Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-05-2008 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SITE VISIT AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 3:00 P.M. ROLL CALL REPORT OF THE POSTING (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 29, 2008) AGENDA 1. Appeal of the Design Review approval granted by the Planning Commission for Application No. 07-029: 13921 River Ranch Circle. The project involves demolition of the existing single-story residence and construction of a new, 4,355 square foot two-story residence ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of S?aratoga was posted on February 29, 2008 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29th day of February 2008 at Saratoga, California. Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 5, 2008 OPEN SESSION – 5:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 5:30 P.M. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 29, 2008) COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. 1. Commission Interview for Heritage Preservation Commission Recommended Action: Conduct interview for the Heritage Preservation Commission. CLOSED SESSION– 5:45 P.M. –ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Conference with Legal Counsel – Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION – 6:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. CALL MEETING TO ORDER –6:00 P.M. 2. Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Recommended Action: Informational only. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posing of Agenda: I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 29, 2008, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29th day of February 2008 at Saratoga, California. Cathleen Boyer, CMC, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Commission Interview for Heritage Preservation Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct interview for the Heritage Preservation Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: The following person has been scheduled for an interview: 5:30 p.m. James L. Sorden Heritage Preservation Commission There is one vacancy on the Heritage Preservation Commission. The term of this position will expire on April 1, 2012. According to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 13.10.010, the Saratoga Historical Foundation must nominate this position. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Heritage Preservation Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: If appointed the applicant will be invited to the March 19, 2008 City Council meeting to take the Oaths of Office. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Application AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, March 05, 2008 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 29, 2008) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Report from Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 10-14, 2008 as ‘Science Fair Week” Recommended action: Present proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1 None CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2. City Council Minutes -February 20, 2008 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 3. City Council Minutes -February 26, 2008 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 4. Review of Accounts Payable Registers Recommended action: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable cycles: February 14, 2008 February 20, 2008 5. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing installation of a Stop sign Recommended action: Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing the installation of a stop sign on Hill Avenue at the intersection of Bonnie Brae Lane 6. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the District for FY 08-09 Recommended action: 1. Move to adopt the Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the Attorney’s for the District. 7. Proposed Reorganization in Public Works Department and Changes to Staff Classifications Recommended action: Accept report and approve the proposed classification changes indicated on the attached list 8. Continuation of Hearing re Notice of Intent to Record Notice of Violation Recommended action: Staff recommends that the City Council place the previously continued Notice of Intent to Record Notice of Violation regarding a Parcel Map (Recorder’s No. 18995051 -Foster) on the consent agenda and continue the item to September 3, 2008. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting 9. APCC08-0001. Appeal of the Design Review approval granted by the Planning Commission for Application No. 07-029: 13921 River Ranch Circle. The project involves demolition of the existing single-story residence and construction of a new, 4,355 square foot two-story residence. Recommended action: Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Design Review Approval issued on January 23, 2008. 10. Approval of the Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, and plan implementation including authorization of contract for final construction drawings Recommended action: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, and plan implementation program. 2. Authorize staff to enter a contract with MPA Design to prepare final plans and construction drawings for a cost not to exceed $68,000. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 11. Review a proposal from the Buxton Company to prepare a Retail Site Assessment for the City to promote Economic Development Recommended action: Direct Staff Accordingly. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith Association of Bay Area Government Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Advisory Board (PAB) Hakone Foundation Executive Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Council SASCC West Valley Mayors and Mangers Association Sister City Liaison Council Finance Committee Highway 9 Safety AdHoc Prospect Road AdHoc North Campus AdHoc 3 Vice Mayor Chuck Page Chamber of Commerce Hakone Execute Board West Valley Sanitation District West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Council Finance Committee Village AdHoc Councilmember Kathleen King Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Santa Clara County Cities Association Valley Transportation Authority PAC City School AdHoc Prospect Road AdHoc Councilmember Jill Hunter Historic Foundation KSAR Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission Village AdHoc North Campus AdHoc Councilmember Aileen Kao County HCD Policy Committee Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) City School AdHoc Highway 9 Safety AdHoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on February 29, 2008, of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29th day of February 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC Deputy City Clerk 4 Note to public: Please provide the City Clerk with seven (7) copies of any written document that you would like to submit to the City Council in order for it to become part of the public record. NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2008 3/5 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association 3/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Planning Commission 4/2 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Library Commission and Friends of the Saratoga Libraries 4/16 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Youth Commission 5/7 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Mt. Winery 5/21 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission 6/4 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission 6/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with HOA Presidents 7/2 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission and Historic Foundation 7/16 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with SASCC 8/6 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation 8/20 Summer Recess – No Meeting 9/3 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 9/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Saratoga Union Elementary School District 10/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts 10/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District 11/5 Regular Meeting – Tentative Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/19 Regular Meeting – Tentative Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association 12/3 Regular Meeting – Reorganization 12/17 Regular Meeting – No Joint Meeting Scheduled 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 10-14, 2008 as ‘Science Fair Week” RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present proclamation. REPORT SUMMARY: The Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association requested that the City of Saratoga declare the week of March 12-17, 2007 as “Science Fair Week” in the City of Saratoga. A representative from the Association will be present to accept the proclamation. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Copy of proclamation 6 CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 10-14, 2008 “SCIENCE FAIR WEEK” WHEREAS, a group of dedicated citizens and educators will be producing an exciting Science and Engineering Fair the 11th and 12th of March, 2008; and WHEREAS, this Science and Engineering Fair will be held for the benefit of our young people and their parents and teachers, in order to stimulate interest in the various aspects of the sciences; and WHEREAS, this event will direct public attention towards the fields of science and engineering by setting aside a time for creative participation on the part of all interested students. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim and recognize March 10-14, 2008 as “SCIENCE FAIR WEEK” within our City and hereby urge all residents, particularly young people, to take part in the observation of this inspiring and rewarding event. Witnessed our hand and seal of the City of Saratoga on this 5th day of March 2008. ____________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor City of Saratoga 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – Regular Meeting February 20, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular Meeting – February 20, 2008 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from February 20, 2008 8 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2008 Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Barbra Powell, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director Chris Riordan, Senior Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director Michael Taylor, Recreation Director Brad Lind, Building Official REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 16, 2008 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 25, 2008, was properly posted on February 15, 2008. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight’s meeting: Citizen Ray pointed out that there are five dead pine trees at Highway 9 and Mendelsohn Lane. In regards to the recent election in the Town of Los Gatos, Citizen Ray noted that a complaint has been filed with the District Attorney against the Town Clerk. COUNCIL DIRECTION Councilmember King asked for a report in the weekly newsletter in regards to the dead pine trees. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss reported that she met with the City Council prior to this meeting. Supervisor Kniss noted that the discussion was in regards to funding, “Saratoga to the Sea” trail, the UPRR and Hakone Gardens. Supervisor Kniss thanked the City Council for the opportunity to attend tonight’s meeting. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Hunter noted that the 3rd Annual Village Fashion Show was scheduled for March 9th from 4:00 -7:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Page noted that free CPR training was being offered by the American Red Cross at the East Side Union High School District. Vice Mayor Page stated that for more information call (408) 577-2166. Vice Mayor Page stated that the Saratoga Fire Department recently named Todd Garde as the winner of the Wilbur William Worden Award for firefighter of the year. Vice Mayor Page stated that on Saturday, February 23rd from 12:00 noon – 4:00 p.m. Argonaut Center is hosting a Fun Faire. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the next Greenleaf Committee would meet on February 21st at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Monte Sereno. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the Greenleaf Committee is planning an Earth Day on April 5th in the Town of Los Gatos. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the Trails Committee is looking for volunteers to help restore the Parker Ranch Trail. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Oath of Office STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution appointing three members to the Parks and Recreation Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. RESOLUTION: 08-006 HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Katherine Forte. Commissioners Denise Goldberg and Lerry Wilson could not attend the meeting. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – FEBRUARY 1, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. 10 KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – FEBRUARY 6, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 5. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2008 MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable cycles: January 31, 2008, February 7, 2008 KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR JANUARY 31, 2008, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2007 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's Report for the month ended October 31, 2007. KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2007. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. ADOPTION OF THE NEGLECTED PROPERTY ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive the Second Reading and adopt the Neglected Property Ordinance. ORDINANCE: 255 Vice Mayor Page requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. 11 Vice Mayor Page pointed out that a lot of hard work went into this ordinance. Vice Mayor Page suggested that before anyone reports a neglected property, try and have a conversation with your neighbor. Vice Mayor Page stated that there is no replacement for neighbors working with neighbors. PAGE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGLECTED PROPERTY ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. ADOPTION OF POLICY CONCERNING NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review report and approve adoption of the Policy Concerning Naming City-owned Land and Facilities. Councilmember King requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember King requested that the City’s link on page 1, #3 be removed. KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE POLICY CONCERNING NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 06-020 EXTENDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE ARTS COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept staff report and renew suspension of the Arts Commission for 20 months by amending Resolution 06-020. RESOLUTION: 08-007 KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION RENEWING THE SUSPENSION OF THE ARTS COMMISSION FOR 20 MONTHS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 11. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FOR THE REMODEL OF THE NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP BUILDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept donation from The House Family Foundation through the Saratoga Monte Sereno Community Foundation in the amount of $149,000 for the remodel of the North Campus Fellowship Building per letter dated February 1, 2008. KAO/HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT DONATION FROM THE HOUSE FAMILY FOUNDATION THROUGH THE SARATOGA MONTE SERENO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,000 FOR THE REMODEL OF THE NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP BUILDING PER LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0, 12 12. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY (JVSN) FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report, approve the agreement with JVSN to prepare a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory for municipal (government-related) operations, and approve City membership in Sustainable Silicon Valley (SSV) and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). Citizen Ray requested that his item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Citizen Ray stated that Hansen Permanente is the #10 emitter of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area. KING/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH JVSN TO PREPARE A GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR MUNICIPAL (GOVERNMENT-RELATED) OPERATIONS, AND APPROVE CITY MEMBERSHIP IN SUSTAINABLE SILICON VALLEY (SSV) AND ICLEI – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY (ICLEI). MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. INTRODUCTION OF (1) ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE 2007 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE FIRE CODES; ADOPTING A NEW EXCAVATION AND GRADING CODE; ADOPTING A NEW REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION CODE AND (2) RESOLUTION REGARDING THE NEED TO MODIFY THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE DUE TO LOCAL CONDITIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Introduce and waive the first reading of the attached ordinance adopting and amending the referenced codes and direct the City Attorney to read the title of the codes to be adopted; (2) Introduce the attached resolution making findings regarding proposed amendments to the referenced codes; (3) Call a public hearing for March 19, 2008 to consider adoption of the attached ordinance and resolution; and (4) Direct staff to publish notice of the proposed ordinance adoption in accordance with the special requirements for adopting codes by reference. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Brad Lind, Building Official, answered questions from the Council. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. PAGE/KING MOVED TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE 13 REFERENCED CODES AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO READ THE TITLE OF THE CODES TO BE ADOPTED; INTRODUCE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REFERENCED CODES; CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 19, 2008 TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION; DIRECT STAFF TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTING CODES BY REFERENCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 14. DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES ASSOCIATION’S NEAR-TERM POLICY ON GREEN BUILDING STRATEGY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction to staff concerning next steps in addressing the Santa Clara County Cities Association’s “Near-term Policy on Green Building Strategy”. Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. KING/HUNTER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FORMALLY RECOGNIZING LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) AND BUILD IT GREEN’S GREENPOINT RATED SYSTEMS AS OFFICIAL CITY OF SARATOGA GREEN BUILDING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS FOR INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES; DIRECT THE CITY’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE LEED AND/OR GREENPOINT RATED SYSTEM CHECKLISTS TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICANTS, AND TO REQUIRE THE COMPLETION AND SUBMITTAL OF THE APPROPRIATE CHECKLIST (BASED UPON PROJECT TYPE AND SCOPE) AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION. THE LEED AND/OR GREENPOINT RATED CHECKLIST IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND WILL NOT BE UTILIZED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDINGS; AND ESTABLISH A STANDARD OF LEED SILVER CERTIFICATION OR BETTER FOR ALL CITY-OWNED NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION PROJECTS OVER FIVE THOUSAND (5,000) SQUARE FEET. Motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 15. ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO THE NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP BUILDING – AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Move to declare CRW Industries, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the North Campus Fellowship Hall Addition and Alteration Project. 2. 2. Award a construction contract for the North Campus Fellowship Hall Addition and Alteration Project to CRW Industries, Inc. in the amount of $627,114 and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 14 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract in the amount of $62,000. 4. Adopt Budget Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget. RESOLUTION: 08-008 KAO/KING MOVE TO APPROVE OPTION 3B; DECLARE CRW INDUSTRIES, INC. TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP HALL ADDITION AND ALTERATION PROJECT; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP HALL ADDITION AND ALTERATION PROJECT TO CRW INDUSTRIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $627,114 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,000; ADOPT BUDGET RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Waltonsmith reported the following information: Hakone Foundation Executive Committee – a special meeting has been scheduled for March 18th to begin the process in designing the tea house and visitors center. Santa Clara County Emergency Council – reviewed 2007. SASCC – in the process of their annual fundraising campaign. North Campus AdHoc – began calling people for donations. Vice Mayor Page reported the following information: Chamber of Commerce – announced changes to Celebrate Saratoga. West Valley Sanitation District – discussed the issues surrounding the need for renovations at the waste water treatment plant. Tours of the treatment plant are now being offered. West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – discussed customer services, diversion, and upcoming rate changes. Councilmember King reported the following information: Peninsula Division, League of California Cities – annual dinner is scheduled for February 28, 2008. Valley Transportation Authority PAC – first paperless meeting had some problems, no wireless connection and not enough power outlets. City has been asked to speak in regards to how we implemented the paperless packet and Highway 9 issues. Councilmember Hunter reported the following information: Historic Foundation Foundation – achieved their goal of 200 members. KSAR – Board is working hard to keep it operating in Saratoga. Two vacancies are open on the Board. Councilmember Kao had no reportable information. 15 COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Page requested that the City sponsor a community wide garage sale before the next scheduled annual cleanup. Vice Mayor Page requested that this item be agendized. Councilmember King suggested asking Prospect High School to use their parking lot to hold a flea market for residents in the hills. Councilmember King requested that the construction schedule for Highway 9 be posted on the City’s website. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT PAGE/KING MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION PASSED 5-0. There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the regular meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 16 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – Special Meeting February 26, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Special Meeting – February 26, 2008 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from February 26, 2008 17 1 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL & SARATOGA CEMETERY DISTRICT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Mayor Waltonsmith called the Special City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: Councilmember Hunter (recused) ALSO PRESENT: Saratoga Cemetery District Board: Phil Boyce, Joe Clevenger, Gregory Fox City Staff: Dave Anderson, City Manager Barbra Powell, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 16, 2008 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 26, 2008, was properly posted on February 15, 2008. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight’s meeting: Pricilla Ho explained the definition of eminent domain and sited court cases. COUNCIL DIRECTION None Mayor Waltonsmith welcomed everyone to tonight’s meeting. Mayor Waltonsmith briefly explained that last year members of the Oak Street neighborhood approached the City with their concerns about the Saratoga Cemetery District Board’s discussion regarding eminent domain and asked Council to take action. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that this meeting was scheduled according to the Brown Act so the City could find out more information. Richard Taylor, City Attorney noted that the agenda tonight is only to share information between the two agencies -no formal action can be taken. Mayor Waltonsmith explained that Councilmember Hunter recused herself from this discussion, however would be part of the audience. 18 2 Mayor Waltonsmith noted that City staff has met with the Teeter family. 1. UPDATE FROM SARATOGA CEMETERY DISTRICT BOARD (CEMETERY BOARD) ON RECENT VERBAL RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE BOARD’S PRACTICE REGARDING THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Phil Boyce, Board member stated that the Board recently hired a pubic relations firm, Orloff/Williams, to help improve community outreach. Dan Orloff stated that he was a Principal at Orloff/Williams. Mr. Orloff explained that Madronia Cemetery is one of the oldest cemeteries in Northern California; it was established in 1853. Mr. Orloff explained that the District Board is composed of five members and employs few staff members. Mr. Orloff noted that the District serves approximately 35,000 residents from Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and some County properties. Mr. Orloff noted that the cemetery has approximately 45 years of capacity. Mr. Orloff noted that at the December 12, 2007 District’s Board meeting a motion was made and approved that the Board would not acquire property through eminent domain. Mr. Orloff read verbatim from the minutes dated December 12, 2007 and submitted a copy for the record. 2. UPDATE FROM CEMETERY BOARD ON CURRENT STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL FOR ACQUIRING THE TEETER AND BOYD PROPERTIES Mr. Orloff noted that the Board has suspended any negotiations in regards to the Boyd and Teeter property. 3. UPDATE FROM CEMETERY BOARD CONCERNING ITS COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN FOR THE MADRONIA CEMETERY Mr. Boyce stated in order to start the process of developing a Master Plan they need to change a couple of the Board’s policies. Mr. Boyce noted that a few issues that the Board will need to discuss in regards to developing a Master Plan are: • Changing demographics in the valley • Web site • Market place Mr. Boyce stated that the Board would like to plan ahead for the next 40-50 years. Mr. Boyce noted the District is in excellent shape financially. Mr. Boyce pointed out that even if the cemetery closed, it still would need to be maintained. Mr. Orloff noted that a team of consultants will be brought in to help the community analyze the needs of capacity and demographics. Mr. Orloff noted that a comprehensive website is being developed to be used as a tool to communicate to the public. 19 3 4. REPORT ON THE JANUARY 29TH COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING AT WHICH A STAFF REPORT WAS PRESENTED REGARDING THE CEMETERY BOARD Scott Strickland noted that he represented Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss’ office. Mr. Strickland explained that the District is an independent district and the Board members are appointed by the County Supervisors. Mr. Strickland noted that the District lies in Supervisor Kniss’ district so she is responsible for making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Strickland noted that at the January 29, 2008 Board of Supervisors meeting they accepted two reports; one from County Counsel and one from the County Executive. Mr. Strickland explained that the County offered the District Board the assistance of the County Clerk for posting agendas, record keeping and preparing minutes. The County also explained that they have policies to procure and vendor selection procedures that the District Board should follow. The County also recommended that the the District Board attend Brown Act training and develop a robust website. 5 UPDATE ON CEMETERY BOARD RESIGNATIONS AND PROPOSED PLAN FOR RECRUITING NEW MEMBERS Mr. Strickland reported that there are two current vacancies and three more vacancies that will expired in June 2008. Mr. Strickland noted that all five of these vacancies will be filled by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Strickland noted that the County Clerk will advertise these vacancies in local newspapers and other outlets. Mr. Strickland noted that all applicants will be invited to a meet and greet reception at the County. Mr. Strickland stated that all applicants must reside in the Cemetery’s district, be a registered voter, and complete an application. Councilmember King asked when the deadline was for submission of applications. Mr. Strickland responded that a date has not been set, but he would assume sometime in mid March. Mr. Strickland noted that appointments are scheduled to be made at the April Board of Supervisors meting. 6. DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT The following people requested to speak: Ray Persico noted that he lives on Oak Street. Mr. Persico asked the City Council to help them maintain the character of the Oak Street neighborhood. Mr. Persico noted that a big step to help preserve the neighborhood would be to amend the General Plan so that the Teeter property and the residence that the caretaker lives in be changed from Public Facilities to Residential. 20 4 Bill Brown noted that he has lived on Oak Street and 6th Street for the past 30 years. Mr. Brown stated that he supported changing the General Plan designation of the Teeter property to residential. Mr. Brown asked when this designation was originally applied to the Teeter property. Mr. Brown noted that he does not like the new front gate. Clayton Brown stated that he heard Mr. Orloff say that the Board would never use eminent domain but, then Mr. Boyce said they might in case they need more burial space. Mr. Brown suggested using the open space behind where the convent was located. Lynne Gurley noted that the Oak Street neighborhood recently formed a neighborhood association. Mrs. Gurley noted that the Oak Street neighborhood is peaceful and beautiful. Jerry Gurley noted that he has lived on Oak Street for the past 39 years. Mr. Gurley explained that the motion the Board made at their December 12th meeting bothers the neighbors. Mr. Gurley pointed out that the Board would not assure the neighbors that they would not change their mind the next day. Mr. Gurley noted that the Oak Street neighborhood is precious to them and the neighbors do not want to see it changed. Mr. Gurley added that he does not like the new front gate. Theron Schab noted that he lives on Oak Street. Mr. Schab stated that there is still a lot of fear among the neighbors, which in his opinion could be settled by a stronger statement from the Board. Mr. Schab explained that the Board could write a public letter indicating that there would not be any expansion in the Master Plan. Cynthia Taylor noted that she is a San Francisco resident but, was raised on Oak Street. Ms. Taylor noted that the trust has been broken between the Board and the neighbors. Sue Kalman Persico noted that she lives on 6th Street. Mrs. Kalman Persico stated that she supports changing the General Plan designation of the Teeter property to residential. Diane Tuley-Brown noted that she lives across from the Teeter family. Mrs. Tuley-Brown noted that she supports changing changing the General Plan designation of the Teeter property to residential. In regards to the Board’s use of eminent domain, Mrs. Tuley-Brown noted that it was mentioned in their minutes. Mrs. Tuley-Brown noted that the December 12th Board meeting was very combative and communication thus far has been very nasty. John Teeter noted that he lives on Oak street and is not interested in selling his property. Mr. Teeter requested that his property be excluded from the Cemetery’s Master Plan John Hollingsworth noted that he is the president of the newly formed neighborhood association. Mr. Hollingsworth noted that the Association’s website is mhanaonline.org. Mr. Hollingsworth thanked the City for scheduling this meeting and also thanked the Board for attending. Mr. Hollingsworth noted that this issue has brought the neighborhood together. In regards to the Board’s motion 21 5 regarding the use of eminent domain, Mr. Hollingsworth noted that his issue is that the Board did not want to deviate from the motion Pricilla Ho noted that she has lived in another county for a while and they planned ahead. Mrs. Ho noted that the Board should create a master plan for the future. Stan Bogosian noted that he lives on Lomita Avenue. Referring to Mr. Orloff’s comments, Mr. Bogosian stated that the Board has not given the public any methodology on how they determine their needs. Mr. Bogosian noted that he feels the Board owes the public an explanation. 7. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS AND DIRECTION TO STAFF Mayor Waltonsmith recapped follow-up actions and direction to staff: Saratoga Cemetery District Board: • Citizens would like methodology on how needs are determined • Remove residential sites off master plan City of Saratoga • When was the General Plan designation assigned to the residential property? • What are the procedures for changing the General Plan? • When is a use permit required? KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION PASSED 4-0. There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the regular meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 22 AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson Karen Caselli DIRECTOR: Mary Furey RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: February 14, 2008 February 20, 2008 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 02/14/08 107108 107165 58 $118,388.06 02/14/08 02/07/08 107107 02/20/08 107166 107218 53 $170,349.63 02/20/08 02/14/08 107165 Total $288,737.69 AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept. Amount 02/14/08 107116 C.I.P. Activity $10,265.00 02/14/08 107125 Sara-Sun ADA Curb, C.I.P. $14,385.05 02/14/08 107155 Various $32,166.81 02/20/08 107181 C.I.P.Activity $10,654.00 02/20/08 107183 C.I.P. Activity $62,827.95 02/20/08 107201 Various $11,507.75 02/20/08 107210 C.I.P. Activity $27,757.00 The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No. Issued to Amount 2/14/08 2/20/08 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehabilitation & Overlay Project Monthly Gas Pacific Gas & Electric Various & Electric Services Colony Landscape Maintenance Alternate Soccer Field West Valley College Field Drainage 2007 Pavement Management -Street Resurfacing MEETING DATE: Date Fehr & Peers DEPARTMENT: The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fund Type of Checks Starting Check No. PREPARED BY: Accounts Payable Top Grade Construction, Inc. El Camino Paving, Inc. Annual Street Resurfacing Total Checks Shute, Mihaly & Weinberg Saratoga-Sunnyvale Phase 2 Purpose Callander Associates Various Legal Fees/City Attorney/Litigation -Monthly Services Saratoga NTMP; Saratoga-General Fund, Public Works Sunnyvale Road ADA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Prospect Road Medians Finance & Administrative Services Accounts Payable Checks Released Prospect Road Median Improvement March 5, 2008 SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers. Prior Check Register Ending Check No. No Manual/Void Checks Amount Description No Manual/Void Checks 23 C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 2/14 AP 2/20 Total 001 General 82,099.61 42,016.33 124,115.94 201 Manor Drive Landscape -202 Ferdericksburg Landscape 2 8.73 28.73 203 Greenbriar Landscape 1 26.65 126.65 204 Quito Lighting 1 ,069.50 1,069.50 205 Azule Lighting 2 32.32 232.32 206 Sarahills Lighting 2 52.91 252.91 207 Village Lighting 7 24.53 724.53 209 McCartysville Landscape 1 44.42 144.42 210 Tricia Woods Landscape 7 4.61 74.61 211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 5 7.09 57.09 212 Leutar Court Landscape 4 7.79 47.79 215 Bonnet Way Landscape 1 28.94 128.94 216 Beauchamps Landscape 4 3.27 43.27 217 Sunland Park Landscape 1 36.38 136.38 222 Prides Crossing Landscape 2 92.14 292.14 224 Village Commercial Landscape 1 ,820.30 1,820.30 225 Saratoga Legends Landscape -226 Bellgrove Landscape 6 36.08 636.08 227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscp 2 28.77 228.77 228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape -229 Tollgate LLD 2 3.89 23.89 231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 8.58 8 .58 232 Gateway Landscape 1 52.49 152.49 233 Carnelian Glen -270 CDBG Administration -271 Saratoga Housing & Rehab.Prg. -400 Library Bond Debt Service -501 Equipment Replacement ISF -502 Information Technology -503 Facility Improvement 3 ,069.65 10,172.78 13,242.43 504 Facilities 3 ,252.52 7 81.83 4,034.35 505 Information Technology 1 28.92 5 ,840.14 5,969.06 506 Office Stores Fund 5 71.28 1 ,012.10 1,583.38 510 Liability/Risk Mgt -511 Workers' Comp -701 Traffic Safety -702 Highway 9 Safety -704 64,727.95 64,727.95 706 Sidewalk Annual Project -708 27,757.00 27,757.00 716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain -720 KSAR/CATV Agency Fund -724 Village Newsrack Enclosures -726 2 Solar Radar Feedbacks -727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement -731 Storm Drain Upgrades -Fund Description Annual Street Resurfacing Saratoga Sunnyvale PH 2 24 C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: (cont.) Fund # AP 2/14 AP 2/20 Total 732 Median Landscape/Irrigation -734 Civic Center Landscape 4 ,595.26 4,595.26 735 Village Lights (Zone 7A) -736 Village Trees Lighting -738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing -739 10,265.00 10,265.00 744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter -746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway -747 3 95.00 395.00 748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista -749 Sara-Sun Gateway Sidewalk -752 -755 Warner Hutton House Improv. 4 95.00 495.00 762 North Campus/19848 Prospect 1 33.73 133.73 766 Historical Park Fire Alarm -780 -783 -785 6 ,527.33 6,527.33 786 -789 -790 3 04.00 304.00 791 6 ,526.87 1 ,182.00 7,708.87 792 Alternative Soccer Field 10,654.00 10,654.00 793 -795 -796 -797 San Marcos OP Space Trail -118,388.06 170,349.63 288,737.69 ---ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format Hakone Garden D/W Document Imaging Project Prospect Road Medians Wildwood Park -Wtr/Seat Trail Segment #3 Repair Beauchamp Park Fund Parks/Trails Repair Sara-Sun ADA Curb Ramps Kevin Moran TOTAL Teerlink Ranch Trail Repair Carnelian Glen Footbridge UPRR/De Anza Trail Citywide Tree Replanting Fund Description 25 C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Analyst SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing installation of a Stop sign RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing the installation of a stop sign on Hill Avenue at the intersection of Bonnie Brae Lane REPORT SUMMARY: The City was notified of safety concerns at the corner of Hill Avenue and Bonnie Brae Lane, and the item was heard before the Traffic Safety Commission at their December 13, 2007 meeting. The City Traffic Engineer and Commission reviewed this item and found that the right-of-way at the intersection was confusing and site distance was a concern. Therefore the Commission recommended a Stop sign be installed to improve safety. In order to enforce the new Stop sign it is necessary that the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $250 in labor and materials is required for the City to post signs. These improvements are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to Traffic Safety. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The MV Resolutions would not be adopted and traffic conditions would continue as is. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None. Page 1 of 2 36 Page 2 of 2 FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The sign will be installed and the Sheriff’s Department will be notified of the new restriction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A letter was sent to the residence adjacent to the new Stop sign location. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from Fehr & Peers 2. Motor Vehicle Resolution 3. Map 37 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga Public Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Review of Potential Stop Sign at Hill Avenue/Bonnie Brae Lane intersection, Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 Fehr & Peers has completed an evaluation of traffic concerns at the Hill Avenue/Bonnie Brae Lane intersection in Saratoga, California. A resident requested a yield sign or stop sign at this location during the December 13, 2007, Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) meeting. After review of the item and input from the resident and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended the installation of a stop sign on Hill Avenue. This memorandum summarizes the traffic concerns and recommendations for traffic control installation. The Hill Avenue/Bonnie Brae Lane intersection is essentially a “T” intersection located south of State Route 9 (SR 9) off of Mendelsohn Lane. Hill Avenue is a two-lane, east-west local road that connects Bonnie Brae Lane and Montalvo Oaks Place. Bonnie Brae Lane is a short (600-foot) two-lane, primarily private road that extends south from Mendelsohn Lane. Hill Avenue is the west leg of the “T” intersection and Bonnie Brae Lane represents the north and south legs. The Hill intersection on Bonnie Brae Lane is located less than 100 feet south of Mendelsohn Lane. Unless indicated otherwise through appropriate traffic control signs, the California Vehicle Code (CVC 21800 (b)) requires motorist on the T-leg (in this case Hill Avenue) to yield to motorists on the through roadway (in this case Bonnie Brae). Currently, no yield signs or stop signs are provided at this intersection. The concerns raised at the December 2007 TSC meeting is that traffic coming down Hill Avenue towards Bonnie Brae Lane does no yield to traffic on Bonnie Brae Lane. The resident requested the installation of a yield sign or stop sign to clearly delineate the right-of-way at the Hill Avenue/Bonnie Brae Lane intersection. Fehr & Peers conducted field observations at the Hill Avenue/Bonnie Brae Lane intersection in December 2007. The field visit showed that roadway markings on the Hill Avenue approach did not clearly delineate that the Hill Avenue approach must yield to vehicles on Bonnie Brae. As shown in Figure 1, the existing markings could indicate to eastbound vehicles on Hill Avenue turning left onto Bonnie Brae Lane that they have the right-of-way. A double yellow centerline is painted on the Hill Avenue approach and curves northward towards the north leg of Bonnie Brae Lane. This indicates that eastbound traffic should turn, but no signs for motorists on Bonnie Brae Lane to indicate that they should yield to Hill Avenue motorists. Based on the field observations, Fehr & Peers presented three alternative recommendations: • Install yield sign on Hill Avenue • Install stop sign on Hill Avenue 38 John Cherbone October 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 • Install stop sign on the south leg of Bonnie Brae. Each of the recommendations presented above would help to clearly delineate the right-of-way at the intersection. The first two alternatives would slow or stop more vehicles since Hill Avenue serves more traffic than the south leg of Bonnie Brae Lane based on numbers of dwelling units. However, this right-of-way designation creates a situation that a driver would typically expect (i.e., stopping on the single leg of a T-intersection). The third alternative would require fewer vehicles to stop but would be an atypical control situation for drivers. After deliberation and input from the resident and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended the installation of a stop sign on Hill Avenue, which would also include the shortening and straightening of the double yellow centerline. The installation of the stop sign at this location will not change the existing right-of-way, but rather clearly delineate to drivers on Hill Avenue Avenue that they are required to stop and yield to vehicles on Bonnie Brea Lane. Figure 1: Hill Avenue Approach to Bonnie Brae Lane 39 RESOLUTION NO. MV-______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A STOP SIGN ON HILL AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following stop sign shall be placed on Hill Avenue: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION Hill Avenue A stop sign to be place on Hill Avenue Complete stop for on the south west side of the east bound lane vehicular traffic at where it intersects with Bonnie Brae Lane intersection This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 40 Hill Avenue Stop Sign N Hill Avenue 0 50 100 200 300 400Feet Bonnie Brae Proposed Stop Sign Mendelsohn Lane Lane Bonnie Brae Way Mendelsohn Lane !"$ !"$ 41 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______ ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the District for FY 08-09. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the Attorney’s for the District. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are two Resolutions the City Council must adopt to initiate the annual process of renewing the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1. A brief summary of each Resolution is as follows: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report -This is the Resolution required under Streets & Highways Code Section 22622 to initiate the annual renewal process for the existing assessment district for the ensuing fiscal year. The Resolution references the proposed improvements to be provided by the district (Exhibit A), and directs the preparation of the Engineer’s Report required under S&H Code Section 22565. 2. Resolution appointing Attorneys -This Resolution appoints the City Attorney’s office as the attorneys for the District throughout the renewal process, and limits their fees in connection with this work to $500. The provisions of SB 919 (The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act) adopted by the State legislature in 1997, (Chapter 38, Stats. 1997), and which became effective on July 1, 1997, will be implemented during the renewal process if necessary. Procedurally this means that assessment ballots will be mailed to those property owners within the District whose initial proposed assessments are either 1) higher than in any previous year and 42 who have not previously voted on their assessments, or 2) higher than what was authorized via balloting conducted in a previous year. As in previous years, ballots will be separately tabulated at the close of the Protest Hearing for each Zone that may be voting. Only those ballots returned by the close of the Protest Hearing will count towards determining whether a majority protest exists. The following sets forth the tentative schedule for renewing the District for FY 08-09: March 5 -Council adopts Resolutions directing preparation of Engineer’s Report and appointing Attorneys. April 16 -Council receives Engineer’s Report. Council adopts Resolution of Intention preliminarily approving Engineer’s Report and assessments and setting date and time for Protest Hearing. April 30 -Notices with Proposition 218 ballots mailed to property owners, if required. May 7 -Notice of Protest Hearing published in Saratoga News. May 21 -Notice of Protest Hearing published in Saratoga News. June 4 -Council conducts Protest Hearing per Gov’t. Code Sec. 53753. Ballots are tabulated at the close of the Hearing. If appropriate, Council adopts Resolution confirming assessments for FY 08-09. June 18 -Backup date if needed. August 10 -Deadline for Engineer to transmit Assessment Roll to County Auditor. FISCAL IMPACTS: The costs associated with administering the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the properties, which receive special benefit from the services provided through the District. A detailed analysis of the proposed financing for the District in FY 08-09 will be provided in the Engineer’s Report. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 43 One or both of the Resolutions would not be adopted. This would delay initiating the process to renew the District for FY 08-09. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Work on the Engineer’s Report will begin. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional at this time. Eventually, notices and ballots will be mailed to certain property owners as required by law. Additionally, notices will be published in the Saratoga News as required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Resolution appointing Attorneys. 44 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: 1. The City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for the formation of the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 and for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 1980 -1981, and did, on June 18, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly had, adopt its Resolution No. 950-D, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment District and the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments; 2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and it is the intention of said Council to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District, for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for the fiscal year 2008-2009. 3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 4. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon said District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Saratoga to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the assessment district. 5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following: 45 2 a) plans and specification of the existing improvements and for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof; b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed new improvements, if any, to be made, the costs of maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith; c) a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district and of any zones within said district and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's map for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lots or parcels of land shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed new improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the estimated particular and distinct benefits to be received by each of such lots or parcels of land, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto. 6. The Office of the Public Works Director of said City be, and is hereby, designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 868-1241. * * * * * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ________, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ 46 3 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 47 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaries, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. 48 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, that WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the parcels of land in the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 2008-2009; and WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. That the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger be, and it is hereby appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it hereby is fixed at not to exceed $500.00. * * * * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ________, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 49 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone, DIRECTOR: Public Works Director Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Reorganization in Public Works Department and Changes to Staff Classifications RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and approve the proposed classification changes indicated on the attached list. BACKGROUND: At the February 1, 2008 City Council Retreat, staff presented a MidYear Budget Review. As a proactive measure, staff presented several options for expenditure reductions in the near term, in order to offset potential revenue fluctuations that could accompany current economic conditions. Included in these options were: 1. Elimination of the Associate Engineer [Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Manager]. Onehalf the salary/benefits savings would be used to fund an internal reorganization of the Department, with the other half retained in the General Fund; and 2. Assigning the Information Technology (IT) Analyst role (Administrative Services) to the current IT Technician incumbent in an Acting capacity and freezing the IT Technician position. A lower level Intern (temporary, nonbenefited position) would be hired to assist in providing City IT services. Resulting salary savings will be retained in the General Fund. PROPOSED DEPARTMENTAL RESTRUCTURING: The CIP Project Manager responsibilities were wholly within the CIP. The majority of projects were maintenance related such as the annual Pavement Management Program, Concrete Repair Program, and Storm Drain Maintenance Program, along with a myriad of other projects such as the West Valley College Field Improvement Project, Highway 9/Oak Place Pedestrian Crosswalk, Blaney Plaza Renovation, and Herriman Avenue Safety Improvements. The CIP contains 69 projects with the vast majority under the responsibility of the Public Works Department. With the elimination of the CIP Program Manager position, distribution of the CIP projects was the main challenge involved in restructuring the Department. In order to adequately fulfill the full range of Public Works functions, in the absence of the CIP Project Manager, the Director has proposed restructuring the Department, as follows: 50 Page 2 of 3 Projects Assignment Notes Parks, streetscape and trails projects (e.g. Ravenswood Playground Replacement, Teerlink Ranch Trail Repair, City Entrance Monuments) Parks Maintenance Division Kevin Moran Park & DeAnza Trail assigned to Engineering Division Road maintenance and streetsrelated projects (includes the Pavement Management Program) Streets and Fleet Maintenance Division Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project assigned to Engineering Division Oversight of large CIP projects (e.g. Kevin Moran Park, DeAnza Trail, Highway 9) Engineering Division Interagency relationships (e.g. CALTRANS, VTA, MTC, Railroad, Utility companies, Special Districts, other jurisdictions) Engineering Division PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CHANGES: As outlined above, the proposed Departmental restructuring will require four City staff members to assume significant, higherlevel responsibilities. The Human Resources Manager has conducted an analysis of the four affected positions and is recommending the classification changes indicated on the table below, reflecting these higher level assignments. In 2005, the City Council previously approved three classifications representing higher classifications than those recommended. These classifications – Streets Superintendent, Parks Superintendent, and City Engineer – were approved in recognition of the need to create opportunities for upward mobility and thereby reduce employee turnover. Staff is now recommending that the Council approve the Public Works Manager – Streets and Fleet Maintenance, Public Works Manager – Parks Maintenance and Senior Engineer classifications (representing a midlevel between the current classifications and those approved in 2005), in recognition of the additional, higher level duties the incumbents will be assuming. Revised job descriptions and salary ranges will be developed for the Public Works Manager – Streets and Fleet Maintenance Division, Public Works Manager Parks Maintenance Division and Senior Engineer positions. The position of Associate Engineer already exists; therefore, the Council does not need to approve the classification. Incumbents in the positions that are reclassified will receive a minimum five percent (5%) salary increase pursuant to Memoranda of Understanding governing these positions. Current classification Recommended classification Streets Maintenance Supervisor Public Works Manager – Streets and Fleet Maintenance Division Parks Maintenance Supervisor Public Works Manager – Parks Maintenance Division Associate Engineer Senior Engineer Assistant Engineer Associate Engineer 51 Page 3 of 3 FISCAL IMPACTS: The costs associated with implementing the new classifications will be fully paid for through onehalf of the salary savings resulting from elimination of the Associate Engineer position which functioned as the CIP Project Manager. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The proposed Departmental restructuring would not take place and City staff would need to reevaluate filling the CIP Project Manager position. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: List of classifications per department, including the proposed classifications in the Public Works Department (bold) 52 City of Saratoga Authorized Positions FY0708 Effective 3/19/08 FTE T I T L E City Manager's Office 1.0 City Manager 1.0 Assistant City Manager 1.0 City Clerk 1.0 Human Resources Manager 1.0 Administrative Analyst II 1.0 Executive Assistant to CM 6.00 City Manager's Office Administrative Services Department 1.0 Administrative Services Director 1.0 Accounting Supervisor 1.0 IT Analyst 0.0 IT Technician frozen effective 3/19/08; salary savings retained in the General Fund 1.0 Account Clerk 1.0 Account Clerk 1.0 Accountant II 6.00 Administrative Services Department Community Development Department 1.0 Community Development Director 1.0 Building Official 1.0 Plan Check Examiner/Engineer 1.0 Building Inspector 1.0 Building Inspector 1.0 Building Inspector 1.0 Senior Planner 1.0 Associate Planner 1.0 Assistant Planner 1.0 Assistant Planner 1.0 Code Compliance Specialist 1.0 Arborist 1.0 Office Specialist III 1.0 Office Specialist II 14.0 Community Development Department Public Works Department 1.0 Public Works Director 1.0 Senior Civil Engineer 1.0 Associate Civil Engineer 0.0 Associate Civil Engineer eliminated effective 3/19/08; salary savings retained in the General Fund 1.0 Administrative Analyst 0.75 Office Specialist II 1.0 Public Works Manager Streets and Fleet Maintenance Division 1.0 Street Maintenance Worker I 1.0 Street Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Street Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Street Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Street Maintenance Leadworker 1.0 Street Maintenance Specialist 1.0 Public Works Manager Parks Maintenance Division 1.0 Park Maintenance Leadworker 1.0 Park Maintenance Specialist 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker I 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker III 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker II 1.0 Park Maintenance Worker I 1.0 Office Specialist II 513 City of Saratoga Authorized Positions FY0708 Effective 3/19/08 FTE T I T L E 21.75 Public Works Department Recreation Department 1.0 Recreation Director 1.0 Senior Recreation Supervisor 1.0 Recreation Supervisor 1.0 Recreation Supervisor 0.6 Facility Coordinator 1.0 Office Specialist II 1.0 Account Clerk 1.0 Facility Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 Facility Maintenance Worker I 1.0 Facility Maintenance Leadworker 1.0 Facility Maintenance Worker I 10.6 Recreation Department 58.35 TOTAL 524 Fund 535 546 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone and DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Jonathan Wittwer SUBJECT: Continuation of Hearing re Notice of Intent to Record Notice of Violation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council place the previously continued Notice of Intent to Record Notice of Violation regarding a Parcel Map (Recorder’s No. 18995051 -Foster) on the consent agenda and continue the item to September 3, 2008. REPORT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Government Code § 66499.36, the City scheduled a hearing on the Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation for November 7, 2007. Subsequently, on October 24, 2007 City Staff and the Assistant City Attorney met with the owner of the property in question and her attorney to discuss the matter. This was a productive meeting resulting in the presentation of additional information by the property owner to the City Surveyor. City Staff and the property owner have been working cooperatively toward resolution of this matter as soon as reasonably possible. At the conclusion of the October 24, 2007 meeting, both parties mutually agreed to request a continuance of the hearing to March 5, 2008. A further continuance to September 3, 2008 is needed to enable the City Community Development Department to complete processing the related Lot Line Adjustment application. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council holds the full hearing on March 5, 2008, it could be claimed that the City Council would have to take action on the item without complete information. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) The City Council could decide to consider the matter in full on March 5, 2008. Page 1 of 2 57 Page 2 of 2 2) The City Council could discontinue the process of recording the Notice of Violation. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The City staff will meet with the property owner to determine next steps, either to prepare for the September 3, 2008 hearing or to resolve the matter prior to that date. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The City provided notice for this meeting and City previously notified the property owner, Kim Foster, and her attorney that this matter was continued to March 5, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: None 58 Application No. 07-029 – Appeal of Design Review Approval 08-007 – 13921 River Ranch Circle SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: ______ PREPARED BY: _______________________ DEPT HEAD: ______ Dave Anderson Heather Bradley, Contract Planner John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: APCC08-0001. Appeal of the Design Review approval granted by the Planning Commission for Application No. 07-029: 13921 River Ranch Circle. The project involves demolition of the existing single-story residence and construction of a new, 4,355 square foot two-story residence. APPELLANTS: 1. Michael & Jamie Van De Ven, owners of 13930 River Ranch Circle Joined by: 2. Denise & Thomas Murphy, owners of 14939 Jerries Drive 3. Walter & Linda Shaw, owners of 14933 Jerries Drive 4. Walt & Jean Hall, owners of 14927 Jerries Drive 5. Bob & Carol Heeter, owners of 14961 Jerries Drive 6. Ching-Yen Ho & Ling May Chen, owners of 14951 Jerries Drive APPLICANT: Mr. Masud Maesumi Maesumi RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Design Review Approval issued on January 23, 2008. REPORT SUMMARY: The applicant received Design Review approval at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of January 23, 2008, to demolish the existing single story residence and construct a new 4,355 square foot two-story residence on an 18,839 square foot lot adjacent to Saratoga Creek. The maximum proposed building coverage is 21.4% of the site, with a maximum height of 26 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to approve the application. At the Public Hearing the Planning Commission discussed issues of privacy, bulk, and two-story compatibility with the neighborhood. The majority of the Commission found that the proposal, as redesigned from the previous plan reviewed at the Study Session of February 13, 2007, did meet the necessary 59 Application No. 07-029 – Appeal of Design Review Approval 08-007 – 13921 River Ranch Circle Design Review findings and that issues of bulk and mass, privacy, and natural landscape preservation had been resolved. Staff would like to note that the applicant was unable to attend the Public Hearing due to the death of a close family member, and the project planner was also unable to attend the meeting due to illness. On February 6, 2008 the appellant’s filed an appeal requesting that the City Council overturn the approval on the following grounds as summarized by Planning staff: From Mr & Mrs. Van De Ven’s appeal letter dated February 4th, 2008 1. The project does not minimize the perception of excessive bulk and compatible bulk and height with existing residential structures, which are predominately single story on the River Ranch cul-de-sac. The appellant contends that a smaller single-story design would be more compatible with the neighborhood, and states that seven families on River Ranch Circle signed a letter of objection to the proposal and that additional families on Jerries Drive object to the proposal. 2. There is an operable window that looks down on the appellant’s pool and hot tub area. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission should have required that the bathroom window not only be opaque glass, but also an inoperable window. The Planning Commission did take these concerns into consideration as reflected in the minutes from their meeting. Please refer to Attachment 4. Staff has determined that the proposed residence meets the City’s Design Review findings of bulk and mass in that there is articulation and roof breaks along all elevations, the proposal incorporates large setbacks, and materials such as horizontal siding, stone trim and wood details to help break the massing of exterior walls. Staff has also determined that the two-story residence would be compatible with the neighborhood in that there is a mix of one and two-story residences on adjacent streets, there are two houses adjacent to the subject property that are twostories, and this house as viewed from River Ranch Circle is predominately a single-story design. The bathroom window on the left elevation facing the appellant’s is a high sill window (starting at six feet from the floor level) located in a bathroom and staff has determined that it will not pose a significant impact to the neighbor’s privacy as the glass will be opaque as conditioned by the Planning Commission. 60 Application No. 07-029 – Appeal of Design Review Approval 08-007 – 13921 River Ranch Circle From Mrs. Carol Heeter’s appeal letter dated February 2, 2008 1. The proposed two-story house will negatively affect privacy and property value. The coappellant contends that the view from the proposed second floor will look directly into their backyard and pool area and that this will have a negative affect on their property value. Staff has determined that the setbacks between the homes and the vegetation along the creek will insure that impacts to the neighbor’s privacy are minimal. From Mr. & Mrs. Shaw’s appeal letter dated February 3, 2008 (also signed by Mr. & Mrs. Hall) 1. The design of the rear elevation does not adequately address issues of bulk. The coappellant’s contend that the design has only addressed issues of bulk along the front elevation and has not addressed design issues along the rear elevation, which is visible to the neighbors across the creek. 2. The proposal calls for removal of the oleander screen. The co-appellant’s contend that the loss of the oleander screen will be detrimental to their view and privacy. 3. The proposal is too close to the creek. The co-appellant’s contend that the proposed structure is too close to the creek and will interfere with the dynamics and health of the creek. Again, staff has determined that the proposed residence meets the City’s Design Review findings in that there is articulation and roof breaks along all elevations, the proposal incorporates large setbacks, and materials such as horizontal siding, stone trim and wood details to help break the massing of exterior walls. Staff has also determined that the two-story residence would be compatible with the neighborhood in that there is a mix of one and two-story residences on adjacent streets, there are two houses adjacent to the subject property that are two-stories, and the structure will be sufficiently setback from other properties to the rear and screened by the existing creek-side vegetation. The proposed house is located over 30’ away from the top of the creek bank. This satisfies all planning regulations. Further, this project has undergone and obtained all necessary review and permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The SCVWD has a list of approved California Native vegetation that are recommended for planting along the creeks that they maintain jurisdiction over, oleander is not one of the recommended species. From Mr. & Mrs. Murphy’s appeal letter dated February 5, 2008 1. The project as designed fails to meet code findings of compatibility, bulk, views and privacy. The co-appellant contends that there are no other homes of similar size or bulk in the vicinity and that the design review findings cannot be made to support the design. 61 Application No. 07-029 – Appeal of Design Review Approval 08-007 – 13921 River Ranch Circle 2. The project would permanently alter the natural creek-side landscape. The coappellants contend that the project does not meet necessary findings for preservation of the natural landscape. 3. The neighbor did not receive proper notice. The co-appellant contends that they did not receive notice of the Study Session held on February 13, 2007 and that the story poles that were erected were not sufficient to represent the project. 4. Propose modifications. The co-appellant would like to see changes to the design to include moving the second floor toward the front of the house away from the rear property line and varying the heights of the rear elevation, or eliminating the second floor, and adding landscape screening adjacent to the creek. Please refer to previous discussions for items 1, 2 and 4 of the Murphy’s letter. The Murphy’s are listed on all affidavits of mailings that went out for the Planning Commission Study Session of February 13, 2007, as well as the Public Hearing of January 23, 2008. The applicant erected story poles in conformance with the City’s recommended guidelines. From Mr. Ho and Ms. Chen’s appeal letter dated February 5, 2008 1. The project fails to meet necessary code findings. The co-appellant s are in agreement with their neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Murphy and contend that the project is not compatible and does not meet necessary findings for preservation of the natural landscape. Again, please refer to previous staff discussion of these issues. All relevant background documents, including the Staff Report, Planning Commission minutes, and letters from the appellants have been attached for further reference. A resolution denying the appeal has been prepared for Council adoption (see Attachment 1). ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the appeal thereby denying the applicant Design Review Approval. 2. Continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to address the issues and concerns of the appellants. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the Saratoga News. 62 Application No. 07-029 – Appeal of Design Review Approval 08-007 – 13921 River Ranch Circle ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution affirming Planning Commission approval of application 07-029. 2. Appeal application of February 6, 2008,and letters from appellants. 3. Letter of support from Mr. & Mrs. Clarke 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23, 2008 (without attachments). 5. Excerpt of Minutes from the January 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Plans -Exhibit A. 63 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL; THEREBY AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 07-029 MAESUMI; 13921 River Ranch Circle WHEREAS, on January 23, 2008, following a public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved a Design Review application (No. 07-029) to demolish an existing singlestory ranch-style residence and a shed and construct a new two-story home at 13921 River Ranch, which is located in the R-1-40 district; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2008 an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Van De Ven, et. al.; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2008 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the appeals and all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby: I. Denies each of the appeals and affirms the Planning Commission’s approval of the Design Review application; and II. Determines that the proposed project, which includes construction of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and III. Determines that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval and makes the following findings as specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.040: Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the 64 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 2 of 7 affirmative in that the maximum height of the proposed two-story dwelling is 26 feet. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed second floor is located more than 34 feet from the left side property line. Saratoga Creek and several adjacent trees are located to the rear of the house, providing additional screening and distance between this site and the homes on Jerries Drive. The proposed home has been designed so that the second floor steps in from the first floor along the sides of the house, thereby reducing potential interference with views and privacy. Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that one (1) protected tree is proposed for removal and fourteen (14) other protected size trees could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned and mitigated the project will preserve the existing natural landscape. The elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value, and no construction will be allowed within 25 feet of the top of the bank of Saratoga Creek. Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the second story, as viewed from the front of the house, is located within the roof. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, and roofing materials. Furthermore, incorporating varying rooflines, large setbacks between the first and second floor, and horizontal exterior building materials, such as siding and stone trim, will reduce the perception of excessive bulk. Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there is a mix of one and two-story residences on adjacent streets; however, the homes on River Ranch Circle are predominately single story. Several of these homes have gabled roofs and horizontal elements, such as siding or brick trim. The proposed project is sympathetic to the design of nearby homes in that it incorporates siding, stone trim, neutral colors, and natural materials and strives for a single-story appearance as viewed from the front. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum maximum extent reasonably feasible. Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that, for example: The use of stone along the lower portion of the house and the siding 65 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 3 of 7 creates horizontal proportions that reduce the perception of bulk. The second floor and peak roof heights are all set back from the footprint of the house and these varying rooflines break up massing. The wood, stone, and neutral colors will blend with the natural environment; and IV. Determines the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The stone trim, wood doors, and neutral shades of tan and brown will blend with the surrounding rural environment. Fourteen of the fifteen ordinance-sized trees near the project will be protected and preserved, and the elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value. Saratoga Creek will be protected in that no construction will take place within 25 feet feet of the top of the creek bank and a current permit will be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. V. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application number 07-029 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Any glass to be installed in the second-story bathroom window on the left side of the home shall be opaque. The County Recorder shall record this condition on the deed. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped January 2, 2008, 2008, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director’s approval. 3. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board dated September 15, 2006 and December 4, 2007. The chimney shall be covered with stone. 4. The following shall be required and/or included in the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: 66 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 4 of 7 a) Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b) The following note shall be included: “A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning.” c) The following note shall be included verifying building setbacks: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans.” 5. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 6. The landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a 67 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 5 of 7 modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 12. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. CITY ARBORIST 16. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated August 4, 2006, shall be followed. 17. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 18. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $26,820.00 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 19. The Siberian elm (Tree #4) will be removed and replaced with trees of equal value ($860.00) that are subject to the approval of the City Arborist. SANTA CLARA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 20. The Santa Clara County Water District construction permit expired on December 20, 2007. The applicant shall obtain a new or renewed permit, which must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Zone Clearance. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 21. The applicant shall comply with all geotechnical conditions as described in the January 30, 2007 memorandum from the Public Works Department. A copy of this memorandum shall be included in the final Building Department set. 22. The results of the plan review, as described in Item #1 of the January 30, 2007 memorandum, shall be summarized by the the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 23. The results of the inspections and the as-built conditions, as described in Item #2 of 68 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 6 of 7 the January 30, 2007 memorandum, shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. 24. The applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geologist’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. FIRE DISTRICT 25. The applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire Department conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 26. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of-way. CITY ATTORNEY 27. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. VI. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. VII. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, this 5th day of March 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor 69 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 7 of 7 ATTEST: ___________________________________ Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. ____________________________ __________ ____________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ATTACHMENT 3 February 15, 2008 John Livingstone Community Development Director City of Saratoga John, We have kept in touch with Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner for the City of Saratoga, regarding the build project at 13921 River Ranch Circle. As the immediate next-door neighbor I was surprised to learn of the recent complaints regarding Mr. Maesumi’s remodeling plans. One of the letters implied that our home was for sale because of that construction and/or did not sell as direct result of the proposed home improvement plans are completely false. We had an opportunity to purchase a 4-acre parcel and put our home up for sale. When the parcel sold to another buyer, we took our house off the market. Our home was only on the market for 3 weeks. We feel that the project plans put forward by Mr. Maesumi are reasonable and will dramatically increase the overall curb appeal of our street and add value to all of our homes. We are confident that once completed his efforts will have a long-term positive impact on the neighborhood. We approved the initial plans and also approved of the second design. While there was a protest letter circulating last fall, it was our understanding that most of the people that signed the letter had never seen the plans. There was also an exaggeration of the square footage in the letter, specifically; the garage was included in the square footage that makes the house seem out of proportion for the street and only served to spread misinformation. River Ranch Circle is a wonderful street nestled into a very special area in Saratoga. We feel that any neighbor who proposes to make improvements that are reasonable and in good taste will continue to improve an already special area. We would like this project to go forward and feel saddened that individuals who are not even immediate neighbors or those who will reap no benefit in the improvement of the property can have so much control over it. We would like this project to go forward for the betterment of the street. Sincerely, Jan and Ken Clarke 13911 River Ranch Circle Saratoga, CA 408-741-0344 89 ATTACHMENT 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07-029 – 13921 River Ranch Circle Type of Application: Demolition of Existing Single-Story Residence and Construction of New Two-Story Residence Owner: Maesumi Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: January 23, 2008 APN: 397-25-009 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 13921 River Ranch Circle 90 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 07/21/06 Application complete: 12/17/07 Notice published: 12/26/07 Mailing completed: 12/21/07 Posting completed: 01/03/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single-story ranch-style residence and construct a new two-story home using Craftsman-style materials. An existing shed will also be removed. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 4,355 square feet including an attached garage. The proposal includes the removal of one Ordinance size tree, a 22-inch diameter Siberian elm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26-feet. The net lot size is 18,839 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. 91 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M-10) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 18,839 square feet; Net: 18,839 square feet SLOPE: Approximately 3.00 % average site slope and 2.00% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required for increased footprint. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and no exception to that exemption applies. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials include stone veneer accents, a slate tile roof, wood carriage-style garage doors, and a wood and wrought-iron front door. The siding, windows, and trim will be painted in shades shades of brown, tan, and bronze. The colors and materials boards are available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows Bronze Finish Marvin Windows Front Door Wood and Wrought Iron Cantera Lerida Garage Door Stained wood Carriage Door Amarr Runion Roof Slate Rustic Brown Blend Tile Monier Lifetile Other Stucco Stone Veneer Desert Blend Cobblefield Bldg. Color Kelly-Moore Spanish Sand Accent Color Kelly-Moore Cargo Brown Fireplaces All gas-burning Page 3 of 9 92 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle PROJECT DATA: R-1-10,000 Zoning Net Site Area: 18,839 SF Proposed Required Site Coverage Residence and Garage: 2,868 SF Driveway: 650 SF Walkways and Paved Areas: 515 SF TOTAL Site Coverage 4,033 SF (21.4%) Maximum Allowable = 11,303 SF (60%) Floor Area Existing First Floor Area, inc. Garage: 2,185 SF Existing Accessory Structure (to be removed): 180 SF TOTAL Existing Floor Area 2,365 SF Proposed First Floor Area: 2,393 SF Proposed Second Floor Area: 1,317 SF Proposed Garage Area: 400 SF Proposed Enclosed Porch: 75 SF Proposed Double-Counted Area: 170 SF TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 4,355 SF Maximum Allowable = 4,362 SF Setbacks First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Front: 32.0 Feet 63.5 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Rear: 30.6 Feet 38.5 Feet 25 Feet 35 Feet Left Side: 16.6 Feet 34.8 Feet 10 Feet 15 Feet Right Side: 11.0 Feet 18.0 Feet 10 Feet 15 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point: 395.79 Highest Elevation Point: 396.37 Average Elevation Point: 396.08 Proposed Topmost Point: Point: 421.92 (25.84 Feet) Maximum Height = 422.08 (26 Feet) Page 4 of 9 93 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single-story ranch-style residence and a shed and construct a new two-story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 4,355 square feet including an attached garage. The proposal includes the removal of one Ordinance size tree, a 22-inch diameter Siberian elm. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not exceed 26-feet. The net lot size is 18,839 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. The average slope of the site is 3%. Study Session A Study Session was held on February 13, 2007 to provide input to the applicant and staff on neighborhood compatibility, bulk, height, and design. The Planning Commission stated that two-story houses were not prohibited in this neighborhood but suggested that larger second floor setbacks and the use of wood and other softer materials would be more compatible with the other homes on the street. The Commission preferred to protect neighbor privacy and reduce the perception of bulk by incorporating high windows and locating windows away from lot lines rather than constructing bare walls with no windows. Angling the first floor relative to the lot and stepping back the second floor were suggested to reduce the perception of mass (Attachment 2). Modifications to Design Since the Study Session, Staff has held numerous meetings with the applicant and with some of the neighbors. The applicant has made several modifications and submitted subsequent revisions in an effort to accommodate the desires of Staff, the Commission, and the neighbors. The size of the second floor has been reduced by almost 200 square feet. With the current design, approximately two-thirds of the floor area will be on the first floor. The house will be angled away from the street so that the first floor living area will be approximately 33 feet farther back than the front of the garage. The peak of the roof is set back approximately 58 feet from the front of the garage. To enhance privacy for the neighbors, the only upstairs windows on the left side of the house will be a single bathroom window that will be located approximately six feet above the floor. As shown in the chart below, most of the second story setbacks have been increased since the Study Session (the increased setbacks are bolded). The second story setback on the left side of the house has been increased by more than 14 feet so that it is now exceeds the required setback by almost 20 feet. Setbacks Feb. 2007 First Floor Nov. 2007 First Floor Feb. 2007 Second Floor Nov. 2007 Second Floor Front: 44.5 Feet 32.0 Feet 67.8 Feet 63.5 Feet Rear: 32.6 Feet 30.6 Feet 37.0 Feet 38.5 Feet Left Side: 17.8 Feet 16.6 Feet 20.4 Feet 34.8 Feet Right Side: 10.0 Feet 11.0 Feet 15.0 Feet 18.0 Feet Architectural Style Page 5 of 9 94 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle The original design, which was reviewed at the Study Session, used stucco with stone veneer. The front elevation included a porch entry that was higher than the adjoining first floor roofline and numerous hip roofs and prominent windows on both floors. These factors emphasized the perception of bulk and contrasted with the surrounding singlestory ranch-style homes on the block (Attachment 3). The revised design incorporates elements of the Craftsman style that include gabled dormers, corbels, exposed roof beams, and a stone-covered chimney. A low-pitched gable roof at the entry way and horizontal features, such as siding and stone facing along the base of the home, help to reduce the perception of mass. The design strives for a single-story appearance across the front by locating the second floor within the roof. The front of the house steps back approximately 31 feet from the first floor to the second floor. The second floor on the left side of the home is set back approximately 18 feet from the first floor, locating it almost 35 feet from the left property line and enhancing the privacy of the neighbors to the left. The simplification of design and the horizontal features make this project more sympathetic to the surrounding ranch-style homes (Attachment 3). Trees Fifteen ordinance-sized trees, which are located on or adjacent to the subject property, could potentially be impacted by demolition and construction. These non-native species include American sweetgum, Western chokecherry, Black walnut, Ash, Willow, California sycamore, and Siberian elm. The Siberian elm is located within the footprint of the proposed home and will be removed and replaced with trees of equal value. Compliance with all Arborists’ recommendations shall be included as a condition of approval to ensure that all ordinance-sized trees will be protected during construction (Attachment 4). Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted for this project based on the review letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant (City Geologist), dated January 23, 2007. Santa Clara County Water District The Santa Clara County Water District (SCCWD) issued a permit, dated December 20, 2006, for the construction of a single family residence. This included supporting infrastructure, such as a storm drainage system adjacent to SCCWD easement and the west bank of Saratoga Creek. Energy Efficiency The house has been designed to protect Saratoga Creek and the ordinance-sized trees on or near the site. The amount of site coverage will be reduced to 21.4 percent in contrast with the allowed 60 percent for this zoning district. Placing minimal coverage in this natural setting will help to preserve natural cooling and shading and reduce the energy needs for the home. Additional house shading will be provided by the covered porch and loggia. The carpet, carpet pad, and floor covering adhesives will be certified to the Page 6 of 9 95 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle “Green Label” standard by the Carpet and Rug Institutes. The energy needed for heating will be reduced through the use of on-demand water heaters. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided neighbor notification forms from several nearby properties. Concerns about privacy and the compatibility of a two-story home in this neighborhood have been raised by some of the neighbors (Attachment 5). All parcels within 500 feet of the subject parcel have been notified by Staff, both for the Study Session and for the Public Hearing (Attachment 6). General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The stone trim, wood doors, and neutral shades of tan and brown will blend with the surrounding rural environment. Fourteen of the fifteen ordinance-sized trees near the project will be protected and preserved, and the elm that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value. Saratoga Creek will be protected in that no construction will take place within 25 feet of the top of the creek bank and a current permit will be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the maximum height of the proposed two-story dwelling is 26 feet. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed second floor is located more than 34 feet from the left side property line. Saratoga Creek and several adjacent trees are located to the rear of the house, providing additional screening and distance between this site and the homes on Jerries Drive. The proposed home has been designed so that the second floor steps in from the first floor along the sides of the house, thereby reducing potential interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that one (1) protected tree is proposed for removal and fourteen (14) other protected size trees could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned and mitigated the project will preserve the existing natural landscape. The elm Page 7 of 9 96 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle that is to be removed will be replaced with trees of equal value, and no construction will be allowed within 25 feet of the top of the bank of Saratoga Creek. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the project, as conditioned, would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the second story, as viewed from the front of the house, is located within the roof. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, and roofing materials. Furthermore, incorporating varying rooflines, large setbacks between the first and second floor, and horizontal exterior building materials, such as siding and stone trim, will reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that there is a mix of one and two-story residences on adjacent streets; however, the homes on River Ranch Circle are predominately single story. Several of these homes have gabled roofs and horizontal elements, such as siding or brick trim. The proposed project is sympathetic to the design of nearby homes in that it incorporates siding, stone trim, neutral colors, and natural materials and strives for a single-story appearance as viewed from the front. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed addition is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in that, for example: The use of stone along the lower portion of the house and the siding creates horizontal proportions that reduce the perception of bulk. The second floor and peak roof heights are all set back from the footprint of the house and these varying rooflines break up massing. The wood, stone, and neutral colors will blend with the natural environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Page 8 of 9 97 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Study Session Report, February 13, 2007. 3. Front elevations of project as reviewed at Study Session and as currently proposed. 4. Arborist Reports and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated August 4, 2006. 5. Neighbor Notification templates. 6. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". 98 ATTACHMENT 5 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07-029 (397-25-009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two-story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (Susanne Thomas) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the demolition of an existing single-story Ranch-style house and the construction of an approximately 4,300 square foot, two-story Craftsman-style house. • Distributed the materials board. • Said that the project incorporates high quality materials including a carriagestyle wood door, high-end front door and windows and using darker earth tone colors. • Reminded that a Planning Commission Study Session was held in February 2007. The project’s original design was Mediterranean. Since the original design and following numerous meetings with the applicant, the second floor was reduced, the setback for the second story was increased, and only one window faces the neighbor to the left side. • Reported that neighbor correspondence has been received. • Said that during the site visit the Commissioners also visited the adjacent neighbors’ properties to see views. • Stated that the project meets General Plan findings and Design Review findings. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is still an objection to the one window upstairs in the master bathroom. She suggested using some method to block any potential view onto the adjacent property such as opaque windows or some sort of screening trellis. Director John Livingstone said that this particular window is a clearstory window used to provide light and ventilation. This sill of this window is at a six-foot height. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is used to more slopes on the second story of a Craftsman-style house. She asked if there was any discussion on how to break the roof up on the front view instead of it being at the 26-foot height all along that view. 99 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Director John Livingstone said he couldn’t say as he is filing in for the project planner this evening. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could reply. He added that this is a hybrid design and that more roof means less a visible second story. Commissioner Zhao asked for the size of the bath window on the left side. Director John Livingstone said he would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Kumar asked if an operable skylight might be feasible here. He asked what the impact might be if there were no window on that elevation. Director John Livingstone said that an operable skylight is possible. He added that windows are used to break up an elevation and add character. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 2. Mr. Omid Shakeri, Applicant’s Representative: • Explained that he is here on behalf of Mr. Maesumi. • Reported that Mr. Maesumi is excited to move into Saratoga and has worked for for the last year on this design. • Said that issues of bulk, size and privacy have been resolved. • Assured that they have tried to accommodate requests from neighbors, staff and the Planning Commission. • Reminded that the second floor has been set back considerably (63 feet) from the street. Dormers have been used to break up the roof. • Added that their lot coverage is only at 21 percent and they have maximized setbacks. • Asked the Commission to approve Mr. Maesumi’s plans tonight. Commissioner Nagpal asked why there is not more articulation on the front view along the 26-foot long ridgeline that is all the way along the front elevation. Mr. Cherine Bassal, Project Architect: • Said they have attempted to avoid the look of a two-story as seen from the street. They had to move the second story far back. • Pointed out that one of the two dormers is fake. It is just an architectural feature to help provided symmetry with the other one. Commissioner Zhao asked the size of the bath window. Mr. Cherine Bassal said that it is two feet wide and four feet tall. The sill is at a sixfoot height. Commissioner Zhao said that she shared the concern with Commissioner Nagpal about the ridgeline. It is pretty bulky. Page 2 of 8 100 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Mr. Cherine Bassal said he worked it out with staff. It was the only way. He added that the two-dimensional drawing does not do justice to the design. He pointed out that the roof slopes back. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the master bath window could incorporate obscured glass, stained glass, plants or perhaps fixed louvers. Mr. Cherine Bassal said that obscured glass is a good option. Any recommendation by this Commission would be followed. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that a better view of the slope is visible on Sheet 4. Commissioner Kumar said that it still gives the appearance of bulk. Mr. Cherine Bassal said that a two-dimensional drawing does not give a good representation. Chair Hlava said that a portico and the garage stick out in front but look flat in the drawing. Other things in the front will lessen the perception of bulk. Mr. Cherine Bassal reminded that staff recommended the second dormer to balance the appearance. Chair Hlava said that while the coverage is 21 percent it could be up to 60 percent. If it were at 60 percent a very large one-story house could be constructed. She asked why a two-story. Mr. Cherine Bassal said that they had talked about a single-story residence but with the required setbacks and Water District easements, it was hard to work with the space available and that made a single-story impossible. Mr. Omid Shakeri: • Added that a one-story is hard to design on this odd-shaped lot. • Reported that Mr. Maesumi has two small children who need a playground in the backyard. • Said the idea is not to maximize the size of the house but rather to design one that fits Mr. Maesumi’s needs. With a six-year old and 12-year old, he needs four bedrooms. • Stated that the house designed is functional for this family. • Suggested that this proposed roof design is easier on the eye versus building area with windows. • Assured that this roof is not flat and square but rather one will see a gentle slope going back. This was a way to control the mass of the building. Commissioner Rodgers said if one stands at the front of the house and looks up, the straight line is viewed uphill. Page 3 of 8 101 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Mr. Omid Shakeri said that one is not looking at it straight on due to the right side of the garage and angle of the house placement. Mr. Tom Murphy, Resident on Jerries Drive: • Said that his property is across the creek. • Advised that he had submitted correspondence earlier today. • Asked that the Commission not lose sight of the rear of this property. Nothing in the plans mitigates bulk as seen from the rear. • Pointed out that this is a creekside setting with Saratoga Creek largely untouched and in a natural state. • Said he hopes the Planning Commission keeps in mind this unique natural setting. Mr. Walter Shaw, Resident on Jerries Drive: • Said he also submitted a letter yesterday. • Said that he has spoken with Planner Suzanne Thomas, who was very cooperative. • Explained that his concern is the two-story. • Agreed that the focus on the bulk issue is on the front and not on the rear. • Expressed concern relative to privacy and this natural setting. • Said that he is concerned about easements relative to the creek and setbacks. • Mentioned an existing chain link fence. • Reiterated his concerns as being easements, two-story and privacy impacts as well as the bulky appearance from the back view. Director John Livingstone cautioned that sometimes the Water District itself sometimes installs chain link fences. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven, Resident on River Ranch Circle: • Acknowledged staff’s hard work. • Said that one cannot hide the fact that this is a two-story, 4,000 square foot home in a single-story neighborhood. • Added that it is incompatible in bulk and height. It would tower over other houses and will be the eyesore in this neighborhood. • Expressed concern over the second-floor bath window and said that she loves skylights and has two skylights herself. • Advised that she would be fine if they removed that window. • Stated concern over property values and pointed out that one house recently went on the market although she cannot say it is because a two-story is proposed here. • Said that a two-story does not belong in this neighborhood. Mr. Mike Van De Ven, Resident on River Ranch Circle: Page 4 of 8 102 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle • Said that he and his wife are the only ones who would see that elevation and they are okay if there is no window on that wall. Chair Hlava cautioned that this Commission must consider this from good design practices perspective. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven said that she has two operable skylights and assured that this owner would like them. Commissioner Cappello asked the Van De Vens if their issues go away with the removal of this window. Mr. Mike Van De Ven replied yes. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven said if the window is gone or a single-story house is proposed. However, there is still a bulk issue but she had thought that a twostory was difficult to prevent. Commissioner Nagpal asked if bulk was their chief concern. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven said bulk and privacy. Commissioner Kumar asked what if screening were to be installed. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven said that it would take too long to grow in enough to provide sufficient screening. Commissioner Kumar asked the Van De Vens if they consider this house bulky as viewed from their property to the rear or just the front elevation of this proposed home. Ms. Jamie Van De Ven said all around. Commissioner Kumar asked if bulk is more of an issue to them than privacy. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that there are a number of ways to provide privacy and allow the applicant to have the window they want. • Questioned if the Van De Vens would support use of skylights, screening vegetation, trellis, obscured glass and/or fixed slat windows. Chair Hlava said she has a similar window in her bath and cannot see out. Mr. Omid Shakeri: • Said that Mr. Maesumi is open to use of obscured glass on this bath window. • Said that in working with staff and the neighbors they have tried to address all comments. Page 5 of 8 103 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle • Added that Mr. Maesumi wants a livable house with a yard for his children. • Stated he would appreciate the Commission’s approval. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kundtz asked if economic impacts and/or property values are the purview of this Commission. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that this issue is not a finding in Design Review. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that this is an irregular lot in a sensitive creekside setting. • Added that this is a single-story neighborhood zoned R-1-10,000. • Said that the issue is good design. • Said that her problem with this design is that it does not minimize the perception of bulk. • Added that she has no issue with the two-story element if it is sensitively designed. • Stated that the limitation is the odd-shaped lot that requires exceptional design. • Advised that it is difficult for her to make two of the required findings relative to compatible bulk and height. • Informed that she cannot support this request. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that Commissioner Nagpal has made some good points that he can agree with to a large degree. • Said that as for Finding #1 that requires avoidance of interference with views and privacy, he does believe this design does a better job than the previous one. He can make that finding. • Said that while he would have loved to see a single-story or two-story with basement level versus a two-story on this parcel, the bulk finding can be made in the affirmative. • Stated that the compatibility with the neighborhood finding can be made also. He said he agreed with staff that there are many two-story homes in this area. • Said that this applicant has done a lot to address issues such as setbacks and minimization of the second story. The window has been addressed by its six-foot sill height. With a toilet located directly below this window, it would not offer access to views of neighboring property. • Added that since the applicant is willing to utilize opaque glass in this window, he is willing to condition that requirement. • Advised that he would support this project as it is. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that there have been lots of changes but are they enough. Page 6 of 8 104 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle • Suggested that this is kind of a Cape Cod styled home. It will look small. The angle reduces the bulk a bit as seen from the front. • Said when considering a one-story versus two-story residence, it must be remembered that a one-story house can be 18-feet tall. • Expressed the need to preserve the existing landscape so she is willing to support a two-story house on this site. • Added that there is no single-story overlay in place for this area so the applicant is entitled to a two-story residence. • Stated that the design has to be exceptional. • Reminded that this applicant has worked with staff and came to the Planning Commission in a Study Session. This project meets the criteria for good design. • Added that the issue of privacy has been raised. She reminded that this Commission was able to visit the adjacent properties and there is no visibility. • Said that the applicant has expressed willingness to use obscured glass on the window facing the Van De Ven property. She would like to condition that. • Said that a basement is not a good option on this property as it would be wet and damp all the time. It is not fair to ask this applicant to put up with that. • Stated that she can make all Design Review findings. Commissioner Kumar: • Explained that he was not yet a Commissioner when the Study Session on this project was held in 2007. • Agreed that this is a fairly irregular lot that requires optimum design. • Stated that he thinks there are perceptions of bulk and that other options are available to reduce bulk. • Said that he cannot make the findings for bulk and height but that privacy can be worked around. • Said that the problem of bulk is a major one that needs some redesign to solve. The story poles were overbearing. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she wished that a perspective rendering had been available as she has problems with the perception of bulk due to such a long 26-foot high ridgeline. • Stated that she is is not against a two-story house. • Advised that she cannot make the bulk findings and seeks some creative way of doing the roofline. • Informed that she cannot support at this time. Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated that the privacy issue has been dealt with. • Said that redesign might compromise necessary living space needed by this family. • Said that with the use of opaque glass on the bath window he can make the Design Review findings. Page 7 of 8 105 Minute: January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting: 07-029; 13921 River Ranch Circle Page 8 of 8 Chair Hlava: • Said that she has given a lot of thought to this and was concerned about bulk. • Advised that this lot is down the hill. • Said that there are other two-story homes in the area. • Stated that she can make the bulk and height compatibility findings. • Said that obscuring the bath window in some way is an acceptable solution to the privacy concern. • Stated that she can make the findings for approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #07-029) to allow the demolition of an existing home and shed and construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 13921 River Ranch Circle, with the condition for opaque glass on the second-story bath window on the left elevation being made permanent, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: Kumar, Nagpal and Zhao ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava advised that there are 15 days for appeal. *** 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone & DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Richard Taylor ____________________________ SUBJECT: Approval of the Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, and plan implementation including authorization of contract for final construction drawings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ?? Adopt a resolution approving the Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, and plan implementation program. ?? Authorize staff to enter a contract with MPA Design to prepare final plans and construction drawings for a cost not to exceed $68,000. BACKGROUND: At the November 1, 2006 City Council Meeting the Council approved environmental review of a Conceptual Design Plan for the proposed Kevin Moran Park Improvements Project. The Council approved an agreement for consultants to conduct the environmental review on April 18, 2007. The Conceptual Plan was developed following a series of community meetings and based on the recommendations of the Kevin Moran Park Task Force. The Conceptual Plan is attached to this report as Attachment 2. An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on the Plan were circulated for public comment from November 1, 2007 to December 3, 2007. The IS/MND and responses to comments on the IS/MND are attached to this report as Attachments 3 and 4. The attached resolution would approve the conceptual design plan including use policies for the practice fields at the park and would direct staff to proceed with final construction plans and obtaining bids to complete the improvements. The estimated project costs would be approximately $1,381,426 for design and construction, which includes a 10% construction contingency, design fees, and an allowance of $10,000 for environmental work. Additional annual maintenance costs are estimated at $64,200. The first step in plan implementation would be to authorize MPA Design to prepare final plans and construction drawings for a cost not to exceed $68,000 as described in Attachment 7. DISCUSSION: Project Description The project calls for improvements identified as a result of the community consultation process and City Council review of Kevin Moran Task Force recommendations. The improvements include replacing 4 1 118 acres of remnant orchard trees on the north and south ends of the park with developed park uses and the construction of new park facilities, including a tennis court, half basketball court, two bocce courts, rolling and gently sloping flat grass areas, picnic areas, a mediation garden, a screened area for storage of sports equipment, associated park facilities, and a restroom. The project also calls for the following restrictions on use by organized user groups: • The park may be used for practice use only -no games may be played at the park; • No more than two user groups may have use permits at the park at any one time; • No user groups may use the park on Sundays; • Park use will be allowed by user groups on no more than six Saturdays per year (specific dates will be established through the standard park rental process); • All use by user groups must be between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. or dusk, whichever comes first; • No more than one additional team may use the park at any time; and • All restrictions and conditions on use in the current park user agreements will continue to apply except to the extent that the restrictions above are more restrictive. Please refer to the attached initial study and responses to comments for more detail. Environmental Review An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared and circulated for public review and comment from November 1, 2007 to December 3, 2007. The City provided notice of the public comment period through an advertisement in the local newspaper, through a mailing to residents in the vicinity of the project, and through the City’s website. In addition, the IS/MND was made available to the public in hard copy at the City offices and the Saratoga Library and electronically on the City’s website. All written comments received during the 30-day review period are addressed in the Responses to Comments Memo attached to this report as Attachment 4. The Initial Study found that, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and recreation the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council must review and consider the MND in connection with its approval of the park plan. The City’s IS/MND consultant also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, attachment 5) that identifies potentially significant impacts and measures appropriate to lessen those impacts to less-than-significant levels. The IS and MND and the MMRP would be approved by the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for development of construction drawings and completion of the improvements is allocated in the Capital Improvement Program. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The park improvements would not be developed. 2 119 3 ALTERNATIVES: Approve the project with modifications or deny the project altogether. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Proceed with final project design and contracts for construction. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving the Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, and plan implementation. 2. Kevin Moran Park Conceptual Plan 3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Memorandum from LSA Regarding Responses to Comments 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 6. Sample User Agreement 7. February 13, 2008 Proposal from MPA Design for Design Services 120 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING KEVIN MORAN PARK I. The City of Saratoga has prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) regarding the Conceptual Plan for the Kevin Moran Park (also referred to below as the “Project”). The Conceptual Plan is attached to the staff report accompanying this Resolution and hereby incorporated in this Resolution. II. The IS/MND and responses to comments on the IS/MND were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). The IS/MND and responses to comments are attached to the staff report accompanying this Resolution and hereby incorporated in this Resolution. III. The IS identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the proposed Project but found that mitigation measures proposed for the Project and made a part of the Project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. IV. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt the proposed MND were circulated for public review from November 1, 2007 to December 3, 2007. V. The City received several comments addressing potentially adverse environmental impacts, but found that these effects would be avoided or mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. VI. On March 5, 2008 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting on the adequacy of the IS/MND at which oral and written comments and a staff report were presented to the City Council. The City Council reviewed and considered the information in the IS/MND, staff report, public comments, and other documents in the administrative record for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. VII. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. Notice of the meetings concerning the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. All Interested parties desiring to comment on the IS/MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the IS/MND prior to this action by the City Council; and 121 3. All comments raised during the public comment period on the IS/MND and during the meeting were responded to adequately; and 4. The City Council was presented with and has reviewed all of the information in the administrative record; and 6. The IS/MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the IS/MND represents the City Council’s independent judgment. The City Council has considered the information contained in the IS/MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions; and 7. