 --------------II------ ----II ----II--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ----- -I----------II----------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 406 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1518 1518 397 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1164 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 132 120 657 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1164 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 124 110 657 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.25 0.00 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I -------- --II---------II---------------11--------------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 287 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 24.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 24.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R?AtBhMn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-2 Page-265 - ---------------II- - - - - - - - - -II---------II--------- -I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 24.4 xxxxxx ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.7] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=103] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=1536] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------- -- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Major Street Volume: 1433 Minor Approach Volume: 103 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 161 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copydght (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R7AlA8hMn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-3 Paop 2613 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) _. Existing PM Intersection #1: Quito Road & Marshall Lane S igna I=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Final Vol: 8 866 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 100 Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 7 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.085 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.6 0 30 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 0.6 0 0 LOS: C t t* Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 10 452 0 Signal=U ncontrol/Rights=l nclude Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- II --------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I--------------- II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 874 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1342 1342 870 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 781 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 169 154 354 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 781 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 168 152 354 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 0.00 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------II--------------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 292 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 19.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R�fii!M!Wn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10-08:13 2019 Page 34 Page-2fr7------ I--------------- II --------- -II--------- II ---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I----------II---------------II-------II ---- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.1 xxxxxx ----I---------------II---------------II---------II------ ----I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=37] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=1373] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met - ---I----------II----------II------- --II--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------------II------ --II---------II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II------ ----II ---- Major Street Volume: 1336 Minor Approach Volume: 37 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 185 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R�ffibkl rlon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-5 ana 2RR Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing - P AM Intersection #1: Quito Road & Marshall Lane Sig n al=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Final Vol: 19 388 0 Lanes: 0 1 10 ♦�'0`� 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include F 7 Vol Cnt Date: n/a Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 33 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 p 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.267 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.3 0 74 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 0 0 LOS: D Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 95 933 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=l nclude Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------- II---------II---------II------ I Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- 11 ---------------II---------II--------- 1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 407 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1521 1521 398 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1163 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 132 120 656 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1163 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 124 110 656 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.27 0.00 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- II ---- 11--------II-------- I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 282 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 25.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * D ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 25.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * D Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RMBk on 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08.13 2019 Page 3-6 Page-269 - - - - - - ---------------II---------------il-------------- -II- - - ------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 25.4 xxxxxx ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.8] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=107] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=1542] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. ------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------------------II----------II----------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 -------i---------------II----------II---------------II---------------I Major Street Volume: 1435 Minor Approach Volume: 107 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 160 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Fraffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Ri dtM tFon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08 13 2019 Page 3-7 Panp 270 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + P PM Intersection #1. Quito Road & Marshall Lane Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 8 0 0 0 11 0 32 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Si gnat=U ncontrol/Rights=i ncl ude 10 866 0 0 1 0 0 0 Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 100 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C: 0.091 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.7 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.7 LOS: C/ f 1 0 1 0 0 13 452 0 S igna I=U ncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 452 0 0 866 8 7 0 30 0 0 0 Added Vol: 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 13 452 0 0 866 10 8 0 32 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 13 452 0 0 866 10 8 0 32 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 13 452 0 0 866 10 8 0 32 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 876 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1349 1349 871 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 779 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 168 152 353 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 779 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 166 150 353 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.00 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 288 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 19.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * O ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ®mx o.u.ur 13 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RWBkWn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-8 Page-2-7-1------ I--------------- II---------II---------------II---- -----I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 452 0 0 866 10 8 0 32 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.5 xxxxxx ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------- II ---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=40] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=13811 SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. ------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------------II----------II---------------il--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 13 452 0 0 866 10 8 0 32 0 0 0 ------------ i--------------- II -----II----------II--------------- Major Street Volume: 1341 Minor Approach Volume: 40 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 184 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Ri�Mlkr FOn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-9 ana 272 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #2: Quito Road & Pollard Road Signal=Protect/Rights=l ncl ude Final Vol: 0 161 271"' Lanes: 0 0 ♦11 Oy,T� 1 Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Rights=Include T • Vol Cnl Date: n/a Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap Cycle Time (sec): 90 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 0 --0- Critical V/C: 0.702 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.5 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 22.9 LOS: c -Il Att t t* (* Lanes: Final Vol: 1 673- 0 0 0 0 1 202 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 0 379- 165 Signal=Protect/Rights=l nclude Street Name: Quito Road Pollard Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- --I --- -II --- II---------- II --------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ----------------------II---------------II---------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 -------I---------II------II----------II--------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1900 1615 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1556 ------ -I---------II--- ---II ----II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.70 0.36 0.70 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.70 Uniform Del: 0.0 28.8 25.7 32.7 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 11.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 4.1 0.5 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 33.0 26.2 38.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 14.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 33.0 26.2 38.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 14.1 LOS by Move: A C C D B A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R4010k Fon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-10 ana 273 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2: Quito Road & Pollard Road Signal=Protect/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 0 369 534"' Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 41 4 �►1-. Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 60 Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 � 1 262 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.531 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.6 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.5 1 98"' LOS: 8 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 0 193"' 104 Signal=Protect/Rights= I nclud e Street Name: Quito Road Pollard Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------- II ----- ----II--- ---II-------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 -----I------II---------------II--------- II ------ Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 ---------------------------il---------------II-------- -II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1900 1615 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1611 ----I---------------11--- II----- ----II------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.53 0.34 0.53 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.25 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.8 21.0 8.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 4.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 23.4 21.6 8.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 4.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 23.4 21.6 8.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 4.3 LOS by Move: A C C A A A A A A C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. rraffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R?A5kftn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-11 Panp 274 Intersection #2: Quito Road & Pollard Road Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + P AM Signal= ProtecURights=l ncl ud e 0 161 273'" 0 0 1 0 1 41 Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 90 Loss Time (sec): 9 Critical V/C: 0.703 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.5 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 22.9 LOS, C 1 t t* 0 0 1 0 1 0 379"' 165 Signal=ProtecURights=l nclude Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: 1 674"' 0 0 0 0 1 202 Street Name: Quito Road Pollard Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- -I---------II---------------II--------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ----------------II---------------II--------- -II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 379 165 271 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 673 Added Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 379 165 273 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 674 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 379 165 273 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 674 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 379 165 273 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 674 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 379 165 273 161 0 0 0 0 202 0 674 ----- -------II---------II-------- --II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1900 1615 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1556 ------------I--------II--------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.70 0.36 0.70 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.70 Uniform Del: 0.0 28.8 25.7 32.7 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 ll.