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and 8. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Public Works and are maintained by the Director of that Department. VIII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as modified by the the responses to comments. IX. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to the staff report accompanying this Resolution and hereby made a part of this Resolution (“MMRP”). X. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby directs the Public Works Director to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures required in the Project as specified in the MMRP to mitigate significant environmental effects, as described in the IS, attached herein. XI. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Conceptual Plan for Kevin Moran Park attached to the staff report accompanying this Resolution and hereby made a part of this Resolution. XII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all user agreements and group use permits for use of Kevin Moran Park following completion of the improvements shown in the Conceptual Plan provide for the following: • The park may be used for practice use only -no games may be played at the park; • No more than two user groups may have use permits at the park at any one time; • No user groups may use the park on Sundays; • Park use will be allowed by user groups on no more than six Saturdays per year (specific dates will be established through the standard park rental process); • All use by user groups must be between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. or dusk, whichever comes first; 122 • No more than one additional team may use the park at any time; and • All restrictions and conditions on use in the current Kevin Moran Park user agreements will continue to apply except to the extent that the restrictions above are more restrictive. XIII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs staff to proceed with final design and construction of the improvements shown on the Conceptual Plan and to take such other actions as may be required to implement the Conceptual Plan and MMRP. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 5th day of March, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 123 124 October 2007 KEV IN MOR A N PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INI T IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECL AR ATION PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T 125 Submitted to the: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331 KEV IN MOR A N PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INI T IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECL AR ATION October 2007 PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T 126 P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SUMMARY INFORMATION.................................................................................... ................2 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................5 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................... ...................................................................11 I. AESTHETICS ...............................................................................................................12 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................16 III. AIR QUALITY.......................................................................... ...................................17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................22 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................... ...............................................................26 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..............................................................................................29 VII. HAZARDS ....................................................................................................................32 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................. ................................37 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................41 X. MINERAL RESOURCES............................... .............................................................42 XI. NOISE ...........................................................................................................................42 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................46 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................. ...................................47 XIV. RECREATION..............................................................................................................49 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC....... ..........................................................................50 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS......................................................................52 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................55 D. REPORT PREPARERS ................................................................................. ...........................57 E. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................57 127 P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ii FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................ ....................................3 Figure 2: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................4 Figure 3: Aerial Photo.......................................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Project Site Plan ................................... ............................................................................8 TABLES Table 1: Ambient Noise Standards ................................................................................. ..............43 128 129 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst (408) 868-1258 4. Project Location: The proposed project would be located within existing Kevin Moran Park in the City of Saratoga. Kevin Moran Park is located at 12415 Scully Avenue in the City of Saratoga, in Santa Clara County. The project site comprises one parcel: Assessor’s Parcel Number 386-38-007. Kevin Moran Park is bordered by residential uses adjacent to Saraglen Drive to the north, Scully Avenue to the east, and State Highway 85 to the south and west. Refer to Figures 1 and 2. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Open Space/Outdoor Recreation 7. Zoning: R-1-12,500 Residential 8. Description of Project: The proposed project would result in changes to the existing Kevin Moran Park in the City of Saratoga. These changes would result in the replacement of 4 acres, including remnant orchard trees on the north and south ends of the park, with developed park uses, and the construction of new park facilities, including a tennis court, half basketball court, two bocce courts, rolling grass areas, picnic areas, a meditation garden, a screened area for storage of sports equipment, and a restroom. Refer to Section B, Project Description, for more detail. 130 ?? MILES FIGURE 1 SOURCE: ©2002 DeLORME. STREETATLAS USA®2003. I:\CIS0701 kevin moran\figures\Fig_1.ai (9/05/07) 0 10 N Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Project Location Regional Location Map 131 PROJECT SITE Karn Cir Goleta Av Cox Av Cumberland Dr Scotland Glen Brae Dr Glen Brae Dr Saratoga Ave Northampton ScullyDr Larchmont Brockton Ln Brook Glen Dr Brookview Dr Miller Av ElisaAv Oakhaven Dr Viewoak Dr Saraglen Dr Prospect Rd Miller Av Bollinger Rd Castle Av Johnson Av Lawrence Expy Cox Av Pierce Rd Saratoga-Sunnyvale Pro spect Rd S. De Anza Blvd R ainb ow Dr AZULE PARK KEVIN MORAN PARKCONGRESS SPRINGS PARK Sea Gull Wy Kir kmont Dr Colby Ct Quito Rd 85 G2 SARATOGA SAN JOSE miles 0 .25 .50 project site FIGURE 2 Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Project Location Map SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, 2004; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2007 I:\CIS0701 kevin moran\figures\Fig_2.ai (9/05/07) 132 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site – existing Kevin Moran Park – is located in a residential neighborhood in the City of Saratoga. Kevin Moran Park consists of approximately 6 acres of developed park land (with a grass area, children’s playground, and associated park facilities) in the central portion of the site. Approximately 3 acres of land to the north of the grass area and 1 acre of the land to the south of the grass area comprise remnant orchard land that has never been developed into formal park uses. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses adjacent to Saraglen Drive to the north, Scully Avenue and single-family residential uses to the east, and State Highway 85 to the south and west. Beyond State Highway 85 are single family residential uses, Azule Park, and Blue Hills Elementary School. Azule Park and the elementary school are connected to Kevin Moran Park via a pedestrian bridge over State Highway 85. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): • City of Saratoga • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • West Valley Sanitation District B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following discussion includes historical information concerning Kevin Moran Park, a description of the project site and surrounding land uses, and a description of the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project (project). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project. Figure 2 shows the location of the project in the context of the City of Saratoga. Figure 3 shows an aerial photograph of the site. Figure 4 shows the project site plan. 1. Overview and Background The City of Saratoga originally purchased the 10.38-acre site for Kevin Moran Park in February 1970, and named it as such two months later, after a Saratoga resident. The site had served as an orchard from the late 19th century until at least the 1950s and possibly into the 1960s. The orchard crop was likely apricots or prunes, which were two of the largest orchard fruit crops that were historically grown in Saratoga. These fruits were intensively farmed in Saratoga until the early 1940s. Large-scale conversion of agricultural land in Saratoga to residential uses, including land around Kevin Moran Park, began in the 1960s. Construction of State Highway 85, bordering the southwest edge of the park, was initiated in the 1980s, and was completed by the early 1990s. The City developed 4 acres of the park in 1973, including an open grass area, pathways, preschool play area, and landscaping. By the early 1980s, the park looked much as it does today, with grass and a playground in the center, and remnant orchards on the north and south of the site. 133 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6 2. Project Location and Existing Land Uses The project site is located at 12415 Scully Avenue, within the boundaries of the existing Kevin Moran Park. Kevin Moran Park consists of one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 386-38-007) and is approximately 10 acres. The park, which is owned by the City, is located in a residential neighborhood in the northeastern part of Saratoga. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses adjacent to Saraglen Drive to the north, Scully Avenue and single-family residential uses to the east, and State Highway 85 to the south and west (see Figure 3). Beyond State Highway 85 are single family residential uses, Azule Park, and Blue Hills Elementary School. Azule Park and the elementary school are connected to Kevin Moran Park via a pedestrian bridge over State Highway 85. The project site is designated as Open Space/Outdoor Recreation in the City of Saratoga General Plan. The site is zoned R-1-12,500, Residential. 3. Existing Conditions Kevin Moran Park consists of approximately 6 acres in the central portion of the site that are developed with formal park uses. Approximately 3 acres of land to the north of the developed area and 1 acre of land to the south of the developed area consist of remnant orchard trees and bare ground. The developed portion of the park includes a children’s playground (improved and upgraded in April 2000) and a 2.3-acre open grass area. Other existing park elements include par course stations, picnic tables, benches, and a drinking fountain. A paved perimeter pedestrian/bicycle pathway circles the developed portion of the park and links to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over State Highway 85. This bridge connects Kevin Moran Park with Azule Park, the Azule neighborhood, and the Blue Hills Elementary School. This bridge and associated path is a City-designated bike route. Scully Avenue, which is surrounded by single-family residential uses and Kevin Moran Park, and typically experiences low traffic volumes, is the primary means of vehicle access to the project site. There are over 70 on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the project site, including spaces on Scully Avenue. Under existing conditions, this parking is not fully utilized. The park is used by joggers, walkers, families and school children. It receives a limited amount of group-use by organizations. The grass area is not sufficiently flat for regulation soccer or baseball games but is frequently used by youth soccer groups for practice. The American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) currently has a use agreement with the City of Saratoga, which grants certain soccer groups use of the park on Monday through Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. or dusk (whichever comes first) for soccer practice during the soccer seasons. The spring and fall soccer seasons run from February through early June and from August through early December, respectively. The existing use agreement is in effect until December 31, 2007. The project site contains ornamental landscaping, including 272 trees; 206 of these trees are of the type protected under Section 15-50.020(n) of the City’s Municipal Code. The trees include 21 coast live oaks and 39 coast redwoods. There are approximately 16 different species of trees including fruit trees, sycamores, magnolias, and eucalyptus, in varying states of health. Many of the fruit trees, in particular, are in poor condition.1 The orchard is not currently under a crop harvesting agreement. The 1 Arbor Resources, November 2, 2005. A Tree Inventory and Evaluation of Trees at Kevin Moran Park (Location Along Scully Avenue), Saratoga, California. 134 NORTHAMPTON DRIVE ELISA DRIVEELISA DRIVE HIGHWAY 85 SCULLY DRIVE SCULLY DRIVE SARAGLEN DRIVE feet 0 200 400 project site FIGURE 3 Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Aerial Photo SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, 2004; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2007 I:\CIS0701 kevin moran\figures\Fig_3.ai (9/18/07) 135 feet 0 60 120 FIGURE 4 SOURCE: MPA DESIGN, SEPTEMBER 2006 I:\CIS0701 kevin moran\figures\Fig_4.ai (9/04/07) Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Project Site Plan 136 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 9 City is responsible for general upkeep of the remnant orchard areas, which are disked twice each year (by a private contractor) to control weeds. Calabazas Creek and Saratoga Creek are the closest surface water bodies to the project site and are located approximately ¾-mile west and east of the project site, respectively. 4. Proposed Facilities The proposed project would result in changes to the 4 undeveloped acres of the park; access modifications to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards; existing path resurfacing; and new water service and drainage improvements. Figure 4 shows the proposed conceptual site plan. The proposed project would include development/installat on of the following facilities: • tennis court, in the southern portion of the site; • half basketball court, in the northwestern portion of the site; • two bocce courts, along the western boundary of the park, next to the proposed tennis court; • rolling grass areas (on land that is currently occupied by remnant orchard trees); • picnic area with tables, immediately north of the proposed tennis court/bocce courts; • restroom, northeast of the proposed tennis court, consisting of two toilets and sinks (the restroom would be locked at night); • meditation garden in the northeastern corner of the site (including circular paths and landscape plantings); • landscaping and a 100-foot wide landscaped area in the northern portion of park (including eucalyptus trees clustered along the northern site boundary), bordered on the south by a 10-footwide berm with a height of 1.7 feet above the surrounding lawn area; • screened area for storage of practice equipment; • associated park facilities (e.g., signage, water fountain, benches, additional picnic tables); • small segments of new pathways, to connect proposed facilities to the existing circular path; and • 6-foot high “good neighbor” fences along the northern and southeastern boundary of the site (where residential uses are located immediately adjacent to the park). The existing flat grass area in the center of the park would remain as part of the project. Landscaping for the project site would include grass, native groundcovers for disturbed areas that would not be covered with grass, and native trees. Landscaping would be drought tolerant to the greatest extent possible. Most of the trees on the project site would be preserved, including the large heritage oak in the northern portion of the park. The proposed improvements would result in the removal of approximately 80 trees in the park (approximately 29 percent of the total trees on the site; most are fruit trees in poor condition). 5. Park Use The open grass areas at Kevin Moran Park would be used for informal play and for practices by organized user groups. Organized user groups groups would not be permitted to play games at the park. The 137 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 10 City would allow a maximum of two user groups to have use permits for the park at any one time. Each permitted user group would be limited to a maximum of three Saturday practice sessions per year, for which they must acquire a permit through the regular park rental process. The park’s open grass areas would be available for Saturday practice sessions for a total of no more than six Saturdays per year. No organized user groups would be allowed to use the park on Sundays. These requirements are consistent with the existing user agreement in effect at the park. Other expected uses at the park would include passive recreational uses (walking and picnicking) and courts sports (basketball, bocce, and tennis). 6. Utilities and Storm Water Drainage The project site would be served by existing power and water and sewer system mains located within the Scully Avenue right-of-way. The Conceptual Design Plan calls for upgraded connections for water service and drainage improvements (e.g. swales, above-ground percolation improvements, and new pipes). A new sanitary sewer line would be connected to the site to serve the proposed restrooms. The proposed project would affect an area larger than 1 acre; therefore construction activities would be regulated under both the Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the State’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity, which would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 7. Access and Parking Access to the site would be via existing public streets and the pedestrian bridge spanning State Highway 85. The project would not include new parking areas; park users would continue to park along Scully Avenue. 8. Construction Development of the proposed project is expected to extend over a period of approximately 4 to 6 months. Construction activities would involve minor grading/earthmoving and utility work. 9. Project Approvals Required The following approvals would be required as part of the project: • Parks and Trails Master Plan Amendment (to reflect the new park design and acreage); • Approval of Final Design; • Approval of Construction Contracts; • Regional Water Quality Control Board (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System); and • West Valley Sanitation District approval of new sanitary line for restrooms 138 139 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 12 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? This section includes a discussion of the potential effects of the project on scenic views, and also addresses potential privacy issues related to the expansion of formal park uses on land currently occupied by remnant orchard trees. Scenic Vistas. Like many parts of Saratoga, certain locations in and adjacent to the project site (particularly along Scully Avenue and the pedestrian bridge that connects the site to Azule Park) contain scenic vistas of the Monte Bello Ridge to the northwest and the forested slopes of taller mountains in the Santa Cruz Mountain range to the south of the project site. These mountains and hillsides also form a backdrop to Saratoga Village and are an important visual feature in the City. However, the mature trees in the site obstruct some of the hillside views from the site. While the project site has a positive visual quality, it is not itself considered a scenic vista. None of the visual changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The pine and redwood trees proposed to surround the planned meditation garden in the northeast corner of the park, as well as along the rest of the park’s northern edge, would partially, but not significantly, affect views to the north from within the park. Several tall, mature redwood trees in the park’s northeast corner already partially block views to the north. Proposed trees and new above-ground structures in the southern portion of the site (including the restroom, tennis court, and bocce courts) would be generally low-profile and would also not block hillside views. Likewise, the proposed fencing along the northern and southeast perimeter of the project site would block direct views into the backyards of residences, but would not obstruct hillside views. Privacy Issues. Currently, the houses adjacent to the northern edge of Kevin Moran Park are physically and visually separated from the park by a fence, an evergreen hedge, and sporadic tree coverage; the hedge and trees are more dense in the northwest corner of the project site, next to State Highway 85. The project would result in the construction of a new, uniform fence along the northern border of the site, and the planting of additional redwood trees along the entire length of the fence in 140 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 13 order to provide a continuous tree barrier between the park and the private properties along Saraglen Drive. The project also includes a “good neighbor” fence along the southeastern corner of the park, which borders a private residence. In order to discourage recreational uses close to the adjacent properties, the proposed flat lawn in the northern area of the park would be set back from the “good neighbor” fence by approximately 100 feet, and the existing native groundcovers in this buffer area would be maintained. These features would substantially block views from the park into the backyards of residences adjacent to the park. The Conceptual Design Plan also includes a 10-foot-wide berm at the edge of the buffer area; the berm would have a maximum height of 1.7 feet. The existing and proposed trees along the proposed fence, in conjunction with the 100-foot landscaped area buffer (in addition to the relatively low height of the berm), would ensure that a park visitor standing on top of the berm would not be able to see into adjacent properties along Saraglen Drive. The landscape changes that would result from project implementation would enhance the privacy of residents adjacent to the project site. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. State Highway 85 is not a designated or eligible State scenic highway. 2 No rock outcroppings or historic buildings are located in the project site; therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal of these scenic resources. Native vegetation, including groundcover, would be preserved where feasible during construction of the proposed project. However, approximately 80 trees (most of which are fruit trees in poor condition) would be removed from the site as part of the project. Based on the Tree Inventory and Evaluation prepared for the project site, 70 of the 80 trees proposed for removal have a “low” suitability for preservation; 7 have a “moderate” suitability for preservation; and 3 have a “high” suitability for preservation.3 Approximately 60 trees (including pine and redwood trees) would be planted in the site as part of the project. 2 California Department of Transportation, July, 2007. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways. 3 Arbor Resources, 2005. Most of the trees that would be removed as part of the project are fruit trees in poor condition. 141 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 14 Therefore, over 87 percent of the trees proposed for removal would be ill-suited for continued preservation and would not be considered scenic resources. In addition, only 6 of the 80 trees are defined as native trees by Section 15-15.020(n) of the City’s Municipal Code.4 Approximately 60 trees would be planted as part of the project, including redwood and pine trees. These proposed new trees would visually compensate for the removal of trees from the site. In addition, trees could be harmed by pesticide and herbicide use during operation of the park. However, all landscaping maintenance activities at the park would be performed in accordance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM Plan), which prohibits the use of specific harmful pesticides. Although the City is not required to adhere to the tree protection provisions in the Saratoga Municipal Code, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration references the tree protection provisions to inform discussion of the project’s potential environmental impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce visual impacts associated with potential damage to trees that would be preserved to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-1: The City shall implement the following measures: 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on the project site. Fencing shall be installed around all trees that are immediately adjacent to active construction areas and that are shown for retention on project plans. The fencing shall comprise 6-foot high chain-link fencing mounted on 8-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing shall remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the contractor following installation of protective fencing and prior to start of work to review tree protection measures. 3. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities shall be conducted outside the designated fenced area, including the time after fencing is removed. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4. Any approved grading or trenching beneath tree canopies shall be performed manually using shovels. 5. Any pruning of trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 6. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, and gasoline) shall be prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on the site where drainage occurs 4 Arbor Resources, 2005. 142 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 15 beneath tree canopies. In addition, fuel shall not be stored and refueling or maintenance of equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of a tree trunk. 7. Herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied beneath tree canopies as part of the proposed project. Where used on the site, herbicides shall be labeled for safe use near trees. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following visual changes to the project site: • Conversion of approximately 4 acres of remnant orchard land on the northern and southern ends of the site into formal park land; • Construction of new structures and recreational facilities, including a tennis court, basketball court, bocce courts, restroom, a sports gear storage area, and fencing; • Landscape changes to the site, including the development of rolling grass areas, a meditation garden, and a berm approximately 100-feet south of the northern boundary of the site, and the installation of landscaping between the berm and the northern site boundary; and • Removal of approximately 80 trees from the site (most of which are fruit trees in poor condition) and the installation of approximately 60 new trees. In addition, the expansion of park facilities on the project site is anticipated to modestly increase park use. Therefore, during certain periods, the park environment could appear slightly more active than under existing conditions. The northern and southern portions of the project site are characterized by remnant orchard land that is generally devoid of groundcover. These orchards have not been actively farmed since at least the 1960s. The remaining fruit trees are mostly dead or dying, small, and unsuitable for preservation. These untended areas offer users a window into Saratoga’s agricultural past, but have a generally low visual quality and contrast with the developed portion of Kevin Moran Park. The trees that are proposed to be removed in the northern section of the park are mostly small, former orchard trees. The majority of these trees are not suitable for preservation; many are in poor health or dead, and have low structural integrity.5 The removal of these trees and the development of park facilities that are visually compatible with existing facilities would not adversely change the visual character of the site. The changes to the site that would occur as a result of project implementation are expected to result in an overall benefit to visual quality and setting. Removal of some neglected former orchard trees and the planting of new redwood and pine trees is intended to restore some of the natural appeal of the area and reduce the perception that the park margins are unappealing or inaccessible. The tennis and basketball courts would be appropriately landscaped in order to prevent them from appearing barren 5 Arbor Resources, 2005. 143 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 16 or obtrusive to the natural visual quality of the park. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to enhance the visual character of Kevin Moran Park. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Additional lights may be installed on the project site, similar to those that currently exist in the Park. In addition, motion-activated security lights may be installed next to the restroom, storage area, and areas that require additional security. These lights would not create a substantial new source of glare that would degrade daytime or nighttime views. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 a non-agricultural use? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ?? ?? ?? ?? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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 a non-agricultural use? Approximately 4 acres of the project site contain remnant orchard trees. However, this former agricultural land has not been irrigated or otherwise managed to produce agricultural crops, and is not considered active farmland. The project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation.6 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 6 California Department of Conservation, July, 2007. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. 144 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 17 The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of formal park uses on a site surrounded by urban development on all sides. The project would not result in other physical changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses (e.g., the extension of infrastructure to exurban sites). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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)? ?? ?? ?? ?? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ?? ?? ?? ?? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ?? ?? ?? ?? The development of new park space and recreational facilities in Kevin Moran Park could affect air quality in the following key ways: 1) release dust and exhaust during the project construction period; and 2) release exhaust associated with persons driving to the new facilities. As discussed below, the project would not result in a significant adverse effect to air quality or conflict with the latest Clean Air Plan. The project would also not release into the atmosphere soil containing potentially toxic materials, as discussed in Section VII, Hazards. This introduction provides background air quality information that is referenced in the responses to the Initial Study checklist questions below. Existing Air Quality. The City of Saratoga is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was 145 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 18 created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Saratoga and the rest of the air basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons. Ozone levels, as measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State one-hour standard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other regional, State and federal agencies. The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public health; however the Bay Area still exceeds the State standard for 1-hour ozone levels. Twenty-four hour levels of particulate matter (PM10) in the Bay Area have exceeded State standards at least several times per year from 2004 to 2006 (the latest year for which data is available).7 The area is considered a nonattainment area for this pollutant relative to the State standards. The Bay Area is an unclassified area for the federal PM10 standard. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. No exceedances of the State or federal carbon monoxide (CO) standards have been recorded at any of the region’s monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area is currently considered a maintenance area for State and federal CO standards. New national and State standards for fine particulate matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less, PM2.5) have been adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. Fine particulate matter, because of the small size of individual particles, can be especially harmful to human health. Fine particulate matter is emitted by common combustion sources such as cars, trucks, buses and power plants, in addition to ground disturbing activities. The Bay Area is considered an attainment area for PM2.5 at the national level and a nonattainment area for PM2.5 at the State level.8 Clean Air Plan. The most recent BAAQMD plan for attaining California Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, was adopted by BAAQMD on January 4, 2006. The 2005 Ozone Strategy is the fourth triennial update of the BAAQMD’s original 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The 2005 Ozone Strategy demonstrates how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State 1-hour air quality standard for ozone and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The Ozone Strategy also includes stationary source control measures, mobile source control measures and transportation control measures. Although it is only required to address ozone pollution and associated control measures, the Ozone Strategy also discusses particulate matter pollution and reduction measures. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As noted above, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which also addresses particulate matter, is the air quality plan that applies to the project site. The primary source of ozone is internal combustion engines and power plants. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to regional ozone emissions in the form of emissions from construction vehicles and emissions from motor vehicles driven to and from the project site by park visitors. The project would contribute to particulate matter 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), July, 2007. Ten Year Bay Area Air Quality Summary. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/pollsum06.pdf. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), July, 2007. Ambient Air Quality and Bay Area Attainment Status. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality. 146 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 19 emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) through construction vehicle emissions and the disturbance of soil within the project site during the construction period. Construction activities within the project site would include relatively minimal grading and earthmoving (because the park site would remain relatively flat after implementation of the project), the construction of new recreational facilities (such as the tennis court, bocce courts, and basketball court), and the revegetation of disturbed areas. These activities, which include ground disturbance and the operation of motorized construction vehicles, would incrementally increase ozone and particulate matter emissions in the region during the project construction period, which is anticipated to extend from 4 to 6 months. The area of ground disturbance would consist of approximately 4 acres (roughly the acreage comprising the remnant orchards in Kevin Moran Park). According to BAAQMD, temporary, construction period air quality impacts (for all pollutants) are considered less-than-significant if standard BAAQMD particulate matter control measures are implemented. The BAAQMD does not maintain significance thresholds for PM2.5; however, mitigation measures for large particulate matter (PM10) would also be effective at reducing emissions of small particulate matter (PM2.5). Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which includes the required BAAQMD control measures outlined in the agency’s CEQA Guidelines, would reduce the project’s construction period air quality impacts (including construction period conflicts with the 2005 Ozone Strategy) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site during the the construction and pre-construction phases of the project: 1) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 3) Apply water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 5) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6) Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously disturbed areas inactive for ten days or more). 7) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 8) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11) Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 12) Minimize idling time (to 5 minutes or less). 13) Maintain properly-tuned equipment. 