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 4.2 0.5 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 33.0 26.2 38.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 14.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 33.0 26.2 38.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 14.1 LOS by Move: A C C D B A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R(Yffi5ftW*n 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-12 aop 27r, Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing - P PM Intersection #2: Quito Road & Pollard Road Signal=Protect/R i ghts=l ncl ude Final Vol: 0 369 535"" Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 1 264 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.533 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.7 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.5 1 98"' LOS: B -il Atf t t* -0- Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 0 194"' 104 Signal=ProtecURights=l nclude Street Name: Quito Road Pollard Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------- 11---------II----------II--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ---------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 193 104 534 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 262 Added Vol: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 194 104 535 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 264 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 194 104 535 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 264 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 194 104 535 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 264 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 194 104 535 369 0 0 0 0 98 0 264 ------I----------II----------II----------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1900 1615 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1611 ----- I ----------II----------II---------11--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.53 0.34 0.53 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.25 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.8 21.0 8.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 4.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 23.4 21.6 8.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 4.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 23.4 21.6 8.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 4.3 LOS by Move: A C C A A A A A A C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R?JtMRfon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-13 ane 276 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existino AM Intersection #3: Quito Road & Sobey Road Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 183 182 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 183 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.480 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 4.9 0 12 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 0 0 LOS: C Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Final Vol: 41 376 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Sobey Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----I------II------- II--------------- II -------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 ---------- --II-------II--------- II --------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------I--------II-------II------- 11--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 732 732 274 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1205 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 392 351 770 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1205 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 381 339 770 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.48 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx -----I---------II-------II------- II --------------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 393 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 2.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 22.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report Intersection 43 Quito Road & Sobey Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RftbkW*n 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10 08:13 2019 Page 3-14 Page-2-77 ----------------II---------------il--------- -II- -- -----I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------I---------------II---------------II---------II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Approach Del: xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx ------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------II---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #l: [vehicle-hours=1.2] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=195] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=977] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ----------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------II---------------II----------II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Major Street Volume: 782 Minor Approach Volume: 195 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 285 ---------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RF hMM on 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-15 ana 77A Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #3: Quito Road & Sobey Road S i gnat=Uncontrol/Rig hts=1 ncl ude Final Vol: 86 398 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 100 Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 67 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.164 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.4 0 6 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 0 0 LOS: C t t* Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Final Vol: 5 246 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Sobey Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 --------------------------- II----------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 484 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 697 697 441 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1089 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 410 367 621 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1089 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 409 366 621 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 421 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met I ratnx 8 uo/15 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RWBk POn 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-16 Page-Z7------ I --------------- II --------------- II---------------II---------------I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I -------- 11 ---------11-------- 11------- 1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Approach Del: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.4 xxxxxx ------I---------------II---------------11--------II----- -----I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule 42: [approach volume=73] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=808] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---- ---I--------------- 11--------------- II----------II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---------------II--------------- Major Street Volume: 735 Minor Approach Volume: 73 Minor Approach volume Threshold: 302 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. rraffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RiNtM tr Fon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10 08:13 2019 Page 3-17 ana ?sn Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existinq + P AM Intersection #3: Quito Road & Sobev Road Sig na I=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Final Vol: 183 182 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 1* Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 183 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 11 Critical V/C: 0.480 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 4.9 � 0 12 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 0 0 LOS: C Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Final Vol: 41 376 0 Sign a I=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Sobey Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 --I-----II-----II--------II--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -----I--------II------II------II------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 732 732 274 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1205 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 392 351 770 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1205 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 381 339 770 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.48 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I ---------------II-- ---II------II-------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 393 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 2.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 22.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R(MM t*n 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-18 Page-281---------------II------- -II----------II- - -- I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ II - --------II------- --II--------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx ------- I --- ----II------- -II-------II---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=1.2] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=195] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=977] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ----------------------II----------II-------- 11--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------------------II--------II- --------II------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 41 376 0 0 182 183 183 0 12 0 0 0 ------------I----- ----II----------II------- ---II--------------- Major Street Volume: 782 Minor Approach Volume: 195 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 285 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RWBK *n 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10.08:13 2019 Page 3-19 anp 982 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing - P PM Intersection #3: Quito Road & Sobey Road Signal=U ncontrol/Rig hts=l ncl ude Final Vol: 86 398 0 Lanes: 0" 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include r Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 100 Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 67 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 p 0 11 -* Critical V/C: 0.164 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.4 0 6 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 0 0 LOS: C t t* Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Final Vol: 5 247 0 S i gnat=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Sobey Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I ----------II----------11--------II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 246 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 5 247 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 247 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 247 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 ------------ --------II---------------II---------------11--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------I----------II----------II---------II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 484 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 698 698 441 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1089 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 410 367 621 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1089 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 408 365 621 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------- I---------------II---------------II----------II--------------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 420 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * C ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose WAMIRfon 21-071 Tue Nov 05 10:08:13 2019 Page 3-20 Page-2S3------ --------------- II --------------- II ---------II--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------II---------------II---------------II--------- I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 247 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.4 xxxxxx ------------I -- -------II-- -- II --- -----II----- -I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle -hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=73] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=809] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #3 Quito Road & Sobey Road Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---------------II--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --II---------II---------II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 247 0 0 398 86 67 0 6 0 0 0 ------------I---------II-------II---------------II---------I Major Street Volume: 736 Minor Approach Volume: 73 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 301 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Resolution 21-071 Page 284 Appendix C Queuing Calculations R�lltlbkMn 21-071 Thu Feb 20 17:01:01 2020 Page 3-1 Page 285 Intersection #1: Quito Road & Marshall Lane Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 88 0 J 0 0 1! 