147 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 20 Vehicle Emissions. Refer to Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, for a discussion of the project’s expected trip generation. As described in that section, the number of visitors to the park is expected to increase modestly after implementation of the project. The project would increase vehicle trips by approximately 76 vehicle trips per day. This relatively small number of new trips would not result in the release of significant amounts of air pollutants. Therefore, the project’s operational-period ozone contribution would be less-than-significant, and the project would not conflict with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Implementation of the proposed project could expose residential land uses around Kevin Moran Park to marginally increased levels of particulate matter (including both PM10 and PM2.5) during the construction period, due to fuel combustion by construction equipment and ground disturbance. Exposure of sensitive receptors to particulate matter associated with project construction activities is expected to be relatively low due to: the presence of winds (which often disperse air pollutants) and the limited duration of construction activities (a total of 4 to 6 months). Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 (below) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. As part of the project, the remnant orchard lands on the site – which contain exposed soils without widespread vegetative groundcover – would be developed with grass and vegetation. This permanent vegetation cover would likely reduce blowing dust on the site and, in the long-term, would be expected to reduce the site’s contribution to the Bay Area’s nonattainment status for particulate matter. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant. After this identification process, the ARB completed a risk management process that determined potential cancer risks for a range of activities using dieselfueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel traffic (e.g., distribution centers and truck stops) were identified as having the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from diesel fuel-generated particulate matter are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. As discussed in the introduction to this section, the San Francisco Bay air basin is considered a nonattainment area for particulate matter and for one-hour ozone levels, under State standards. As discussed in Section IIIa, construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a short-term release of particulate matter into the atmosphere, and could contribute to existing future particulate matter violations. However, according to BAAQMD, temporary, construction period air quality impacts (for all pollutants) are considered less-than-significant if standard BAAQMD particulate matter control measures are implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impacts associated with exposure of park users to diesel exhaust from State Highway 85 are discussed in Section III.d. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. 148 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 21 Vehicle Emissions. As discussed in Section IIIa, the project is expected to generate only a small increase in the number of motorized vehicle trips. The ozone precursors released by park-related car trips would not comprise a significant contribution to the air basin’s violation of the 1-hour ozone standard. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As discussed in Section III.b, the proposed project would not result in significant emissions of ozone during the short-term construction period or the long-term park operation period. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the project does not make a cumulatively considerable short-term contribution to the air basin’s non-attainment status for particulate matter: Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Refer to Section VII for a discussion of hazards associated with less-than-significant levels of agriculture-related contaminants on the project site. Sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site include residential uses to the north, east, and south of the park; two elementary schools: Blue Hills Elementary School (located approximately 2,000 feet west of the project site at 12300 De Sanka Avenue) and McAuliffe Elementary School (located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the project site at 12211 Titus Avenue); and Azule Park, to the west of the project site across State Highway 85. No other sensitive receptors, including nursing homes, retirement communities, or hospitals are located within ½-mile of the project site. State Highway 85 runs adjacent to the project site. Vehicles on the freeway release various air emissions, including diesel engine exhaust. The concentration of vehicle emissions is usually the highest within 300 feet of a freeway; at 500 feet away from the freeway, pollutant concentrations are substantially dispersed. Approximately two-thirds of Kevin Moran Park is located within the 300-foot zone of higher pollutant concentrations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could expose additional individuals to these elevated pollutant concentrations. However, due to the rapid dispersion of vehicle emissions, the fact that State Highway 85 is not an interstate highway used for the long-haul transport of goods (specifically, trucks over 9,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight are prohibited9), and projected use patterns on the site (park visitors would typically use the site for short periods of a few hours or less), health effects associated with exposure to diesel emissions would be less than significant. 9 California Department of Transportation, September, 2007. California Interstate Route 85, West Valley Freeway, Special Restriction History. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/trucksize/restrict-hist-85.htm. 149 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22 Residents and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. It is anticipated that several construction vehicles, including bulldozers and graders, would be located within the project site at any given time (some or all of which would be active). The construction period would be expected to last approximately 4 to 6 months. Refer to the project description for more information about construction activities. Therefore, construction period diesel emissions would be released in the project site for only a limited time. Additional, diesel-specific mitigation is not required due to the short duration of construction. The concentration of diesel emissions on the site and the duration of exposure to these emissions by sensitive receptors near the project site would not result in significant adverse health effects. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal or disturbance of large quantities of saturated or hydric soils with high proportions of organic matter that would cause objectionable odors when the soil dries. Other components of the proposed project, including the installation of landscaping and the development of recreational facilities, would not create long-term objectionable odors. In addition, the minor sewer work that would take place as part of the project would not result in the long-term release of objectionable odors. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ?? ?? ?? ?? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 150 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 23 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? The following section is based on a reconnaissance of the project site conducted on June 5, 2007 by LSA Associates, Inc. The reconnaissance focused on the parts of Kevin Moran Park that contain remnant orchard trees (i.e., the parts of the park most likely to contain sensitive biological resources). 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? The central portion of the project site contains large areas of grass and landscape trees, including some mature specimens. The northern and southern parts of the site contain remnant orchard trees and a few scattered native trees, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Ground vegetation in these areas is nonexistent or sparse due to past disking activities. Existing groundcover consists of scattered ruderal forbs such as mustard (Brassica sp.), field bindweed (Convovulus arvensis), and curly dock (Rumex sp.). Generally, the site has little habitat value due to its location within an urbanized neighborhood in Saratoga, and the high degree of historic disturbance that has occurred on the site. However, the site has the potential to contain two special-status animal species: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), as described below. Burrowing Owl. Numerous California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheryi) were observed during the site visit, primarily in the northern portion of the project site. Therefore, burrowing owl, which often uses ground squirrel burrows, could occur on the site (although no individuals were observed during the site reconnaissance). However, burrowing owl is unlikely to occur on the site due to surrounding urbanization. Burrowing owls are a California Species of Special Concern and their nest burrows are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Impacts to owl burrows during the project construction period would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl (if individuals occur on the site) to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls on or within 500 feet of areas subject to ground disturbance shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction-related activities. If burrowing owls are observed on or near the construction area during these surveys, the construction contractor shall implement an exclusion zone (i.e., an area where all projectrelated activity shall be excluded) around the nest burrow. Exclusion zones shall comprise a 160-foot radius from occupied burrows during the non-breeding season of September 1 to 151 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24 January 31. Passive relocation of owls that includes the placement of one-way doors over burrow entrances, allowing owls to exit but not return, may occur at that time. During the breeding season of February 1 to August 31, exclusion zones shall comprise at least a 250-foot radius from nest burrows. No project activity shall occur within the exclusion area until the young have fledged (approximately 4 weeks). Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: The City shall develop a mitigation plan in accordance with CDFG requirements if the project would result in the loss of burrowing owl habitat. The mitigation may require the provision of on-or off-site habitat. Off-site habitat, if required, could be provided on suitable City-owned land or other land for which the City controls development rights (suitable land would include land containing existing burrowing owl individuals and/or ground squirrel burrows). Suitable habitat may also be provided in the form of credits at a CDFG-approved habitat conservation bank. The acreage of mitigation habitat would be based on the number of owls identified during the pre-construction survey. Cooper’s Hawk. Cooper’s hawk is a California Species of Special Concern, and the special-status designation applies primarily to nest sites. In natural areas, this species nests primarily in dense oak or riparian woodlands, almost always by a stream, pond, or temporary pool. Cooper’s hawk has also adapted to the urban environment and is known to nest in several central California cities, including San Jose. High nest-site availability (e.g., tall ornamental trees) and an abundant prey base (e.g., rock pigeons, mourning doves, and American robins) are the primary habitat components that attract this species to urban neighborhoods. However, Cooper’s hawk can occur even without these habitat components. Although no Cooper’s hawks were detected during the June 5 site visit, trees within Kevin Moran Park (particularly native coast live oaks) provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Given that Cooper’s hawk forages widely throughout urban neighborhoods, the site may also function as foraging habitat for individuals that may be nesting elsewhere in Saratoga. As such, Cooper’s hawk could nest and forage on the project site. Other raptor species, including red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), could also nest and forage in the site. Approximately 80 trees (most of which are fruit trees in poor condition) would be removed from the site as part of the project. Although most of these trees would not provide prime nesting sites, some of these trees could provide nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk and other raptors. If conducted during the breeding season (i.e., March through August), construction activities could directly affect nesting birds by removing trees that support active nests. Prolonged loud construction noise could also disturb nesting birds, resulting in nesting failure. All native birds and their nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (i.e., September through February) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work must be scheduled during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the work area to determine if any birds are nesting in or in the vicinity of vegetation to be removed. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March to May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior 152 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25 to the start of work from June to August. If active nests are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and shall be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site consists of developed park land and remnant orchard land with little habitat value (besides potential habitat for burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, and other native bird species, as described above). No evidence of wetland hydrology was observed within the project site. The overall level topography of the site suggests that some shallow depressions may retain moisture during much of the rainy season but are not likely to be inundated or saturated with water for more than a few consecutive days. No creeks occur in the project site. Therefore, the project site does not contain riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural communities. 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? See Section IV.b. 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? Most wildlife species that occur within the project site are those that have adapted well to urban landscapes. Therefore, these species would not be adversely affected by construction or use of the proposed recreational facilities. The proposed park space would not create barriers such that native wildlife nursery sites or wildlife corridors would be adversely affected. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The project would result in the removal of 80 trees from Kevin Moran Park (most of which are fruit trees in poor condition). Trees removed within the project site during the construction period could be of the type generally protected under Article 15-50 of the City’s Municipal Code (Tree Regulations). Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would protect existing trees in the project site, would reduce biological impacts associated with the removal of trees to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. 153 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26 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? The project site is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? ?? ?? ?? ?? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ?? ?? ?? ?? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ?? ?? ?? ?? The following section is based on a historic land use investigation conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting10 and background research conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? This section provides a brief history of the site and concludes with a short discussion of the potential for historic resources to occur on the site. Site History. Historical land uses within the project site were identified through a review of: historical aerial photographs from 1939 through 1998; topographic maps from 1899 through 1991; historical maps provided by the Saratoga Historical Foundation and Museum from 1876, 1883 1883 to 1888, 1897, and 1965; and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. The Santa Clara Valley was most likely settled by native Californians somewhere between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago. People first entered into California in the Paleoindian period (11,500-10,000 years before the present). These people are thought to have subsisted mainly on big game and to a lesser extent on processed plant foods, with minimal trade networks. The level of human populations during the Paleoindian period in the vicinity of the project site was low and probably consisted of small groups moving frequently in order to exploit plant and animal resources. This period of early 10 Baseline Environmental Consulting, June 8, 2007. Historical Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation, Kevin Moran Park, Saratoga, California. 154 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 27 occupation in the Santa Clara Valley and elsewhere in northern California is the least represented, and therefore the least understood, in the archaeological record. In the earliest maps available for review from 1876 and 1883 to 1888, the project site was part of a 360-acre property owned by Thomas Scully. The house and personal orchard of Thomas Scully were located near Campbell’s Creek, to the east and outside of the project site. Adjoining areas to the north, south, and west of the site were also indicated as being owned by Thomas Scully. By 1897, the project site and immediately adjacent areas were divided into smaller parcels, which were owned by two people with the last names of Rodgers and Baldachi. The present-day Scully Road was shown immediately to the east of the site. A few small structures (presumably farm houses and barns or other farm structures) were located close to – but not within – the site, according to the 1899 and 1902 topographic maps. Use of the site for orchards was observed in the 1939, 1948, 1956 aerial photographs. The orchards were likely apricot or prunes, which were common crops in Saratoga; these crops were intensively farmed in Saratoga through the 1940s. Small structures, presumably related to the orchards, were located close to but not within the project site in aerial photographs and topographic maps from 1899, 1902, 1943, 1947, 1948, 1953, and 1961. By 1965, the orchards shown in the aerial photographs appeared to be less dense; residential development was observed to the immediate north and east of the site in a 1968 topographic map. A 1965 street guide shows Scully Avenue terminating at the approximate location of the project site, and a few of the immediate neighboring residential streets were present (Saraglen Drive to the north and Elisa Avenue to the northeast). The 10.38-acre park site was purchased by the City of Saratoga in February 1970. Development of 4 acres of the park occurred in 1973, including an open grass area, pathways, preschool play area, and general landscaping. Potential for Historic Resources. No historic above-ground structures are located within or adjacent to the project site. Archaeological resources associated with historic agricultural activities could occur on the project site; however, the potential for such resources to occur on the site is low since no buildings were constructed on the site in historic times. The potential for prehistoric deposits is also low because the site is not located at an overlook, shoreline area, or in close proximity to a waterway (places used by Native Americans prior to European settlement). Prehistoric or historical resources are not anticipated to be discovered during construction of the proposed project; however, it is always possible that such resources could be identified during the project construction period. Impacts to unidentified resources could be significant. If resources are discovered, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented, which would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the finds and make recommendations. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or such effects shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery (by capturing scientific information after developing an appropriate research research design). Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting methods and 155 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 28 results of the assessment, and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? No significant (unique) archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Section 21083.2, have been identified in the project site. Archaeological resources are not anticipated to be discovered during project construction activities; however, it is always possible that such resources could be identified during the construction period. Impacts to unidentified resources could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The sediments that underlie the project site are Holocene (recent -10,000 years old) and Late Pleistocene (10,000 -70,000 years old) alluvial sediments.11 The younger Holocene sediments overlie the older Late Pleistocene sediments within the project site, but they can be very thin or not present, (i.e. Late Pleistocene sediments may directly underlie the project site soil layer). Late Pleistocene sediments in North America commonly contain vertebrate fossils representative of the Rancholabrean land mammal age. Common Rancholabrean vertebrate fossils are ground sloth, dire wolf, sabertoothed cat, camel, bison, mammoth, horse, rodent, bird, reptile, and amphibian fossils.12 A fossil locality search with the University of California Museum of Paleontology identified three vertebrate fossil localities within 4.5 miles of the project site, two of which are from geological formations similar to those within the project site. Fossil localities near the project site have yielded mammoth and horse specimens. The Late Pleistocene sediments within and adjacent to the project site have a high potential of containing paleontological resources; therefore, paleontological resources could be discovered during project construction activities in the event that such activities were to occur at depths of more than 5 feet. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts remain at a lessthan-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: A paleontologist shall monitor initial project ground disturbing activities at or below 5 feet from the original ground surface (i.e., at or below the average project soil and fill depth). After the initial monitoring, the paleontologist can then determine if further monitoring or periodic site reviews for paleontological resources would be appropriate. Paleontological monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review the possible paleontological material and to protect the resource while it is 11 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, 2000. Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30’x 60’ quadrangle, California. (Menlo Park: United States Geological Survey). 12 Savage, Donald, 1951. Late Cenozoic Vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay Region. (Berkeley: University of California Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences 28 (10): 215-314. 156 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29 being evaluated. Monitoring shall continue until, in the paleontologist’s judgment, paleontological resources are not likely to be discovered. If paleontological resources are discovered during project activities (with or without a monitor present), all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected until a paleontological monitor has assessed the situation, consulted with agencies as appropriate, and made recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, adverse effects on the resources shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated (through data recovery). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. No human remains, including Native American remains, are anticipated to exist within the project site. As noted above, the site is not expected to contain prehistoric archaeological resources, which are sometimes found in conjunction with human remains. However, it is always possible that such human remains could be identified during the project construction period. Impacts to human remains could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-4: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the assessment, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. 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: 157 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ?? ?? ?? ?? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ?? ?? ?? ?? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ?? ?? ?? ?? iv) Landslides? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ?? ?? ?? ?? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? The project site is situated in urban land approximately 1.5 miles east of the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the Saratoga Gap on the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley. The site is relatively level and located approximately 297 feet above mean sea level (msl). The dominant soil type in the area is Botella, consisting of surface clay loam underlain by silty clay loam and sandy clay loam. Geologically, the project site is situated on older alluvial deposits, which are Late Pleistocene in age (deposited between 70,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago), and Holocene (10,000 years ago to recent) alluvial fan deposits.13 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii)Strong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv)Landslides? 13 Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin, 1990. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. Regional Geologic Map Series, San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle-Map No. 5A. (Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology). 158 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31 i) Fault Rupture. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by the State. Therefore, the risk of fault rupture at the project site is less than significant. ii) Groundshaking. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity (intensity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size (magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong ground shaking. Seismic ground shaking associated with a large earthquake on either the San Andreas Fault or Monte Vista/Shannon Fault is considered to be a hazard in the project site, and could damage proposed park structures and features (e.g., sports courts and pathways). Adherence to applicable construction codes would reduce impacts associated with groundshaking to a less-than-significant level. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Ground failure hazards of potential concern at the site include earthquake-induced settlement and lurching. All of these hazards involve a displacement of the ground surface resulting from a loss of strength or failure of the underlying materials due to ground shaking. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay fraction) may also liquefy. The clay loams that underlie the project site are not expected to be susceptible to liquefaction. Ground shaking can also induce settlement and densification of loose granular soils above the water table. Lurching, or lurch cracking, is the cracking of the ground surface in soft, saturated material as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking. There is a potential for lurching and differential compaction on the project site due to earthquakes. However, adherence to applicable construction codes would reduce impacts associated with settlement, and densification to a less-than-significant level. iv) Landslides. The project site is located in a valley and is not immediately adjacent to steep hillside slopes. Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to significant landslides that would cause a risk to human safety. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared as part of the project and would reduce soil erosion associated with project implementation to a less-than-significant level. 159 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 32 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? The proposed park features and structures would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to guard against any adverse impacts resulting from ground failure and ground instability. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to ground instability that would endanger life or property. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The clay loam soils within the project site have the potential to expand and contract. Expansion and contraction of soil could damage the proposed structural recreational facilities. However, all structures built on the project site would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to guard against any adverse impacts resulting from expansive soils. The development of the proposed project on expansive soils would result in less-than-significant impacts to life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project site. The proposed restroom would be connected to the existing sanitary sewer system; wastewater would be treated in a wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS. 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 onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ?? ?? ?? ?? 160 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 33 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? The following section utilizes information from a Historic Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting in June 2007.14 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, although hazardous materials would be involved on a temporary basis in both construction and operation of the proposed project. During the construction period, hazardous materials would be used for equipment operation and possibly maintenance; these materials could include lubricants, solvents, paint, and fuels. During operation of the new park facilities, landscaping maintenance could include the use of pesticides or herbicides on a routine basis. Landscape maintenance would be undertaken either by the City or by City contractors. All landscaping maintenance activities on City-owned land are performed in accordance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM Plan).15 The IPM Plan prohibits use of specific pesticides (diazinon and chlorpyralid), and requires annual training of pesticide applicators, record-keeping procedures, and annual review of pesticide use. All City contractors are required to follow the IPM 14 Baseline Environmental Consulting, June 8, 2007. Historical Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation, Kevin Moran Park, Saratoga, California. 15 City of Saratoga, June 27, 2002 (updated 2004). Integrated Pest Management Plan. 161 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 34 Plan. Adherence to the requirements of the City’s IPM Plan would ensure that the project does not create significant hazards though the routine use of hazardous materials. The Historic Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting identified one hazardous materials issue of concern on the project site: potential soil contamination associated with the use of agricultural chemicals in select portions of the site where orchards existed from at least 1939, and probably back to 1876, to approximately 1970, when the site was purchased by the City of Saratoga. Some classes of agricultural chemicals used in the past, such as organochlorine pesticides (a class of pesticides that includes DDT) and inorganic compounds (which may contain lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury), can leave residues in shallow soils that may persist for decades and create a potential human health risk. The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture has indicated that DDT was likely applied on the project site as it was on other historically agricultural areas in the County. In response to these concerns, Baseline conducted a limited soil investigation to develop more data on potential site soil contamination and to determine whether the presence of soil contaminants would pose a health hazard or risk to project construction workers and future park visitors. Collection and Analysis Protocol. The soil investigation included the collection and analysis of soil samples taken from eight sites in the parts of the park occupied by remnant orchards (where project construction activities would be focused); samples were taken from six locations in the northern part of the park and two locations in the southern part of the park. Analysis was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural Fields for School Sites, which provides protective soil screening protocol for school sites, and, as such, is also appropriate for sites where children and other sensitive receptors could come into contact with contaminated soils (such as the project site).16 The Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural Fields for School Sites is considered the best established protocol for conducting soil sampling on lands subject to agricultural activities, even if these areas are proposed for land uses other than schools. The soil samples were analyzed for Title 22 metals (EPA Method 6000/7000 series), organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081A), and chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8151). Contaminant ranges were initially compared to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses underlain by potential drinking water. The RWQCB drinking water ESLs are the most stringent screening standards in regard to human health, ecological protection, and protection of groundwater from soil leaching. Under most circumstances, the presence of a chemical in soil or groundwater at concentrations below the drinking water ESL indicates that the chemical would not pose a significant long-term threat to human health or the environment. However, the presence of a chemical at a concentration in excess of the drinking water ESL does not necessarily indicate that there is a significant risk to human or environmental health – only that the potential for risk exists, and that additional evaluation is warranted. 16 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), August 26, 2007. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Second Revision). 162 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35 Soil Investigation Results. In summary, the results of the limited soil investigation indicate that development of the proposed project, and the exposure of construction workers and park users to soil within the project site, would not pose a significant long-term threat to human health or the environment. With two exceptions (cobalt and chromium), all shallow soil metals data were reported below the RWQCB drinking water ESLs considering human health and ecological protection, and protection of groundwater from soil leaching. As noted above, chemicals with concentrations above the RWQCB ESLs do not indicate a significant risk – only the need for additional investigation. One sample contained cobalt concentrations above the most restrictive ESL. Additional investigation revealed that these concentrations were below the standard ESL for protection of construction workers and residential users. This construction worker/residential ESL was developed to consider the types of exposure to soil that could occur in public parks. All samples except for one contained chromium concentrations below the construction worker/residential ESL. One sample contained chromium concentrations above the construction worker/residential ESL, but within the range of “background” metals concentrations (i.e., the concentration of naturally-occurring metals in northern Santa Clara County). All metals data (including cobalt and chromium) were reported below hazardous waste thresholds. Therefore, concentration of metals on the site would not create a significant risk to human or environmental health, even taking into account the expected presence of school-age children within the park, and the potential for blowing dust during the construction period. Some organochlorine pesticides ((heptachlor epoxide 4,4’-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, alphachlordane, gamma-chlordane, endosulfan I, and dieldrin) were reported at residual levels in shallow surface soils at the project site, but at concentrations below applicable residential and construction/trench worker ESLs for direct contact. These ESLs would be protective of future park users. All chlorinated herbicides were reported below laboratory reporting limits in the eight shallow soil samples collected. The results of the Limited Phase II Soil Investigation indicate that development of the proposed project, and continued use of Kevin Moran Park would not pose a significant long-term threat to human health or the environment. No mitigation would be required to reduce effects associated with less-than-significant levels of soil contaminants. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? During the construction period, hazardous materials used by construction equipment (e.g., trucks, bulldozers, scrapers) or equipment maintenance activities could result in accidental releases to the ground surface. Accidental releases of these materials could significantly affect soil and storm water quality. For construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required in conformance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges associated with construction activities (General Construction Permit). Part of the requirements for the SWPPP includes development of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent releases of pollutants to water bodies. A SWPPP would be prepared as part of the project, and would ensure that hazardous materials would not be released on the site. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 163 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest schools to the project site are Blue Hills Elementary (approximately 2,000 feet west of the site) and McAuliffe Elementary School (approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the site). No schools are planned in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project does not include facilities that would permanently result in emissions of hazardous materials or the regular handling of hazardous waste. Hazardous materials, including pesticides, fuels, and paint, could be used temporarily on the site, including during the construction period. However, the use of these materials would not not pose a hazard to students at schools in the vicinity of the project site. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? An environmental database research service was undertaken to search federal, State, and local regulatory agency databases pertaining to hazardous material use and releases on properties at and near the project site during the preparation of the Limited Phase II Soil Investigation prepared for the project.17 The project site was not identified on any federal, State, and local hazardous materials databases, including the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 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? The Santa Clara County Airports Administration operates and maintains three general aviation airports – Reid-Hillview Airport, Palo Alto Airport, and South County Airport – within the cities of San Jose, Palo Alto, and San Martin, respectively.18 Mineta San Jose International is in the City of San Jose.19 Moffett Field is in the City of Mountain View. Each of these airports is a minimum of 7 miles from the project site. The project is not located within the safety zones for any of these public airports according to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission.20 f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not in the vicinity of an existing private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a private airstrip-related safety hazard for people using the proposed park facilities. 