0 186 0 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Sign al=Uncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude 60 550 0 0 1 0 0 0 1* Signal=Stop Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 Critical V/C: 2.007 0 0 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 86.2 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 86.2 - 0 0 LOS: F '0�4T? Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 214 1154 0 Signal=Unconlrol/Rights=l nclude Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.44 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.71 0.30 0.35 0.86 0.39 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 214 1154 0 0 550 60 88 0 186 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 214 1154 0 0 550 60 88 0 186 0 0 0 -------1---------------11---------------II---------------II--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 610 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2163 2163 580 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 979 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 53 48 518 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 979 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 44 37 518 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.01 0.00 0.36 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------1 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 116 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 24.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 701 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 700.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection 41 Quito Road & Marshall Lane ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met Traffx 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose FRiAt@n 21-071 Thu Feb 20 17:01:01 2020 Page 3-2 Page-2W ----- I ---------------II----------II---------------II- I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I---------------il---------II----------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Approach Del: xxxxxx xxxxxx 700.9 xxxxxx -------I---------------11---------------11----------11---------- I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=20.1] SUCCEED - Vehicle -hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=1031 SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=15361 SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------I----------II---------II---------------II--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------II------- -II- --- 11--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 ------------I---------II----------II---------------II--------------- Major Street Volume: 1433 Minor Approach Volume: 103 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 161 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. iraffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose RftbFlftn 21-071 Thu Feb 20 17:01.01 2020 Page 3-5 Pane 287 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + P AM Intersection #1: Quito Road & Marshall Lane Signa I=U ncontrol/Rig hts=l ncl ude Final Vol: 63 550 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Signal=Stop Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 94 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 p 0 11 -0111- Critical V/C: 2.162 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh). 98.3 0 191 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 98.3 0 0 LOS: F " Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 217 1154 0 Signa I=U ncontrol/Rights=l ncl ude Street Name: Quito Road Marshall Lane Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I ---- ---II---------II----- -II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 94 933 0 0 388 18 31 0 72 0 0 0 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.44 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.71 0.30 0.35 0.86 0.39 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 217 1154 0 0 550 63 94 0 191 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 217 1154 0 0 550 63 94 0 191 0 0 0 ---I----------II------- --II- -----II---------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -----I--------- II------ --II --------------- --------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 613 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2169 2169 582 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 976 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 52 47 517 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 976 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 43 37 517 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.16 0.00 0.37 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------- I ---------------II-------- II---------II------- Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 112 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 25.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 776 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * * * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 775.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * F Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection 41 Quito Road & Marshall Lane ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose R�0klftn 21-071 Thu Feb 20 17:01:01 2020 Page 3-6 Page-288------I---------------II------ - -II---------II---------- - - - - - I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II---------------II-------- Ii--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 775.9 xxxxxx ----- --I----------II ---------il---------------II---------------I Approach[eastbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=23.1] SUCCEED - Vehicle -hours greater than or equal to 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=107] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=1542] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #1 Quito Road & Marshall Lane Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------ ----- ----II--------- -II--------II-------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------- II -- ------II-------- --II-------i Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 95 933 0 0 388 19 33 0 74 0 0 0 ----- -I--------II---------II---------------II--------------- Major Street Volume: 1435 Minor Approach Volume: 107 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 160 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Resolution 21-071 Page 289 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Left AM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 9.9 90th Percentile = 14 Percentile = 0.95 15,0000 No be, c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0005 0.0005 1 0.0025 0.0030 2 0.0081 0.0111 3 0.0201 0.0312 4 0.0398 0.0710 5 0.0656 0.1366 6 a.0928 0.2294 7 0.1148 0.3442 8 0.1263 0.4705 9 0.1250 0.5955 10 0.1125 0.7081 11 0.0928 0.8009 12 0.0707 0.8716 13 0.0500 0.9216 14 0.0330 0.9546 15 0.0204 0.9751 16 0.0119 0.9870 17 0.0065 0.9935 18 0.0034 0.9969 19 0.0017 0.9986 20 0.0008 0.9994 21 0.0004 0.9997 22 0.0002 0.9999 23 0.0001 1.0000 24 o.00a0 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0,0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0=00 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 omao 1.0000 60 omao 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 o.0000 1.a000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.000a 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 Omoo 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0,0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Left AM 3 Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 9.9 90th Percentile = 14 Percentile = 0.95 15 Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0005 0.0005 1 0.0025 0.0030 2 0.0081 0.0111 3 0.0201 0.0312 4 0.0398 0.0710 5 0.0656 0.1366 6 0.0928 0.2294 7 0.1148 0.3442 8 0.1263 0.4705 9 0.1250 0.5955 10 0.1125 0.7081 11 0.0928 0.8009 12 0.0707 0.8716 13 0.0500 0.9216 14 0.0330 0.9546 15 0.0204 0.9751 16 0.0119 0.9870 17 0.0065 0.9935 18 0.0034 0.9969 19 0.0017 0.9986 20 0.0008 0.9994 21 0.0004 0.9997 22 0.0002 0.9999 23 0.0001 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0,0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 1 Resolution 21-071 Page 290 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Left PM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 1.6 90th Percentile = 3 Percentile = 0.95 4.0000 Number a Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.1953 0.1953 0 0.3190 0.5142 1 0.2605 0.7747 2 0.1418 0.9165 3 0.0579 0.9744 4 0.0189 0.9934 5 0.0051 0.9985 6 0.0012 0.9997 7 0.0002 0.9999 8 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 L0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Left PM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = Percentile= OA5 Number Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.1953 0.1953 0 0.3190 0.5142 1 0.2605 0.7747 2 0.1418 0.9165 3 0.0579 0.9744 4 0.0189 0.9934 5 0.0051 0.9985 6 0.0012 0.9997 7 0.0002 0.9999 8 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0090 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.atloo 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 O.Oaoa 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 2 Resolution 21-071 Page 291 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Right AM 3 Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 18.2 90th Percentile = 24 Percentile = 0.95 25 Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0001 0.0001 4 0.0002 0.0003 5 0.0006 0.0009 6 0.0016 0.0025 7 0.0037 0.0063 8 0.0075 0.0138 9 0.0137 0.0275 10 0.0227 0.0502 11 0.0344 0.0846 12 0.0481 0.1327 13 0.0626 0.1953 14 0.0759 0.2712 15 0.0864 0.3576 16 0.0925 0.4500 17 0.0935 0.5435 18 0.0896 0.6331 19 0.0815 0.7146 20 0.0706 0.7852 21 0.0584 0.8436 22 0.0462 0.8899 23 0.0351 0.9249 24 0.0255 0.9505 25 0.0179 0.9683 26 0.0120 0.9804 27 0.0078 0.9882 28 0.0049 0.9931 29 0.0030 0.9961 30 0.0017 0.9979 31 0.0010 0.9989 32 0.0005 0.9994 33 0.0003 0.9997 34 0.0002 0.9999 35 0.0001 0.9999 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.acoo 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Right AM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 18.2 90th Percen8le = 24 Percentile = 0.95 26 Number Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0001 0.0001 4 0.0002 0.0003 5 0.0006 0.0009 6 0.0016 0.0025 7 0.0037 0.0062 8 0.0074 0.0136 9 0.0135 0.0272 10 0.0224 0.0496 11 0.0341 0.0837 12 0.0478 0.1315 13 0.0622 0.1937 14 0.0756 0.2693 15 0.0861 0.3554 16 0.0923 0.4477 17 0.0935 0.5412 18 0.0897 0.6308 19 0.0817 0.7125 20 0.0709 0.7834 21 0.0587 0.8422 22 0.0465 0.8887 23 0.0353 0.9241 24 0.0258 0.9498 25 0.0181 0.9679 26 0.0122 0.9801 27 0.0079 0.9880 28 0.0050 0.9930 29 0.0030 0.9960 30 0.0018 0.9978 31 0.0010 0.9988 32 0.0006 0.9994 33 0.0003 0.9997 34 0.0002 0.9998 35 0.0001 0.9999 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 3 Resolution 21-071 Page 292 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Right PM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 4A 90th Percentile = 7 Percentile = 0.95 8 Number a Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0127 0.0127 0 0.0554 0.0681 1 0.1210 0.1891 2 0.1761 0.3653 3 0.1923 0.5576 4 0.1679 0.7255 5 0.1222 0.8477 6 0.0762 0.9240 7 0.0416 0.9656 8 0.0202 0.9858 9 0.0088 0.9946 10 0.0035 0.9981 11 0.0013 0.9994 12 0.0004 0.9998 13 0.0001 0.9999 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 '43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 L0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Westbound Right PM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 4.4 90th Percentile = 7 Percentile = 0.95 8 Number a Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0123 0.0123 0 0.0540 0.0663 1 0.1188 0.1851 2 0.1743 0.3594 3 0.1917 0.5512 4 0.1687 0.7199 5 0.1237 0.8436 6 0.0778 0.9214 7 0.0428 0.9642 8 0.0209 0.9851 9 0.0092 0.9943 10 0.0037 0.9980 11 0.0013 0.9993 12 0.0005 0.9998 13 0.0001 0.9999 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 timoo 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 limall 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 4 Resolution 21-071 Page 293 Quito Road and Pollard Road Southbound Left AM 3 Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 6.8 90th Percentile = 10 Percentile = 0.95 11 Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0011 0.0011 0 0.0077 0.0089 1 0.0262 0.0351 2 0.0592 0.0943 3 0.1002 0.1945 4 0.1358 0.3304 5 0.1534 0.4837 6 0.1485 0.6322 7 0.1257 0.7579 8 0.0946 0.8526 9 0.0641 0.9167 10 0.0395 0.9562 11 0.0223 0.9785 12 0.0116 0.9901 13 0.0056 0.9957 14 0.0025 0.9982 15 0.0011 0.9993 16 0.0004 0.9998 17 0.0002 0.9999 18 0.0001 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0001 0 .0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 o.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Southbound Left AM 3 Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = Percentile = 0.95 Number a Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0011 0.0011 0 0.0074 0.0085 1 0.0253 0.0338 2 0.0576 0.0914 3 0.0982 0.1896 4 0.1341 0.3236 5 0.1525 0.4761 6 0.1487 0.6248 7 0.1268 0.7516 8 0.0962 0.8478 9 0.0656 0.9134 10 0.0407 0.9542 11 0.0232 0.9773 12 0.0122 0.9895 13 0.0059 0.9954 14 0.0027 0.9981 15 0.0012 0.9993 16 0.0005 0.9997 17 0.0002 0.9999 18 0.0001 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 .00 0.0000 100 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 fib 0.0000 10000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.woo 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.6000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 5 Resolution 21-071 Page 294 Quito Road and Pollard Road Southbound Left PM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = Percentile = 0.95 Number. Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0014 1 0.0054 0.0068 2 0.0160 0.0228 3 0.0357 0.0584 4 0.0635 0.1219 5 0.0941 0.2160 6 0.1197 0.3357 7 0.1332 0.4689 8 0.1317 0.6006 9 0.1172 0.7178 10 0.0948 0.8126 11 0.0703 0.8829 12 0.0481 0.9311 13 0.0306 0.9617 14 0.0182 0.9798 15 0.0101 0.9899 16 0.0053 0.9952 17 0.0026 0.9978 18 0.0012 0.9991 19 0.0005 0.9996 20 0.0002 0.9998 21 0.0001 0.9999 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Southbound Left PM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 8.9 90th Percentile = 13 Percentile = 0.95 14 Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0013 1 0.0053 0.0067 2 0.0158 0.0225 3 0.0353 0.0578 4 0.0630 0.1208 5 0.0936 0.2145 6 0.1193 0.3337 7 0.1329 0.4667 8 0.1317 0.5984 9 0.1174 0.7158 10 0.0952 0.8110 11 0.0707 0.8818 12 0.0485 0.9303 13 0.0309 0.9612 14 0.0184 0.9795 15 0.0102 0.9898 16 0.0054 0.9951 17 0.0027 0.9978 18 0.0012 0.9991 19 0.0006 0.9996 20 0.0002 0.9998 21 0.0001 0.9999 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 6 Resolution 21-071 Page 295 Quito Road and Pollard Road Northbound Right AM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = Percentile= 0.95 Number Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0639 0.0639 0 0.1758 0.2397 1 0.2417 0.4815 2 0.2216 0.7030 3 0.1523 0.8554 4 0.0838 0.9392 5 0.0384 0.9776 6 0.0151 0.9927 7 0.0052 0.9978 8 0.0016 0.9994 9 0.0004 0.9999 10 0.0001 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 L0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0090 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Northbound Right AM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 2.8 90111 Percentile = 5 Percentile = 0.95 6 Number Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.0639 0.0639 0 0.1758 0.2397 1 0.2417 0.4815 2 0.2216 0.7030 3 0.1523 0.8554 4 0.0838 0.9392 5 0.0384 0.9776 6 0.0151 0.9927 7 0.0052 0.9978 8 0.0016 0.9994 9 0.0004 0.9999 10 0.0001 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0-0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 7 Resolution 21-071 Page 296 Quito Road and Pollard Road Northbound Right PM Existing Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 1.7 90th Percentile = 3 Percentile = 0.95 4 Number o Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.1767 0.1767 0 0.3063 0.4830 1 0.2654 0.7484 2 0.1534 0.9018 3 0.0665 0.9682 4 0.0230 0.9913 5 0.0067 0.9979 - 6 0.0016 0.9996 7 0.0004 0.9999 8 0.0001 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 L0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 O.o000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 O.00ao 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.00a0 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1 moo 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Quito Road and Pollard Road Northbound Right PM Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = Percentile = 0.95 Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.1767 0.1767 0 0.3063 0.4830 1 0.2654 0.7484 2 0.1534 0.9018 3 0.0665 0.9682 4 0.0230 0.9913 5 0.0067 OA979 6 0.0016 0.9996 7 0.0004 0.9999 8 0.0001 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 OA000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 o.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 OA000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1A000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 8 Resolution 21-071 Page 297 Quito Road and Marshall Lane (Unsigna Quito Road and Marshall Lane Northbound Left Northbound Left AM 4 AM 4 Existing Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.3 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = 1 90th Percentile = Percentile = 0.95 1 Percentile = 0.95 Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.7763 0.7763 0 0.1966 0.9729 1 0.0249 0.9978 2 0.0021 0.9999 3 0.0001 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations (Unsign: Numbar c Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles 0.7742 0.7742 0 0.1982 0.9723 1 0.0254 0.9977 2 0.0022 0.9999 3 0.0001 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 /6 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 9 Resolution 21-071 Page 298 Quito Road and Marshall Lane (Unsigna Quito Road and Marshall Lane Northbound Left Northbound Left PM PM Existing Existing plus Project Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.1 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 90th Percentile = 1 900r Percentile = Percentile = 0.95 1 Percentile = 0.95 18500 Marshall Lane Poisson Calculations (Unsigm Number of - Number c Individual Cumulative Queued Individual Cumulative Queued Probability Probability Vehicles Probability Probability Vehicles 0.8808 0.8808 0 0.8737 0.8737 0 0.1118 0.9926 1 0.1180 0.9917 1 0.0071 0.9997 2 0.0080 0.9996 2 0.0003 1.0000 3 0.0004 1.0000 3 0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1 A000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 66 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 67 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 68 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 69 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 70 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 71 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 72 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 73 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 74 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 75 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 76 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 77 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 78 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 79 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 80 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 81 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 82 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 83 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 84 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 85 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 86 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 87 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 88 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 89 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 90 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 91 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 92 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 93 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 94 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 95 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 96 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 97 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 98 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 99 0.0000 1.0000 100 0.0000 1.0000 100 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Page 10 M70