17 Baseline Environmental Consulting, June 8, 2007. Historical Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation, Kevin Moran Park, Saratoga, California. 18 County of Santa Clara, Airports Department, July 5, 2006. Airport Master Plans. Website: www.countyairports.org. 19 Mineta San Jose International Airport, July 5, 2006. Airport Fast Facts. Website: www.sjc.org. July 5. 20 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, amended 2005. 164 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 37 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project would not alter access on any of the street adjacent to or in the vicinity of Kevin Moran Park. In addition, the pedestrian overcrossing from the park to Azule Park would remain unaltered as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or 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? Based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Saratoga General Plan mapping of wildland fire risk areas, the project site is not in an area subject to wildland fire hazards.21 The proposed project would not be expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from a wildland fire. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 21 Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 2007. Wildland Urban Interface-Fire Threatened Communities (mapping of CDF 2003 Fire Hazards data).Website: www.quake.abag.ca.gov. 165 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ?? ?? ?? ?? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposed project includes the construction and operation of new park facilities within an existing park. Impacts to the quality of surface waters could occur both during the construction phase (which would require disturbance of surface soils) and the operation phase (when the new park facilities are in use), as described below. Construction Phase. The project would result in ground disturbance to approximately 4 acres of park space that is currently occupied by remnant orchard trees. Additional areas, such as those used for construction staging and the installation of signage, picnic tables, and minor visitor amenities like water fountains could also be disturbed. Construction activities could result in the release of soils and contamination of runoff (and surface waters downstream). However, this impact would be reduced through preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is part of the project. The SWPPP would ensure that soil erosion is minimized and hazardous construction materials are adequately contained. Operation Phase. The project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 9,862 square feet (0.23 acre). New impervious surfaces on the site would include the tennis court, basketball court, restroom, and water fountain foundations. Use of the proposed park features would not be expected to contribute substantial pollutant loading to surface water runoff. However, minor amounts of sediment (from atmospheric deposition) could accumulate on paved surfaces and pollute storm water runoff. Even though the pollutant loading source is minor, under current NPDES requirements, the project would be required to incorporate appropriate site design strategies and source control measures to minimize the impact of the project on water quality. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the proposed project’s operational period impacts to runoff water quality to a less-than-significant level: 166 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39 Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The final project design shall incorporate design, control, and engineered treatment measures to reduce polluted storm water runoff from the site to a lessthan-significant level. These measures shall include the use and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) for site design and storm water treatment, and shall be designed in accordance with approved numeric sizing criteria and guidelines put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and the California Stormwater Quality Association. The final project design plans shall also specify how proposed BMPs will be maintained. 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)? The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by a relatively small amount (approximately 0.23 acre). Runoff from proposed impervious surfaces would flow to unpaved areas and percolate into the groundwater table. The project would not involve the use of local groundwater supplies (e.g. through installation and pumping of water supply wells), and therefore would not cause any lowering of the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? The proposed project involves the development of new park park facilities on relatively flat land and would not substantially change the drainage pattern of the area (although minor grading would occur). The project would result in a marginal increase in impervious surfaces, and runoff from these surfaces would generally enter unpaved areas. Therefore, additional runoff generated by the project would not cause substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. No creeks or swales flow through the project 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? The project, which involves the development of new park facilities, would result in minor grading and would not change the drainage pattern on the project site. The proposed 0.23 acres of new impervious surfaces would marginally increase storm water runoff from the site, but this runoff would generally flow to unpaved areas, and would not increase flooding hazards. The project site is not located within a flood zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).22 22 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), July, 2007. FEMA Flood Map #0603510002C. 167 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 40 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? Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 0.23 acres. Storm water runoff from these proposed impervious surfaces would generally be routed to unpaved surfaces and would not exceed the capacity of local storm drain infrastructure. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No other elements of the project would cause substantial degradation of 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? No housing is proposed by the project and therefore no placement of housing in a floodplain would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As described above, two new bridges are proposed at the creek crossings within the project site. Preliminary site plans and bridge specifications do not indicate exact locations or engineering designs for the bridges. Based on FEMA flood maps, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, the structures that would be developed as part of the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The proposed project is not located within any mapped dam or levee failure inundation hazard areas.23 Therefore the project would not expose people or structures to these risks. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or or mudflow? The project site is not located near a coastal area or within the vicinity of an enclosed body of water. Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to inundation by tsunami or seiche. In addition, the project site is not adjacent to steep slopes, and so is not subject to mudflow hazards. 23 Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 2007. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html. 168 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 41 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Physically divide an established community? The physical division of an established community would typically involve the construction of large features (such as freeways) that then function as physical or psychological barriers between communities, or the removal of roadways (e.g., through the assembly of numerous parcels and the creation of “superblocks”) such that access from one neighborhood to another is diminished. The project would convert 4 acres of remnant orchard land to formal park uses and modify access points to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. It also proposes path resurfacing, and minor changes to water and drainage infrastructure. The proposed project would occur entirely within the existing Kevin Moran Park. The project would not change access on any roads or trails around the park, including the pedestrian bridge over State Highway 85. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide the residential communities around the park. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site is currently designated for Single Family Residential uses in the City of Saratoga General Plan and R-1-12,500 in the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. Community facilities, such as parks, are consistent with the purposes of the zoning district, per the definition in Section 15-06.160 of the Zoning Code, and per Article 1512.010d, which states that one of the purposes of single-family residential districts is to provide space for community facilities to enhance residential areas. Therefore, the project would be consistent with local planning documents (including policies adopted for environmental protection). c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 169 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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? Mineral resources in and around Saratoga are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. No active mines are located in Saratoga, and the project site does not contain known mineral resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 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? This site is not indicated as containing mineral resources in any local land use or regional plan. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 170 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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? Table 1 lists noise standards for residential and public park uses in the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance (Article 7-30 of the Municipal Code). The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. Implementation of the proposed project could have the following noise-related effects: 1) residents surrounding the project site could be exposed to high levels of construction-related noise in the shortterm; 2) park users could be exposed to traffic noise from State Highway 85; and 3) residents surrounding the project site could be exposed to an increase in ambient noise levels due to increased park use. Each of these potential noise impacts, and the relationship of each impact to standards set forth in the Noise Ordinance, is discussed below. Construction Noise Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would involve minor earthwork and grading, and could involve the limited use of tractors, dump trucks, and graders. In addition, chainsaws could be used to remove vegetation, where necessary. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over a period of 4 to 6 months. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would end once construction is completed. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The northern and southern portions of the project site would require the most site preparation and use of finished grading and landscaping equipment. Noise producing construction activities that would occur near the project site property lines include clearing and grubbing, stripping and stockpiling topsoil, tree removal, irrigation and drainage preparation, and construction of a “good neighbor” fence. Table 1: Ambient Noise Standards Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime Residential Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA Public Park Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA Source: Saratoga, City of, March, 2007. Municipal Code, Article 7-30. 171 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44 The closest noise sensitive receptors would be the residences bordering the park to the south on Scully Avenue and Solana Drive and residences to the north on Saraglen Drive. These properties are located within 50 feet of sites where grading would occur. At this distance, the residences would be exposed to construction noise levels of up to 87 dBA Lmax. Other close receptors are the residential land uses located along the east side of Scully Avenue. These residences, located approximately 100 feet from the sites where grading would occur, would be exposed to construction noise levels of up to 81 dBA Lmax. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which incorporates the requirements in the City’s Noise Ordinance and is intended to address construction noise in residential districts, would reduce temporary construction-period noise impacts to a less-than-signific nt level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures: • In accordance with Article 7-30-060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, construction activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekday holidays. • A notice of these construction hour restrictions shall be conspicuously posted at the entrance to the work site prior to commencement of the work informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen and all other persons at the property of the basic limitations upon noise and construction activities provided in the City’s Municipal Code. • During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment shall be acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control blankets, or other appropriate equipment. • Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be utilized. Traffic Noise Impacts. Existing traffic noise levels on State Highway 85 would not increase with implementation of the project. The existing sound wall along the property/right-of-way line, averaging 12 feet in height, provides approximately 10 dBA in sound reduction from traffic noise sources. This represents a reduction that is perceived by the human ear to be half as loud as the sound level that would exist without the wall. In addition, the southern portion of the park is elevated above the highway. The existing sound wall and change in elevation would continue to provide noise reduction for the proposed improvements of the park equivalent to that provided for existing park uses. Therefore, with the existing sound wall and topographical features of the project site, traffic noise from Highway 85 would not result in a significant impact on park users. 172 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45 Due to the small expected increase in traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to the park, traffic noise levels along these roadway segments would not increase by a perceptible amount with implementation of the project. Therefore, traffic noise levels with the project would be less than significant. Operational Noise Impacts. The proposed project is expected to modestly increase park usage. As noted in the project description, existing park uses include passive and active recreation, including some organized sport practices, a children’s playground, open grass area, par course stations, and picnic tables. The park is used by joggers, walkers, families, school children, and limited group use by organizations for practice. Park improvements would include one tennis court, a new half basketball court, two bocce courts, flat grass practice fields, and additional picnic areas. Recreational uses for the open grass areas would be permitted in accordance with the existing user agreement in effect at the park; a maximum of two user groups would be allowed use permits at any one time, and would be limited to a maximum of three Saturday practice sessions each per year. These restrictions would ensure that the project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels in and around the site. The project also includes the construction of a fence along the northern and southeastern boundaries of the site. The fence would be 6 feet in height and would be constructed without gaps. This fencing would provide an approximate 5 dBA reduction in noise from any sources of operational noise from the proposed park. Residents in the vicinity of the site have expressed concern that the proposed project could increase area noise levels above existing levels, and potentially above the noise thresholds established in the Noise Ordinance. Substantial increases in noise in the vicinity of the park made by park users would be prohibited by the existing Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance restricts a person from causing, producing, or causing to be produced, in any residential district, any single-event noise more than 6 dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single-event noise source is measured. Therefore, this section of the Noise Ordinance would restrict park users from making noise that increases the ambient noise level in adjacent residential districts by more than 6 dBA. The 6 dBA threshold (which is relatively protective of sensitive receptors considering that 3 dBA changes in noise are imperceptible to the average human ear) would ensure that any significant increases in ambient noise caused by park users could be addressed. This provision of the Noise Ordinance would be enforced by resident calls to the City Code Enforcement Officer and to the Sheriff’s Department (provider of police services to the project site), and Sheriff patrols at the park as needed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Refer to Section XI.a. Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period, which is expected to extend over 4 to 6 months. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: 173 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 46 Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to Section XI.a. Restrictions on soccer playing would ensure that the project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels in and around the site. The project also includes fencing which would provide noise attenuation, and any sporadic increase in noise would be restricted to 6 dBA or less, in accordance with the Saratoga Noise Ordinance. Such a noise increase would be considered less-than-significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to Section XI.a. Construction activities on the site could increase short-term ambient noise levels. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over 4 to 6 months. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the expected short-term increase in ambient noise to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. 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? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. 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? The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 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)? ?? ?? ?? ?? 174 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ?? ?? ?? ?? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ?? ?? ?? ?? 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)? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new recreational facilities within an existing park, and would not directly or indirectly induce population population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No permanent housing is located within the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not remove existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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: Fire protection? ?? ?? ?? ?? Police protection? ?? ?? ?? ?? Schools? ?? ?? ?? ?? Parks? ?? ?? ?? ?? Other public facilities? ?? ?? ?? ?? 175 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48 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: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities? The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Fire Protection. The project site is not located in an area of extreme fire hazard, according to the City of Saratoga General Plan. Fire hazard areas are generally located in hillside areas of the City, where vegetation is dense. Existing fire hazards on the project site are present, but are relatively low due to the presence of large areas of bare soil (in the undeveloped portion of the park) and irrigated landscape (in the developed portion of the park). The proposed project would result in the development of park facilities and the installation of landscaping. The new vegetation added to the project site would not substantially increase fire hazards. The project site would be adequately served by the Saratoga Fire District. The fire station that would serve the project site is located approximately 2 miles south of the site, and would be able to adequately respond to fires in the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to increased provision of fire services.24 Police Protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, which is located approximately ½-mile north of the project site on South De Anza Boulevard. The Sheriff’s Office has indicated that it could adequately provide services to the project site via routine, periodic patrol checks, similar to other parks and trails in the area. 25 It is difficult to predict whether neighborhood residents would be more inclined to report noise incidents after the development of new park facilities. During the project planning process, some residents voiced strong opposition to active uses in the park, and have indicated that they would alert the Sheriff’s Office if they suspect organized athletic events.26 However, the Sheriff’s Office does not anticipate increased demand for emergency services to the Park such that new facilities or additional staff would be required. The proposed project is expected to only modestly increase visitation to the park. In addition, the proposed design of new park uses would not facilitate criminal conduct (i.e., new park facilities would not contain outdoor spaces that are hidden from public view). The proposed restroom would be 24 Walsh, Tom, July 5, 2007. Deputy Supervisor, Santa Clara County Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 25 Calderone, Terry, June 25, 2007. Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 26 Sweeney, Jason, November 23, 2005. “Police Called when Soccer ‘Game’ Breaks Out in Kevin Moran Park” in Saratoga News. 176 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49 locked at night. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to increase crime rates in neighborhoods adjacent to the park, or otherwise substantially increase the need for police services. Schools. The proposed project does not involve the construction of housing or employmentgenerating facilities. Therefore, it would not increase demand for school services. Parks. Improvements to the park include new facilities for passive and active use, including a meditation garden, a tennis court, one half basketball court, rolling grass areas, and a restroom. Park use could increase due to these improvements, but it would not result in deterioration of recreational facilities. The proposed project could accommodate recreational demand that would otherwise be absorbed by other recreational facilities in the area. Other Public Facilities. The proposed project is a recreational facility that would not increase demand for public facilities, such as libraries, beyond those discussed above. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION. 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? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of existing City-operated recreational space in the City of Saratoga. New landscaping and facilities in Kevin Moran Park designed for both active and passive uses could increase park use (including basketball, tennis, soccer, or picnicking). Because Kevin Moran Park is accessible to Azule Park (located across Highway 85) via a pedestrian overpass, it is possible that use could increase there as well. However, the increase in use resulting from implementation of the proposed project would not be substantial and would not cause physical deterioration of these other facilities. 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? Implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would ensure that the proposed park improvements would not have a substantial adverse physical effect on the environment. 177 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency on 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) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ?? ?? ?? ?? g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic. The proposed project consists of changes to the existing Kevin Moran Park. The project would increase formal park facilities by 4 acres and would be consistent with the General Plan designation of Open Space/Outdoor Recreation as well as the zoning designation for the site. The park is currently used by joggers, walkers, families and school children. It receives a limited amount of group use by organizations. The grass area is not sufficiently flat for regulation soccer or baseball games but is frequently used by youth soccer groups for practice. The American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) currently has a use agreement with the City of Saratoga, which grants certain soccer groups use of the park on Monday through Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. or dusk (whichever come first) for soccer practice during the soccer seasons. Using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 7th Edition for park uses with sports fields, the proposed project would be expected to generate six additional vehicle trips – on average – each weekday. However, the ITE trip generation 178 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 51 rate for park uses with sports fields – which is based on trip studies of a wide range of parks with different operational characteristics – may not be representative of actual use at Kevin Moran Park. Based on proposed park uses, it is anticipated that the project could result in as many as 38 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour (the afternoon commute period when traffic volumes are highest). The anticipated 38 trips would include an estimated four trips associated with the tennis courts, six trips associated with the basketball court, eight trips associated with the bocce courts, and 20 trips associated with soccer practices (assuming that one additional team could use the park after the project is complete). The soccer practice total is based on the assumption that some vehicles would drop off players, and then depart the site, resulting in two trips per player. Trips during the AM peak period (the peak of the morning commute period) would likely be negligible, since use of sports facilities on the site is expected to be concentrated in the afternoon. Total daily trips would likely be double the PM period peak – or approximately 76 trips. On one of the six Saturdays a year during which soccer practice is permitted on the open grass areas, daily trip generation could be slightly higher than on weekdays because families and visitors would drive to the park (in addition to soccer players and other sports facility users). However, the numerical difference between weekday and Saturday trips is expected to be relatively small. Soccer practice would not be permitted on Sunday; therefore, trip generation on Sunday would be comparable to weekday levels. Access to the site would be via existing public streets and the pedestrian bridge spanning Highway 85. Given the limited number of daily vehicle trips the project would generate (even on soccer practice days), the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic in relation to the capacity of the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a designated roadway to exceed a level of service standard established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (Level of Service (LOS) E). The project is not expected to substantially increase vehicle trips on any roads or highways in the vicinity of the project site. 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? The project site is not located near an airport and would have no effect on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would not change roads or paths in the vicinity of the project site. Small trail segments would be built as part of the project to connect the existing circular trail to new park facilities, but these new segments would not create design hazards. The project would result in the expansion of formal park uses over the entire project site; proposed uses would be compatible with existing park uses, and would not result in circulation-related conflicts. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 179 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 52 Emergency vehicle access through the project site would be unaffected by the proposed project. The proposed project would maintain all existing access routes around the site, including the pedestrian bridge over State Highway 85. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? The proposed project does not include new parking areas. Park users arriving by vehicle would utilize on-street parking along Scully Avenue and surrounding roadways, as occurs under existing conditions. The proposed project is used mostly by joggers, walkers, families and school children, most of whom do not drive to the project site. The proposed project is not anticipated to bring a substantial number of new users to the project site or substantially increase parking demand, even even on soccer practice days. An analysis of existing available on-street parking indicates that more than 70 spaces are available in the immediate vicinity of the project site. On-street parking is adequate to meet demand for existing park use and the increased demand of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in inadequate parking capacity (i.e., visitors to Kevin Moran Park would be able to park their vehicles within easy walking distance of the park after implementation of the project). However, due to public concern about on-street parking supply, the City will evaluate parking conditions within the project site 1 year after project construction, and will consider developing and implementing a parking management program, if warranted. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Pedestrian access in the project site would be enhanced through the development of of path connections to proposed recreational facilities. In addition, as part of the project, existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site would be preserved. The project is consistent with all programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ?? ?? ?? ?? 180 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ?? ?? ?? ?? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project, which includes one restroom and a water fountain, would not substantially increase demand for wastewater treatment. The proposed restroom and water fountain would be served by a new sanitary line connecting it to the existing sewer system mains located within the Scully Avenue right-of-way. The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant could adequately process the small amount of wastewater that the Park is expected to generate. This incremental increase in wastewater would not compromise the treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 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? Implementation of the proposed project would require new connections to water services for irrigation of landscaped areas, as well as for the proposed drinking fountain and restrooms. There would be no significant environmental impacts relating to these proposed connections because the City would comply with standard measures to reduce the impact of ground-disturbing activities (e.g., measures to prevent blowing dust, soil erosion, and contamination of storm water). The City installed a water pressure booster pump in Azule Park, located across Highway 85, because of low water pressure. However, Kevin Moran Park would connect to a different water source, and it is unknown if a similar pump would be required.27 However, the proposed connections to the water system (and 27 Kessler, Morgan, July 2, 2007. Assistant Engineer, City of Saratoga Public Works Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 181 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54 installation of a pump, if needed) would not cause significant environmental effects. In addition, the project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant could adequately process the wastewater generated by the Park. 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? The project includes changes to drainage infrastructure (e.g., swales, above-ground percolation features, and new pipes). However, the construction of these facilities would not require the construction of substantial new storm water drainage facilities or otherwise cause significant environmental effects. The proposed project would affect an area larger than 1 acre; therefore construction activities would be regulated under both the Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the State’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity. As part of the project, the City would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in compliance with existing storm water protection requirements. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The City of Saratoga buys its water from local water retailer San Jose Water Company (SJWC). SJWC provides the City with surface water from Saratoga Creek, and with water it buys from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The SCVWD imports water from the Sierra Nevada via the State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy system. It also draws from local groundwater aquifers and rainwater captured in the ten district reservoirs. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of water for the drinking fountain, the restroom, and landscape irrigation. Drought-tolerant landscaping would be emphasized. The City expects that adequate water supply would be available to serve the proposed project because: 1) the water supply is adequate for the park’s existing irrigation needs; 2) Public Works Department staff have determined that the increase in water demand associated with the project would not be substantial; and 3) drought-tolerant vegetation would be used on the site, where possible. Public Works Department staff would work with the San Jose Water Company to identify meter requirements to ensure adequate water service to the site. 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? Wastewater generated by the proposed restroom and water fountain would be conveyed to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. The Plant’s capacity is 167 million gallons per day, and currently processes around 115 million gallons per day. This level of flow is expected to remain approximately the same for the foreseeable future, with potential slight increases due to expected 182 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55 population growth. The Plant has adequate capacity to treat the project’s minor increase in wastewater, which would be generated by the proposed drinking fountain and restroom.28 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of relatively small quantities of solid waste associated with recreational uses. Existing landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in solid waste. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, as required, in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ?? ?? ?? ?? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ?? ?? ?? ?? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ?? ?? ?? ?? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 28 Rock, Ken, July 2, 2007. General Operation Supervisor, San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 183 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56 Implementation of the proposed project could adversely affect burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, and other native bird species. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-2 would ensure that impacts to these resources are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-4 would ensure that potential cultural resources within the project site are evaluated and protected, as appropriate. With mitigation, implementation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Other planned and anticipated projects in Saratoga include small-scale residential developments, construction of the De Anza bike and pedestrian trail, and the revitalization of Saratoga Village. The foreseeable projects in Saratoga would be expected to result in minimal adverse environmental impacts, similar to the proposed project. These impacts could include incremental increases in stormwater runoff, minor disturbances to urban wildlife, and other effects typical of projects undertaken in already-developed areas. With the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending or planned projects. The proposed project would provide additional community park space. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Implementation of the proposed project would not expose construction workers and the public to soils that have been substantially contaminated by agricultural activities, or other significant health risks. 184 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57 D. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant: Project Management and Report Production; Project Description; Initial Study Preparation 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 David Clore, Principal-in-Charge Adam Weinstein, Project Manager Daniel Rinzler, Planner Amy Fischer, Transportation/Air Quality/Noise Specialist Patty Linder, Graphics and Production Jennifer Morris, Word Processing LSA Associates, Inc.: Biological Reconnaissance 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 Matt Ricketts, Biologist Baseline Environmental Consulting: Historic Land Use and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yane Nordhav, Principal Julie Pettijohn, Environmental Health Scientist E. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arbor Resources, November 2, 2005. A Tree Inventory and Evaluation of Trees at Kevin Moran Park (Located Along Scully Avenue) Saratoga, California. Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 2007. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.h ml Association of Bay Area Governments, July, 2007. Wildland Urban Interface-Fire Threatened Communities (mapping of CDF 2003 Fire Hazards data).Website: www.quake.abag.ca.gov. Baseline Environmental Consulting, June 8, 2007. Historical Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation, Kevin Moran Park, Saratoga, California. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), July, 2007. Ambient Air Quality and Bay Area Attainment Status. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), July, 2007. Ten Year Bay Area Air Quality Summary. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/pollsum06.pdf. Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, 2000. Geologic Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30’x 60’ quadrangle, California. (Menlo Park: United States Geological Survey). Calderone, Terry, June 25, 2007. Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 185 L S A A S S OCI A T E S , I N C . K E V I N MOR A N P A R K IMP R OVEMENT P ROJ E C T OCTOBE R 2 0 0 7 INI T I A L S TUDY /M I T I GA T E D N E GA T I V E D E C L A R A T ION P:\CIS0701\PRODUCTS\IS-M D\Public\InitialStudy-4.doc (10/30/2007) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 58 California Department of Conservation, July, 2007. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. California Department of Transportation, September, 2007. California Interstate Route 85, West Valley Freeway, Special Restriction History. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/-trucks/trucksize/restrict-hist-85.htm. California Department of Transportation, July, 2007. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways. City of Saratoga, June 27, 2002 (updated 2004). Integrated Pest Management Plan. County of Santa Clara, Airports Department, July 5, 2006. Airport Master Plans. Website: www.countyairports.org. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2007. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Second Revision). August 26. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), July, 2007. FEMA Flood Map #0603510002C. Kessler, Morgan, July 2, 2007. Assistant Engineer, City of Saratoga Public Works Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. Mineta San Jose International Airport, July 5, 2006. Airport Fast Facts. Website: www.sjc.org. Rock, Ken, July 2, 2007. General Operation Supervisor, San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, amended 2005. Savage, Donald, 1951. Late Cenozoic Vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay Region. (Berkeley: University of California Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences 28 (10): 215-314. Sweeney, Jason, November 23, 2005. “Police Called when Soccer ‘Game’ Breaks Out in Kevin Moran Park” in Saratoga News. Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin, 1990. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. Regional Geologic Map Series, San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle-Map No. 5A. (Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology). Walsh, Tom, July 5, 2007. Deputy Supervisor, Santa Clara County Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 186 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 22 1 5 F IFTH STREET BERKEL EY, CALIFORNIA 9 4 7 10 51 0 . 54 0 . 73 3 1 TEL 51 0 . 54 0 . 73 4 4 FAX CARLSBAD COLMA FORT COLL INS IRVINE PALM S PRINGS POIN T R ICHMOND RIVERS IDE ROCKL IN SAN LUI S OBI SPO PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL S C IENCES | DES IGN M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 25, 2008 TO: Carmen Borg, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP FROM: Adam Weinstein and David Clore, LSA Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: Response to Agency/Public Comments on the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) This memorandum provides a response to the written comments received on the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The local review period for the Draft IS/MND extended from November 1 to December 3. Comment letters on the Draft IS/MND were submitted by the following agencies/individuals. Letter A: Martin S. Snitow (October 31, 2007) Letter B: Ellen Chen (November 2, 2007) Letter C: Nimchi Yung and Linda Chang (November 3, 2007) Letter D: Jimmy Lan (November 6, 2007) Letter E: Elvira Roe (November 19, 2007) Letter F: Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (November 30, 2007) Letter G: Jeffrey B. Hare, Attorney at Law (December 3, 2007) Letter H: Timothy C. Sable, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (November 21, 2007) Letter I: Bob Alley (November 26, 2007) Letter J: Douglas and Imogene Blatz (November 27, 2007) Letter K: Sandra Cross (November 30, 2007) Letter L: Neil Keever (November 30, 2007) Letter M: Martin Goldberg (December 2, 2007) Letter N: Barbara Barone (December 2, 2007) Letter O: Steve Sun (December 2, 2007) 187 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 2 Letter P: Satish Dharmaraj (December 2, 2007) Letter Q: Sharon Joseph (December 2, 2007) Letter R: Richard Pearce (December 2, 2007) Letter S: Nelia and Carlos Garner (December 3, 2007) Letter T: Alan Nonnenberg (December 3, 2007) Letter U: Naresh Makhijani (December 3, 2007) Letter V: Mary and Brian Robertson (December 2, 2007) Letter W: Richard Collins (December 3, 2007) Letter X: Stephen and Laurie Pakula (December 3, 2007) Letter Y: Sandeep Pandya (December 3, 2007) Letter Z: Ken and Donna McKenzie (December 3, 2007) Letter AA: Bruce Euler (December 3, 2007) Letter BB: Jules and Connie Farago (December 3, 2007) Letter CC: Roger and Joanne Piazzia (December 3, 2007) Letter DD: Matt DiMaria (December 3, 2007) The comments in each of these letters are enumerated and discussed below. Comments are numbered in the margin of each letter. For example, response B-1 refers to the first enumerated comment in the letter from Ellen Chen. Minor text changes to the Draft IS/MND have been made in response to select comments. Added text is shown with underlining and deleted text is shown with strikeout. None of the text changes made in response to comments received on the Draft IS/MND are “substantial revisions” that would require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. That section states that a “substantial revision” occurs when: “(1) A new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.” 188 Letter A 1 189 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 4 Letter A: Martin S. Snitow (October 31, 2007) A-1: This comment, which expresses support for the proposed project, is noted. 190 Letter B 1 191 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 6 Letter B: Ellen Chen (November 2, 2007) B-1: This comment, which expresses support for the proposed project, is noted. 192 Letter C 1 193 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 8 Letter C: Nimchi Yung and Linda Chang (November 3, 2007) C-1: This comment, which expresses support for the proposed project (particularly the proposed tennis court), is noted. 194 Letter D 1 195 Letter D cont. 1cont. 196 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 11 Letter D: Jimmy Lan (November 6, 2007) D-1: The individual numbered comments in this letter pertain to the merits of the project and not to the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft IS/MND. The City may consider these comments prior to deciding whether to approve the project. 197 Letter E 12 198 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 13 Letter E: Elvira Roe (November 19, 2007) E-1: This introductory comment is noted. E-2: These comments pertain to the merits of the project and not to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. They may be considered by the City prior to deciding whether to approve the project. A fence would be provided along the southeastern boundary of the project site, as shown in Figure 4, Project Site Plan, in the Draft IS/MND. Existing trees along the southeastern boundary of the site would remain as part of the project. Noise levels in the southeastern portion of the project site are expected to be low because this part of the park would contain a small rolling grass area that is unsuitable for organized sports practice (and would likely experience low visitation rates). Noise generated by planned uses to the west of the rolling grass area (including tennis and bocce courts) is not expected to exceed the noise standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. These uses would be located over 120 feet away from the nearest residential uses. 199 Letter F 1 200 Letter F cont. 201 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 16 Letter F: Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (November 30, 2007) F-1: This comment indicates that the City of Saratoga has complied with the environmental review requirements of the State Clearinghouse, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no comment letters were received from State agencies during the State review period (a letter from Caltrans (Letter H) was received near the end of the local review period). No additional response is required. 202 Letter G 12 203 Letter G cont. 2cont. 345 204 Letter G cont. 5cont. 678 205 Letter G cont. 8cont. 910 11 206 Letter G cont. 12 13 14 207 Letter G cont. 15 16 17 208 Letter G cont. 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 209 Letter G cont. 21 cont. 22 23 210 Letter G cont. 23 cont. 24 25 211 Letter G cont. 26 27 28 212 Letter G cont. 29 213 Attach G 214 Attach G cont. 215 Attach G cont. 216 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 31 Letter G: Jeffrey B. Hare, Attorney at Law (December 3, 2007) G-1: This introductory comment suggests that there is substantial evidence that the Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project (project) would have “significant adverse effects on the environment” and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. We disagree with this assessment. Individual points raised in this comment are addressed in subsequent responses, including Response G-29. CEQA Guidelines section 15064(f)(4) states that: “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible shall not constitute substantial evidence.” The statement in this and subsequent comments that the replacement of 4 acres of remnant orchard land (in an existing park) with developed park uses would result in significant and unmitigable impacts on traffic congestion, the noise environment, and public services is inaccurate, and does does not constitute substantial evidence, as discussed in more detail below. G-2: This comment suggests that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is inconsistent and inaccurate, and that the cumulative analysis is insufficient such that the City Council will be unable to make an “informed decision” about the project. As a general response, we believe that the level of future park use and associated environmental impacts identified in the Draft IS/MND are accurate and are based on a reasonable assessment of park design and use. The analysis takes into account planned uses at the park and contract provisions described in the Draft IS/MND that will regulate use of the park by organized groups. In addition, the cumulative analysis in the Draft IS/MND properly concludes that the incremental effects of the project are not significant when analyzed in the context of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064(h)(1). The adequacy of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of individual and cumulative project impacts is discussed in more detail in subsequent comments and responses. G-3: This comment, which includes an excerpt from page 1 of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. It introduces subsequent comments. G-4: This comment states that “the Project Description is incomplete and misleading, in that it fails to address reasonably foreseeable future uses of the park as required by CEQA.” Along with the comments that follow, the comment suggests that the Project Description is incomplete because it does not fully characterize how and when the project will be used by soccer groups. The Draft IS/MND includes a detailed description of the anticipated operational characteristics of the park as they pertain to soccer (see pages 9 and 10 of the Draft IS/MND). As described in the Draft IS/MND, the limitations on playing soccer (or other organized sports) at Kevin Moran Park after implementation of the project would include: 1) use permits would be limited to two organized groups at one time in the entire park; 2) each permitted group would be limited to three Saturday practices per year, and a permit would be required for any such weekend practice; 3) Saturday practices in the park’s grass areas would only be permitted on a total of six Saturdays per year; and 4) no games would be permitted at the park at any time. Other proposed uses are described by the types of facilities proposed as part of the project, which are listed on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND (tennis court, bocce courts, picnic area, meditation garden, etc.). This description provides 217 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 32 an accurate characterization of expected activities at Kevin Moran Park after project implementation. G-5: This comment claims that the various references in the Draft IS/MND to the proposed grass areas are inconsistent. Although the existing and proposed grass areas are flat, they are not level. As shown in Figure 4 (Project Site Plan) in the Draft IS/MND, the existing grass bowl in the center of Kevin Moran Park has an approximately 7-foot slope from north to south. The proposed grass area in the northwestern part of the site would be largely “flat” (with an elevation change of approximately 3 feet from north to south), but the proposed grass areas in the northeastern and southern portions of the site would be gently rolling, with 2-foot hillocks. These areas are designated as “flat lawn area” and “rolling lawn,” respectively, on Figure 4 of the Draft IS/MND. The text of the project description has been refined to better characterize the areas designated as “flat” and “rolling” (see text revisions at the end of this response). These text revisions do not substantially change the project description. The comment suggests that some or all of these grass areas would be used to play regulation soccer games. As indicated on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND (and referenced in the comment), games at Kevin Moran Park would be explicitly prohibited by the provisions of user agreements: “Organized user groups would not be permitted to play games at the park.” In addition, a regulation-size soccer field could not be accommodated within either existing or proposed grass areas. At a minimum, regulation-size soccer fields must be a minimum of 330 feet in length and 195 feet wide. Taking into account proposed vegetation, pathways, and hillocks, the largest rectangular field the proposed grass area in the northern part of the site could accommodate would be 300 feet by 110 feet. This grass area is flat and gently sloping, but is not level. Therefore, the project would not result in the development development of a regulation-size soccer field at Kevin Moran Park. Page 1 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: Summary Description of Project. The proposed project would result in changes to the existing Kevin Moran Park in the City of Saratoga. These changes would include replacement of 4 acres of remnant orchard trees on the north and south ends of the park with developed park uses, and the construction of new park facilities, including a tennis court, half basketball court, two bocce courts, rolling and flat, gently sloping grass areas, picnic areas, a meditation garden, a screened area for storage of sports equipment, associated park facilities, and a restroom. Page 2 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: The proposed project would result in changes to the existing Kevin Moran Park in the City of Saratoga. These changes would result in the replacement of 4 acres, including remnant orchard trees on the north and south ends of the park, with developed park uses, and the construction of new park park facilities, including a tennis court, half basketball court, two bocce courts, rolling and flat, gently sloping grass areas, picnic areas, a meditation garden, a screened area for storage of sports equipment, and a restroom. Refer to Section B, Project Description, for more detail. 218 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 33 Page 9 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: 4. Proposed Facilities The proposed project would result in changes to the 4 undeveloped acres of the park; access modifications to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards; existing path resurfacing; and new water service and drainage improvements. Figure 4 shows the proposed conceptual site plan. The proposed project would include development/installation of the following facilities: • tennis court, in the southern portion of the site; • half basketball court, in the northwestern portion of the site; • two bocce courts, along the western boundary of the park, next to the proposed tennis court; • rolling and flat, gently sloping grass areas (on land that is currently occupied by remnant orchard trees) (new grass areas would not be large enough to contain a regulation-size soccer field but would be suitable for informal recreation and sports practice); • picnic area with tables, immediately north of the proposed tennis court/bocce courts; • restroom, northeast of the proposed tennis court, consisting of two toilets and sinks (the restroom would be locked at night); • meditation garden in the northeastern corner of the site (including circular paths and landscape plantings); • landscaping and a 100-foot wide landscaped area in the northern portion of park (including eucalyptus trees clustered along the northern site boundary), bordered on the south by a 10-foot-wide berm with a height of 1.7 feet above the surrounding lawn grass area; • screened area for storage of practice equipment; • associated park facilities (e.g., signage, water fountain, benches, additional picnic tables); • small segments of new pathways, to connect proposed facilities to the existing circular path; and • 6-foot high “good neighbor” fences along the northern and southeastern boundary of the site (where residential uses are located immediately adjacent to the park). Page 15 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following visual changes to the project site: • Conversion of approximately 4 acres of remnant orchard land on the northern and southern ends of the site into formal park land; 219 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 34 • Construction of new structures and recreational facilities, including a tennis court, basketball court, bocce courts, restroom, a sports gear storage area, and fencing; • Landscape changes to the site, including the development of rolling and flat, gently sloping grass areas, a meditation garden, and a berm approximately 100-feet south of the northern boundary of the site, and the installation of landscaping between the berm and the northern site boundary; and • Removal of approximately 80 trees from the site (most of which are fruit trees in poor condition) and the installation of approximately 60 new trees. Page 49 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: Parks. Improvements to the park include new facilities for passive and active use, including a meditation garden, a tennis court, one half basketball court, rolling and flat, gently sloping grass areas, and a restroom. Park use could increase due to these improvements, but it would not result in deterioration of recreational facilities. The proposed project could accommodate recreational demand that would otherwise be absorbed by other recreational facilities in the area. G-6: Refer to Response to Comment G-5, including text revisions made to page 9. G-7: This comment claims that the Draft IS/MND is internally inconsistent in describing the flat grass aspect of the project. The flat, gently sloping grass area in the central portion of the site is part of the project, and the project would also include development of a new flat, gently sloping and rolling grass area in the northern part of the site. This grass area would be flat, but not level, and would be suitable for informal recreation and sports practice (but not organized games). Refer to the text changes made as part of Response to Comment A-5, which better characterize the proposed grass areas as consisting of flat, gently sloping and rolling grass areas. As noted in Response to Comment A-5, the size and shape of the flat, gently sloping and rolling grass areas that would be developed as part of the project could not accommodate a regulation-size soccer field that is required for most soccer games. In addition, as stated on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND, organized user groups would not be permitted to play games at Kevin Moran Park. If organized user groups are caught playing games, penalties would be imposed, consistent with the existing use agreement in place at Kevin Moran Park. On the first violation, the group’s use of the park would be suspended for up to 1 week. On the second violation, the group’s use of the park would be suspended for up to 1 month. On the third violation, the group’s use of the park would be suspended for the remainder of the season. Enforcement of this permit requirement would be conducted via regular patrols of the site by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer. The City’s Code Enforcement Officer would patrol the site every day except for Wednesday and Sunday, but would respond to calls reporting violations every day of the week (including Wednesdays and Sundays).1 The environmental analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based on the assumption that practices, including scrimmages (practice games), would occur at Kevin Moran Park. The environmental impacts associated with such practices – in 1 Borel, Kristin, January 10, 2008. City of Saratoga. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 220 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 35 terms of traffic, noise, parking, litter, and public services – would not be significant, as discussed in the Draft IS/MND. G-8: Refer to Responses to Comments G-4 through G-7. CEQA Guidelines section 15064(d)(3) states that: “A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.” Illegal soccer games, in violation of permit provisions, could occur at Kevin Moran Park after project implementation. However, the penalties for such games would be high for the user group (penalties would range from suspension for up to one week after the first offense to suspension for the remainder of the season for the third offense), and formal and informal surveillance of the site for game activity (by City staff and neighbors, respectively), would likely ensure that soccer games at the park are infrequent occurrences at most, and would not result in physical environmental impacts. In addition, regulation soccer fields would not be accommodated at Kevin Moran Park Park after implementation of the project. Therefore, soccer games are not a regular, reasonably foreseeable use of Kevin Moran Park and would not be expected to result in significant physical impacts. If an unpermitted soccer game were to take place at Kevin Moran Park, it would likely be halted through enforcement by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, and would not result in traffic, noise pollution, or other adverse effects such that physical environmental impacts would result. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to analyze the proposed project. G-9: This comment states that the Draft IS/MND “fails to adequately describe the potential level of [park] use, leaving it open to speculation the level of activity that would be expected to occur.” As noted in previous responses, soccer games would be explicitly prohibited at Kevin Moran Park after implementation of the project (refer to page 9 of the Draft IS/MND). In addition, the project would not include regulation-size fields or grass areas. Therefore, the occurrence of soccer games at the park is not likely to occur, and was not included as part of the environmental review. As indicated on page 10 of the Draft IS/MND, the City would allow a maximum of two user groups to have permits to practice at Kevin Moran Park at any one time. The user agreement would restrict use of the proposed grass area in the northern part of Kevin Moran Park to one organized team at any given time. Existing use in the lawn bowl would remain the same. Page 51 of the Draft IS/MND provides a description of the level of park use assumed for the environmental analysis (particularly the transportation analysis). The analysis assumes that one additional team at any given time could use Kevin Moran Park after the project is complete. The user agreement that organized groups would be required to sign would permit only one team at a time to conduct practices on the proposed grass area in the northern part of the park. AYSO teams that play in and around Saratoga range in size from seven (for under 6-year-old teams) to 18 (for under 16+-year-old teams).2 As discussed on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the transportation analysis assumed that the new grass area that would be developed as part of the project would generate 20 soccer-related trips during the peak afternoon/evening commute hour. This is a reasonable assumption because a team consists of seven to 18 players and: 1) some players may walk or bike to Kevin Moran Park; 2) some players may carpool; and 3) some vehicles would drop off players and 2 Miller, Howard, April 4, 2006. Regional Commissioner, American Youth Soccer Organization. Personal communication with Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga. 221 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 36 remain at the park for the entire peak hour, resulting in one trip per player for that peak hour. The Draft IS/MND includes an adequate and accurate description of expected park use. An analysis of the traffic generated by the project using rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicated that the project would generate approximately six additional vehicle trips each weekday. The ITE analysis was rejected in favor of a use-based approach that took into account likely use of the site by organized groups. The approach used in the Draft IS/MND thus reflects a cautious analysis of potential impacts. G-10: The text cited in the comment on pages 9 and 10 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows. These revisions clarify, and do not substantially change, the project description. The comment is correct in that the existing use agreement does not permit use of the park for practice on Saturday. The Draft IS/MND analyzed this change in use (see, for example, page page 51, which discusses the effects of Saturday park use on local roadways). The Draft IS/MND also took into account that use of the park by organized groups would be limited to 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or dusk), consistent with the existing use agreement. 5. Park Use The open grass areas at Kevin Moran Park would be used for informal play and for practices by organized user groups. Organized user groups, such as the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), would not be permitted to play games at the park. Only one organized team at a time would be permitted to use the proposed grass area in the northern part of the park, as stipulated in the use agreement that organized groups desiring to use Kevin Moran Park would be required to sign. The City would allow a maximum of two user groups to have use permits for the park at any one time. The net change in grass area that would result from implementation of the proposed project would be one new field that is smaller than a regulation-size field. This environmental analysis assumes that one additional soccer team would use Kevin Moran Park after project implementation. Each permitted user group would be limited to a maximum of three Saturday practice sessions per year, for which they must acquire a permit through the regular park rental process. The park’s open grass areas would be available for Saturday practice sessions for a total of no more than six Saturdays per year. On the six permitted Saturdays, use of the park by organized groups would be permitted from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or dusk). No organized user groups would be allowed to use the park on Sundays. All other These requirements would beare consistent with the existing user agreement in effect at the park. Other expected uses at the park would include passive recreational uses (walking and picnicking) and court sports (basketball, bocce, and tennis). G-11: This comment states that the project will result in expansion of current use levels at the park. Refer to Responses to Comments G-9 and G-10 regarding the number of teams that would use Kevin Moran Park during the limited times when organized groups are permitted to practice at the park. Under the proposed project, one additional team would use the park at any given time, compared to current conditions, after project implementation. This is consistent with the size and layout of the existing and proposed grass areas at Kevin Moran Park. The proposed grass area would not accommodate a regulation size soccer field. As indicated on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the project is expected to result in a net increase 222 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 37 of approximately 38 vehicle trips during the peak commute hour, and approximately 76 daily trips (taking into account use of the park for soccer, and use of the park by other users, including tennis, basketball, and tennis players). The Draft IS/MND analyzes cumulative impacts on page 56 and concludes that the expanded usage contemplated by the project would result in no significant cumulative impacts. The analysis in the Draft IS/MND takes into account use of the park on Saturdays by organized user groups. The analysis concludes that use of the park on up to six Saturdays a year would not result in significant environmental effects in and of itself (see page 51 of the Draft IS/MND). G-12: This comment claims that the Project Description in the Draft IS/MND is misleading because it does not mention flat grass areas. Refer to Responses to Comments G-4 and G-5, respectively, regarding the accuracy of the project description, and the description in the Draft IS/MND of proposed grass areas. The project description in the Draft IS/MND describes all features and operational characteristics of the project, and does not “segment” the project. G-13: This comment claims that the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because it underestimates trips associated with the proposed grass areas and does not account for use by multiple teams from a single group. Refer to Responses to Comments G-9 and G-11 for a discussion of the number of expected park users during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour is the 60-minute period when traffic volumes on local and regional roadways are at their peak.3 The project’s potential impacts on traffic volumes during the afternoon/evening peak hour is the focus of the transportation analysis in the Draft IS/MND because the project is likely to have the most substantial effect on traffic congestion during that hour. As described in Response to Comment G-9, the estimate of 20 additional soccer-related trips during the PM peak hour is reasonable based on expected team size, the size and configuration of the proposed grass area, the likelihood that some drivers would remain onsite for the duration of practice, and the expectation that some players may carpool or use alternative forms of transportation to access the park. The physical limitation on the size and configuration of the grass area, and use agreement restrictions would ensure that only one additional team would be allowed to use Kevin Moran Park for practices after project implementation. On many afternoons/evenings during the year, no practice would occur due to inclement weather (consistent with the existing use agreement, practice on park grounds would be prohibited if it has rained within 24 hours). In addition, few or no organized soccer practices currently take place at Kevin Moran Park during December, January, June, and July. The comment also suggests that players using the park for practice would generate four trips each during the PM peak hour. This is inaccurate, because, as noted by the commenter, practices in the Saratoga area are typically one hour or more in length.4 Therefore, even if every player were to be driven to the park by a single driver, dropped off, and then picked up again at the end of practice, all four trips would not occur in the same peak hour. In addition, it is expected that at least a portion of players would carpool or use alternative forms of transportation, and that some drivers would remain at the park for the 3 Transportation Research Board, 194. Highway Capacity Manual. 4 Miller, Howard, April 4, 2006. Regional Commissioner, American Youth Soccer Organization. Personal communication with Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga. 223 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 38 duration of practice. Therefore, the comment’s estimate of four trips/player during the peak hour is unreasonably high, and conflicts with the direction in CEQA Guidelines section 15064(f)(5) that substantial evidence include “reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts.” G-14: This comment claims that the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is defective because the analysis does not use any data related to existing traffic volumes. No quantitative data were collected to identify existing traffic volumes on the roadways surrounding the project site because observations conducted by report preparers were adequate to determine that the streets surrounding the site – including Scully Avenue – operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) of LOS C or above. LOS C implies average delays of less than 35 seconds per vehicle, according to the Transportation Research Board. Typically, Scully Avenue operates under free-flowing conditions, with no delay. Comment G-14 indicates that that trip counts on Scully Avenue over a two-hour afternoon/evening period range from 115 to 210 vehicle trips. The data referenced in the comment show that traffic counts conducted by City staff on Scully Avenue for a two-hour afternoon period ranged from 117 to 118 trips (or an average of 59 trips/hour). Traffic counts conducted by neighborhood residents ranged from 208 to 220 vehicles for the two-hour period (or an average of 104-110 trips/hour). As noted above, the peak hour analysis in the Draft IS/MND focuses on the one peak afternoon commute hour (and is often based on an average traffic count over a two-hour period). Based on City data, average one-hour traffic volumes on Scully Avenue are in the range of 59 vehicles per hour (including vehicles traveling north and south along Scully Avenue). Based on data collected by neighborhood residents, average one-hour traffic volumes are in the range of 104 to 110 vehicles. These peak hour traffic volumes reinforce observations that Scully Avenue is operating well below its operational capacity. Scully Avenue is typical of a residential “feeder street” in that traffic volumes are relatively low and there is an abundance of usable capacity. In Saratoga and surrounding communities, two-lane, undivided feeder roads such as Scully Avenue can accommodate approximately 2,500 daily trips while maintaining tolerable traffic levels (typically, PM peak capacity is 10 percent of the daily capacity, or 250 trips).5 Based on data collected by neighborhood residents, average peak hour traffic volumes on Scully Avenue are approximately 44 percent of the tolerable operational capacity of the roadway, meaning that Scully Avenue could accommodate over twice the amount of existing traffic while still maintaining tolerable traffic flow. The proposed project would generate approximately 38 peak hour trips and 76 daily trips. Anticipated peak hour trips represent approximately 15 percent of peak hour operational capacity of Scully Avenue. Anticipated daily trips of the project represent approximately 3 percent of the daily operational capacity of Scully Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to traffic congestion. 5 Rashid, Sohrab, January 31, 2008. Fehr and Peers. City of Saratoga Traffic Engineer. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. The estimated capacity of Scully Avenue was based on data and observations of numerous roads throughout the San Francisco Peninsula collected by Mr. Rashid, who has over 20 years of experience. Tolerable traffic levels vary from community to community. The tolerable traffic volume used here would be anticipated in neighborhoods that are relatively sensitive to traffic, such as the residential neighborhood around Kevin Moran Park. 224 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 39 G-15: This comment suggests that the project would generate “approximately 100 vehicle trips per peak hour period.” As discussed in previous responses (see Responses to Comments G-9, G-13, and G-14 in particular), this assumption is unreasonably high because it assumes that all trips for a single practice would occur within the same peak hour period. The trips generated by the project would not be substantial – and would certainly not be double the existing traffic load, as suggested by the comment. Refer to pages 50 and 51 of the Draft IS/MND for a discussion of the project’s expected impacts on local roadways. Nevertheless, even if the project were to generate 100 peak hour trips, these trips could be accommodated by the existing capacity of Scully Avenue. Vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load. The project is expected to generate approximately 38 peak hour trips along Scully Avenue; based on data data collected by park neighbors (and cited in Response to Comment G-14), average one-hour traffic volumes on Scully Avenue are in the range of 104 to 110 vehicles. Therefore, project trips would comprise approximately 35 percent to 37 percent of existing peak hour roadway volumes (based on data collected by neighbors and cited by the commenter). This increase in traffic would not be considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load on Scully Avenue because the additional vehicle trips generated by the project would not substantially increase congestion on Scully Avenue. Refer to Response to Comment G-14 for additional detail. G-16: As indicated on page 10 of the Draft IS/MND, use of Kevin Moran Park by organized groups on Saturdays would be severely limited. Currently, use of Kevin Moran Park by organized groups on Saturdays is not permitted. As part of the project, each permitted user group would be limited to a maximum of three Saturday practices per year (for which a permit would be required) and the park’s open grass areas would be available for organized use a maximum of six Saturdays a year (approximately 11 percent of Saturdays in one year). On the permitted Saturdays, practice would be restricted to 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or dusk). As noted on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, “On one of the six Saturdays a year during which soccer practice is permitted on the open grass areas, daily trip generation could be slightly higher than on weekdays because families and visitors would drive to the park (in addition to soccer players and other sports facility users). However, the numerical difference between weekday and Saturday trips is expected to be relatively small.” Consistent with weekday use, and based on the provisions of the use agreement, it is expected that one additional team could practice in the proposed grass area. At any given time on a Saturday when organized use is permitted, one additional team (in addition to existing teams) could be practicing at the park. The trips generated by one additional team (combined with trips generated by other proposed park uses) would not result in significant congestion levels, or other associated environmental impacts (i.e., high noise levels, air pollution). Furthermore, average Saturday traffic volumes are lower than peak weekday volumes. As noted on page 52 of the Draft IS/MND, “[a]n analysis of existing available on-street parking indicates that more than 70 spaces are available in the immediate vicinity of the project site.” As discussed in previous comments, it is expected that, at times of peak use, new park uses would generate approximately 38 vehicle trips. Typical use would be substantially lower. Therefore, the parking supply around Kevin Moran Park is more than adequate to accommodate anticipated parking demand. Refer to page 52 of the Draft 225 LS A A S SOCIATE S , INC. IS/MND. Therefore, the project would not result in a shortage of parking such that physical environmental impacts would result. G-17: Refer to Responses to Comments G-9 and G-10 regarding usage levels associated with “user groups.” As noted on page 1 of the Draft IS/MND and discussed in more detail in the document, all expected significant impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. G-18: This introductory comment, which introduces the subsequent comments relating to the noise analysis in the Draft IS/MND, is noted. G-19: This comment, which summarizes certain conclusions in the Draft IS/MND noise analysis, is noted. G-20: This comment claims that the noise analysis in the Draft IS/MND does not include data on existing noise levels at Kevin Moran Park. Noise impacts that are expected to result from the project are discussed on pages 42 to 46 of the Draft IS/MND. Because the proposed project would increase soccer-related activity by only one team during the times permitted for use by organized groups, and because proposed grass areas used for soccer would be separated from residential properties by a berm, a 6-foot-high fence, vegetation (including trees and an evergreen hedge), and at least 100 feet of distance (the residences on the east side of Scully Avenue would be 200 feet away from practice areas), a quantitative analysis of existing and expected noise conditions at Kevin Moran Park was not required to identify the impacts of the project on the noise environment. The proposed fence along the northern boundary of the project site (which would replace an existing fence) would reduce noise generated by new uses at the park by approximately 5 decibels (dBA). As noted on page 45 of the Draft IS/MND, the project is not expected to result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels around the project site. This conclusion is based on qualitative observations of noise generated by soccer practices, practices, the limitations on use of proposed grass areas by organized groups, the distance between the proposed grass area and residential uses, and noise reduction that would be provided by the proposed fence. For any noise source to increase by 3 dBA or more (3 dBA is the threshold at which most humans perceive a difference in noise level), the source itself must double in size. Therefore, to increase soccer-related noise on the project site by 3 dBA, the number of soccer players on the site at any given time would need to double, compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Response to Comment G-9, soccer-related activity on the project site would increase by one team (comprising approximately 7 to 18 players) at any given time. This increase in players would not double the existing number of soccer players on the site. Therefore, the source of soccer-related noise would not double as part of the project, and would be expected to result in a less-than 3 dBA noise increase within and around the project site. The comment also claims that the project would double traffic volumes on local streets. As noted in Response to Comment G-14 and as discussed in the Draft IS/MND, the project is expected to generate approximately 38 PM peak hour trips and approximately 76 daily trips. These trips would represent a fraction of the existing tolerable operational capacity of 40 226 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 41 Scully Avenue (which is approximately 2,500 vehicles per day6), and would not substantially increase ambient noise levels (i.e., increase noise levels by more than 3 dBA). G-21: This comment describes noise measurements taken during a November 2007 soccer tournament at Creekside Park and Kennedy Junior High School in Cupertino. According to the commenter, noise measurements – ranging from 68 to 75 decibels (dB) – were measured at 100 feet away from the soccer field. On the basis of these measurements, the comment concludes that “[t]he Noise Study conducted by the neighbors confirmed the conclusion in the MND that the operational noise from soccer activity could potentially increase by more than the 6 dB limits specified in the City Ordinance – and in fact established that the levels could increase by as much as 12-14 decibels above ambient noise levels!” This data is not relevant to the proposed uses at Kevin Moran Park. First, the noise measurements cited in the comment were collected at a soccer tournament. Soccer tournaments (which typically involve two or more teams playing at the same time, cheering fans, referees, and substantial traffic) would continue to be explicitly prohibited at Kevin Moran Park. Refer to Response to Comment G-5 for additional detail. The prohibition of soccer games is clearly stated on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND. The noise generated by soccer practices is substantially less than the noise generated at a soccer tournament because soccer practices do not typically involve high traffic volumes and cheering crowds. In addition, the noise measurements at Creekside Park included noise from two simultaneous games (involving four teams playing at once). This scenario would not occur at Kevin Moran Park because the park would not include even one regulation size field and games would be prohibited. It appears that the sound data referenced in the comment were collected in parking lots approximately 100 feet away from the field. These conditions do not replicate the ones that would occur at Kevin Moran Park. No physical barriers existed at the noise monitoring sites between the noise source (tournament play) and the receptors. At Kevin Moran Park, the closest residential uses would be separated from areas used for soccer practice by a berm, vegetation (including trees and an evergreen hedge), and a 6-foot fence. The fence itself is expected to reduce sound levels by approximately 5 dBA. The data cited in the comment are not relevant to the noise analysis in the Draft IS/MND. G-22: This comment states that a “3 dB increase in a decibel measurement from 60 dB to 63 dB represents twice the level of noise perceived by the receptor, and another increase to 68 dB with traffic noise represents yet another doubling of the noise level and then some.” This statement is incorrect. An increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense.7 Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. An increase from 60 dB to 63 dB would not be perceived as a doubling of the noise level, 6 Rashid, Sohrab, January 31, 2008. Fehr and Peers. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 7 Harris, M. Cyril. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Chapter 1. 227 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 42 but rather the smallest perceptible change audible in an outdoor environment. The fence itself would result in a noise reduction of approximately 5 dBA. G-23: This comment states that the noise resulting from soccer activity could be substantial, in that it would exceed the single-event standard of 6 dB set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (and that ambient noise levels could increase by 12-14 dB with implementation of the project). As discussed in Response to Comment G-21, this conclusion is based on data that is not relevant to the proposed project. The proposed project would not increase noise levels that would exceed the City’s single-event or ambient noise standards. Refer to Response to Comment G-21 for more detail. Other uses on the site (including tennis court, bocce courts, picnic tables, and basketball court) would not make a significant contribution to the existing noise environment. The tennis court, bocce courts, and picnic tables would be at least 180 feet away from the closest residential uses. The basketball court would be separated from residential uses by the fence. Noise associated with these uses is expected to be barely audible in residential areas surrounding the project site. G-24: As noted on page 45 of the Draft IS/MND, operational uses of the project site are not expected to result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels around the project site. Therefore, mitigation is not required to reduce this less-than-significant impact of the project. Enforcement of the noise regulations in the City’s Municipal Code is not necessary to reduce the project’s impacts and is not considered a mitigation measure in the Draft IS/MND. Noise generated by practices would not exceed the limits established in the City’s Municipal Code. G-25: Refer to Response to Comment G-24. G-26: As discussed in Response to Comment G-24, enforcement of the noise regulations in the City’s Municipal Code is not required to reduce the project’s environmental impacts and is not considered a mitigation measure. G-27: This comment states that “[t]here is substantial evidence in the Administrative Record in support of the Neighbors’ position that the proposed improvements are being added in response to substantial, regional demand for more soccer fields.” As noted in previous responses, the grass area that would be developed as part of the project would not accommodate a regulation size soccer field. This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. G-28: This comment states that the project’s impact on public services is understated. We disagree with this claim. As discussed on page 47 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would result in a significant impact on public services if it would require 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.” As noted on page 49 of the Draft IS/MND, the project is expected to only modestly increase visitation of the project site. No credible evidence has been provided that shows visitation of the park would increase substantially after project implementation. The modest visitation increase would not require existing public facilities – such as fire stations, the Sherriff’s office, and schools – to be materially altered, and would not require the construction of new facilities. These 228 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 43 conclusions were confirmed with the appropriate service agencies. The increase in traffic that would result from the project is relatively small in the context of existing roadway volumes and would not result in a significant risk of accidents or injuries. G-29: This comment states that there is substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts, and that an EIR should be prepared for the project. CEQA Guidelines section 15064(f)(5) states: “Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” None of the comments in letter G9 provide substantial evidence to support the claim that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. Instead, the claims in the letter are based on irrelevant data (e.g., noise measurements at a soccer tournament), false assumptions (e.g., that soccer practices are 1 hour in duration or less), and inaccuracies (e.g., g., a 3 dB increase represents a doubling of perceived loudness). All physical environmental impacts identified in the Draft IS/MND would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to CEQA. 229 Letter H1 230 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 45 Letter H: Timothy C. Sable, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (November 21, 2007) H-1: This comment notes that construction activities that encroach on property under the jurisdiction of Caltrans require an encroachment permit. All construction activities that would be conducted as part of the proposed project would occur on land owned by the City of Saratoga. Therefore, no encroachment permit would be necessary. 231 Letter I 12 232 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 47 Letter I: Bob Alley (November 26, 2007) I-1: This comment, which introduces the subsequent comment, is noted. I-2: This comment suggests that there should be a mitigation measure to prevent games from being played at the park in the future. The user agreement that organized groups would be required to sign to use Kevin Moran Park for practices would prohibit games. Therefore, no mitigation measure in the environmental review document is necessary to ensure that games would not be played at Kevin Moran Park. As proposed, the project would not allow use of the park for games. The park would be patrolled at least once every day (except for Wednesdays and Sundays) by a Code Enforcement Officer, who would ensure that activity at the park does not violate the regulations imposed on park use (including prohibition of organized games). In addition, the Code Enforcement Officer would make random visits to the park to monitor compliance. Lastly, a sign at the park would contain a phone number which persons could call to report code violations. The Code Enforcement Officer responds to these calls every day of the week, including Wednesdays and Sundays. Organized groups that play games at the park would be penalized. Penalties would range from a 1-week suspension to a suspension for the remainder of the season. These enforcement mechanisms would ensure that organized games are not played at Kevin Moran Park. Refer to Response to Comment G-16 regarding the less-than-significant impacts of the project on parking supply. 233 Letter J 12 234 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 49 Letter J: Douglas and Imogene Blatz (November 27, 2007) J-1: This comment expresses agreement with the e-mail submitted by Bob Alley (see Letter I and associated responses). The comment also suggests that use of the park by sports teams could result in significant traffic and parking impacts, and that a mitigation measure should be included to address parking impacts. See Responses to Comments G-9 and G-14. Refer to Response to Comment G-16 regarding the less-than-significant impacts to parking supply that are expected to result from the project. J-2: This comment reproduces the e-mail from Bob Alley included as Letter I. Refer to Responses I-1 and I-2. 235 Letter K 123456 236 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 51 Letter K: Sandra Cross (November 30, 2007) K-1: This comment, which introduces the subsequent comments, is noted. K-2: This comment suggests that the Project Description in the Draft IS/MND does not discuss additional sports uses that could occur at the park. As noted on page 10 of the Draft IS/MND, other sports that could be played at Kevin Moran Park after project implementation include basketball, bocce, and tennis. These activities would not result in significant environmental impacts. Other organized sport teams (besides soccer teams) are not specifically prohibited from playing at Kevin Moran Park. However, these sport teams (lacrosse, rugby, cricket) would generate traffic levels that are comparable to soccer teams and are not expected to result in significant traffic, air quality, noise, or other environmental impacts. Because the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) currently holds a use permit at Kevin Moran Park, and has expressed interest in maintaining this this permit, and soccer is a popular sport in the area, it is likely that soccer groups would continue to predominate, in terms of use the park by organized groups. As noted in Response to Comment G-24, enforcement of the regulations in the City’s Municipal Code (including enforcement resulting from calls by residents) is not necessary to reduce the project’s impacts on the noise environment. K-3: This comment suggests that the traffic and noise generated by the project would be “unacceptable.” As discussed on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the project could result in as many as 38 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour and 76 total daily trips. This traffic would not result in a significant reduction in roadway level of service, would not be considered a substantial increase in relation to the capacity of local roadways (Scully Avenue has a tolerable operational capacity of approximately 2,500 vehicles per day), and would be considered acceptable based on the significance thresholds used by the City of Saratoga. The expected amount of additional traffic, in the context of local roadway capacity and existing operational characteristics of the roadways, would not pose a significant hazard to cyclists or pedestrians in the area. K-4: This comment suggests that sand channels (for drainage) will be required at Kevin Moran Park. Sand channels are interconnected channels under the surface of grass areas that convey water away from the grass. The installation of sand channels typically does not require massive trenching or grading that requires a large construction effort. The City is planning on implementing drainage improvements to Kevin Moran Park that may include sand channels. The conclusions in the IS/MND regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project apply to sand channels. K-5: This comment states that the Draft IS/MND “does not call out the intended use of the park, as well as adequate mitigation measures.” Refer to Response to Comment G-4 regarding anticipated uses of the park. The Draft IS/MND identifies all reasonably foreseeable uses of Kevin Moran Park. All anticipated significant environmental impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary. 237 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 52 K-6: This comment suggests that the Draft IS/MND does not adequately identify potential park uses, and therefore is unable to mitigate associated impacts. Refer to Response to Comment G-4. 238 Letter L 123456 239 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 54 Letter L: Neil Keever (November 30, 2007) L-1: This comment suggests that the traffic generated by proposed uses at Kevin Moran Park would generate hazardous traffic conditions at the intersection of Scully Avenue and Prospect Road. As indicated on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the project could result in as many as 38 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour and 76 total daily trips. Some of these trips would likely pass through the intersection of Prospect Road and Scully Avenue. However, the number of project-related trips using this intersection would be very low in the context of existing peak hour traffic volumes (see Response to Comments G-14 regarding peak hour traffic volumes on Scully Avenue, based on data collected by park neighbors and data collected by City staff). Therefore, the project would not be expected to substantially increase hazards at this intersection. L-2: This comment suggests that the vehicle trips generated by the project, combined with a lack of sidewalks in the area, would result in pedestrian hazards. The project is expected to result in an additional 76 total trips per day. Site visits by LSA Associates indicate that cars on Scully Avenue drive at relatively low speeds (25 miles per hour, on average). No pedestrian/vehicle accidents have been reported in the immediate vicinity of Kevin Moran Park, even though there are no sidewalks in the area.8 Between 1999 and 2007, there have been only two accidents reported along Scully Avenue (at Scully Avenue and Northampton), and one of these accidents was due to an intoxicated driver.9 The low speed of vehicle traffic, and the relatively small number of additional trips that would be generated by the project indicate that the project would not result in significant pedestrian hazards associated with vehicle traffic. L-3: This comment states that “the residential roads from KMP park to get to Miller [Avenue] are narrow roads not intended for heavy traffic.” We agree with this assessment. The project is expected to result in an additional 76 daily trips, including 38 vehicle trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. These new trips would not be considered heavy traffic in the context of existing vehicle traffic on Scully Avenue and other roads in the vicinity of the project site. Scully Avenue currently operates at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) of C or better, which typically means that there are free-flowing conditions. The proposed project would not change this condition and would not introduce heavy traffic volumes to area roadways, including Scully Avenue. Scully Avenue has a tolerable operational capacity of 2,500 vehicles per day (and 250 vehicles per peak hour), and operates substantially under capacity. L-4: This comment claims that emergency vehicles would be impeded by heavy traffic accessing the park for soccer practices. As noted in Response to Comment L-3, peak traffic generated by the project would comprise 38 new trips during the afternoon/evening peak commute hour. These new trips would would not cause the LOS of roads around the project site to degrade by a significant level, and would not impede emergency vehicles. 8 Holtzman, Franziska, January 16, 2008. Fehr and Peers. Personal communication with Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga. 9 Holtzman, Franziska, January 16, 2008. Fehr and Peers. Personal communication with Kristin Borel, City of Saratoga. 240 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 55 L-5: This comment, which asks the City to consider the project’s impacts on local residents, is noted. L-6: This comment, which states that soccer fields should not be included in the park, is noted. As a point of clarification, the proposed project would not include regulation-size soccer fields. 241 Letter M123 45678 242 Letter M cont.8cont. 243 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 58 Letter M: Martin Goldberg (December 2, 2007) M-1: This introductory comment introduces the following comments. M-2: This comment states that the perimeter fences constructed at Azule Park and the North Campus are taller than the proposed fence at Kevin Moran Park. A taller fence at Kevin Moran Park is not required to reduce impacts to the noise environment (or other physical impacts) or privacy concerns. As discussed on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND, a park visitor standing on top of the proposed berm would not be able to see into adjacent properties along Saraglen Drive. However, the City may consider installing a taller fence at the site when it considers project approval. A taller fence would not result in significant environmental impacts. M-3: This comment, which confirms the conclusion on page 23 of the Draft IS/MND that two species of birds of prey could occur on the site (burrowing owl and Cooper’s hawk), is noted. Page 24 of the Draft IS/MND also includes a statement that other raptor species, including red-shouldered hawk, could occur on the site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that impacts of project construction on all raptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. M-4: This comment is correct in asserting that Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (which requires implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2) is intended to protect the habitat value of trees, and not the trees themselves. The text on page 25 of the Draft IS/MND is modified as follows: Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would protect existing trees in the project site, would reduce biological impacts associated with the removal of trees to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. M-5: This comment states that the concrete footings under proposed picnic tables could increase impervious surfaces on the site. The picnic tables that would be installed as part of the project would be placed on decomposed granite and would not increase impervious surfaces on the site. M-6: This comment refers to a statement on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND that, based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Rates for park uses with sports fields, the project would be expected to generate an average of six trips each weekday. As further discussed on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the trip generation analysis used to determine whether the project would result in impacts to traffic congestion utilized a rate based on proposed park uses rather than this ITE rate. The rate based on anticipated park uses is expected to more accurately quantify trips generated by the new grass areas and sports facilities that would be developed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment G-9 regarding the number of additional soccer players that would be likely to use the park after project implementation. The analysis assumed that the additional team using the park after project implementation could range from seven to 18 players (and that teams could include players of all ages, not just players under the age of eight). 244 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 59 M-7: These comments suggest modifications to the proposed project and are not required to reduce significant impacts of the project. The size of the grass areas at Kevin Moran Park (each of which is less than the size of a regulation-size field) would effectively ensure that, on average, only one additional soccer team would use the park after implementation of the proposed project. Due to topography and the placement of trees and the paved pathway, the lawn bowl and the new grass areas could not be used together as a single regulation size playing field. The recommendations in this comment may be considered by the City during the project review process. M-8: This concluding comment is noted. 245 Letter N 12 246 Letter N cont.2cont. 247 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 62 Letter N: Barbara Barone (December 2, 2007) N-1: This comment expresses support for the comments in the letter submitted by Martin Goldberg (see Letter M and associated responses), and notes that Kevin Moran Park was designed to allow for aquifer recharge. The project would not introduce more impervious surfaces to the existing lawn bowl area. As noted on page 39 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would increase impervious surface coverage on the site by a relatively small amount (approximately 0.23 acre) and that extensive landscaped areas would continue to allow surface runoff to percolate into the groundwater table, as occurs under existing conditions. N-2: This comment is a reproduction of an e-mail submitted by Martin Goldberg. See Responses to Comments M-1 through M-8. 248 Letter O 123 249 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 64 Letter O: Steve Sun (December 2, 2007) O-1: This comment introduces the following comments. O-2: This comment states that the commenter’s property “will now be more accessible than ever.” No new park uses would be introduced in the southeast corner of the park as part of the project (although grass and other vegetation would be planted where remnant orchard trees and bare ground currently exist), and the project would result in the installation of a 6-foot fence along the park perimeter. The project would marginally increase the number of park users, including tennis players and bocce players, at the southern end of the park. However, this increase in park use, combined with the fence, is not expected to increase vandalism and burglaries. Increased informal surveillance of park areas by visitors typically reduces any criminal behavior at parks. The City may consider the commenter’s request for additional fence height, but this increase in height is not required to reduce environmental impacts of the project. An increase in fence height would also not result in new environmental impacts. O-3: This comment requests that the commenter’s existing fence be preserved when the new fence is being constructed. The fence proposed as part of the project would not intrude on private property, including the commenter’s fence. 250 Letter P 1234567 8910 251 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 66 Letter P: Satish Dharmaraj (December 2, 2007) P-1: This comment introduces the following comments. P-2: This comment suggests that the Draft IS/MND mischaracterizes the proposed grass areas and does not adequately describe the user restrictions that would apply to practices at the park. Refer to Response to Comment G-5 regarding the characteristics of the grass areas that would be developed as part of the project. Refer to Responses to Comments G-9 and G-10 regarding the numbers of teams and players that would use Kevin Moran Park after project implementation. No age restrictions on park use would occur as part of the project. Different patterns in use of the park by various age groups would not result in environmental impacts other than those identified in the Draft IS/MND. P-3: This comment suggests that the increase in vehicle traffic that would result from the project, combined with the lack of sidewalks on Scully Avenue, would result in safety hazards. Refer to Response Response to Comment L-2. P-4: The comment states that “[t]here is a complete negligence on the reality of noise.” The noise analysis in the Draft IS/MND took into account the various types of noise that could be generated at the park, including noise associated with soccer practices (including whistling and yelling). The analysis indicates that noise generated by new park uses would not increase ambient noise levels, violate the City’s noise standards for single-event noises, or otherwise violate the City’s noise standards. Soccer practices in the northern portion of the park would be separated from the nearest residential uses by a berm, a 6-foot fence, an evergreen hedge and trees, and at least 100 feet of distance. These features would reduce potential impacts of the project on the long-term noise environment to a less-thansignificant level. Refer to Response to Comment G-20 for additional detail. P-5: Scully Avenue is approximately 36 feet wide. The road is similar in width to other feeder roads in Saratoga and would not be considered hazardous. The additional vehicle (and pedestrian/bike) trips generated by the project would not create new hazards. Narrow roadways typically slow traffic speeds, and may enhance pedestrian and bike safety. As discussed on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would not result in congestion on any local or regional roads, including Scully Avenue. P-6: This comment suggests that the “lack of an 8ft fence is clear cause for privacy concerns.” Privacy concerns are discussed on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND. At the northern end of the park, the project would include a new 6-foot fence (which would replace an existing 6-foot fence), an evergreen hedge and trees next to the fence, a 100-foot landscaped buffer, and a 1.7-foot berm separating the grass area from the landscaped buffer. As noted on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND, the “landscape changes that would result from project implementation would enhance the privacy of residents adjacent to the project site.” Because of the low height of the berm, and the presence of the 100-foot landscaped buffer between the berm and the fence line, a park visitor standing on top of the berm would not be able to see into adjacent properties along Saraglen Drive. The new fence that would be installed along the southern perimeter of the park would also enhance the privacy of residents living adjacent to the park. 252 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 67 P-7: This comment notes that there “is not enough [analysis in the Draft IS/MND] to adequately address the pesticide issue and the rodents that currently reside in the park.” As discussed on pages 34 and 35 of the draft IS/MND, Baseline Environmental Consulting conducted a Historic Land Uses and Limited Phase II Soil Investigation to determine if potential soil contamination at the site associated with historic agricultural land uses would pose a health or environmental risk. The investigation focused on historic pesticide/herbicide use, because, prior to development of Kevin Moran Park, the site contained an orchard. The City currently manages pest species at the park using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) System, which uses pesticides and herbicides only as a last resort, and in ways that do not contaminate soil. The soil investigation included sampling and analysis of soil samples taken from eight different locations in the site. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural School Sites, which is considered the most protective protocol for identifying potential health risks on sites used for agriculture. The results of the investigation found that – even based on highly protective human health standards for agricultural chemicals – development of the site would not pose a significant human or environmental health risk. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the Draft IS/MND. Refer to pages 34 and 35 for additional detail. Common species of wildlife, including rodents, may become displaced from the project site and migrate to other areas during the project construction period. This type of temporary nuisance is commonly associated with residential or other types of construction on sites which are undeveloped (similar to the parts of Kevin Moran Park containing remnant orchard trees and bare ground). Native ground-dwelling rodents are adapted to natural grassland habitat and would tend to seek refuge in adjacent open space areas rather than human-modified residential areas. Any increase in rodent populations in existing residential areas would be minor and not considered a significant physical impact under CEQA. The City Public Works Department has a standard procedure for removing rodents when disturbing undeveloped areas. This protocol includes employing a licensed professional to trap and remove rodents prior to construction. This practice, which was employed prior to construction of Azule Park, would be used prior to construction of the proposed project, and would ensure that migrating rodents would not result in a substantial nuisance to residents who live around the park. These measures have been effective when employed by the City in the past, and are expected to be effective at Kevin Moran Park. P-8: This comment asks if Saratoga police would be provided with additional funding to police Kevin Moran Park after project implementation. As noted on page 49 of the Draft IS/MND, the Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff (which serves the project site) “does not anticipate increased demand for emergency services to the Park such that new facilities or additional staff would be required.” Therefore, additional funding is not required to ensure adequate Sheriff patrols of Kevin Moran Park. P-9: This comment lists several other topics that the commenter suggests have been inadequately addressed in the Draft IS/MND, including drainage, tree removal, fire concerns, and air quality. Regarding drainage, refer to pages 39 and 40 of the Draft IS/MND. The project site is not located in a flood zone mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the project is not expected to worsen drainage 253 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 68 conditions on the site. In regard to tree removal, refer to pages 13 and 14 of the Draft IS/MND. Only three of the trees that would be removed as part of the project have a “high” suitability for preservation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and BIO-2 would ensure that impacts associated with tree removal are reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Fire hazards are addressed on page 37 of the Draft IS/MND. The project site is not mapped as an area of high wildfire risk, and the project site is not located in an area subject to wildland fire hazards. The project is not expected to increase fire risks (and could reduce fire hazards by removing trees in poor condition). Refer to pages 17 through 22 of the Draft IS/MND for a discussion of the project’s potential air quality impacts. P-10: This concluding comment may be considered by the City Council at the time of project review. 254 Letter Q 123 255 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 70 Letter Q: Sharon Joseph (December 2, 2007) Q-1: This comment suggests that the segment of Scully Avenue adjacent to Kevin Moran Park should be widened so that parking is inset, or angles away from the flow of traffic. Widening of Scully Avenue is not necessary to reduce the impacts of the project (including increased parking demand that could result from the project). Refer to Response to Comment G-16 regarding parking supply and demand. Q-2: This comment suggests that parking be limited to one side of Scully Avenue. Scully Avenue is approximately 36 feet wide. The width of Scully Avenue is similar to that of other feeder roads in Saratoga and would not be considered hazardous. Refer to Response to Comment P-5. As discussed on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would not result in congestion on any local or regional roads, including Scully Avenue. Refer to Response to Comment G-16 regarding parking supply and demand at Kevin Moran Park. Q-3: This concluding comment is noted. 256 Letter R 123456 257 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 72 Letter R: Richard Pearce (December 2, 2007) R-1: This introductory comment is noted. R-2: This introductory comment, which references the Cultural Resources analysis in the Draft IS/MND, is noted. R-3: This comment requests clarification on the proposed grass area. The grass area that would be developed in the northern part of the park would be flat and gently sloping in some areas and rolling in others, and would be suitable for informal recreation and sports practice. No organized games would be permitted in the park, including on the proposed grass area. Refer to Response to Comment G-5 regarding clarifications to the descriptions of the proposed grass areas in the Draft IS/MND. R-4: This comment questions the conclusion in the Draft IS/MND that the proposed project would only modestly increase visitation to Kevin Moran Park. Refer to Response to Comment G-9, which discusses expected use of the park. R-5: This comment requests clarification on the assumptions used in the traffic analysis. Refer to Responses to Comments G-9 through G-11. R-6: This comment questions the weekday focus of the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND. The weekday peak afternoon/evening period was the focus of the traffic analysis because that is the period when traffic volumes on local and regional streets in Saratoga are highest. If no significant impact were to occur during the PM peak hour, it would be logical to conclude that impacts during other times of the day (when traffic volumes are lower) would also be less-than-significant. However, the traffic analysis also considered weekend (Saturday) use, and concluded that “[o]n one of the six Saturdays a year during which soccer practice is permitted on the open grass areas, daily trip generation could be slightly higher than on weekdays because families and visitors would drive to the park. . . However, the numerical difference between weekday and Saturday trips is expected to be relatively small.” Refer also to Response to Comment G-16. At any given time on a Saturday when use by organized groups is permitted, there would be a net increase of one soccer team using the park. Weekend use of the park would be substantially limited by restrictions that limit organized practices to only six Saturdays a year, and prohibit practices entirely on Sundays. Approximately 15 new picnic tables would be installed in Kevin Moran Park as a result of the project. Figure 4 is a conceptual plan that is intended to represent the rough spatial distribution of uses proposed at Kevin Moran Park as part of the project. Figure 4 of the Draft IS/MND has been revised (see below) to show the number of proposed picnic tables on the site. Observations by LSA Associates staff at numerous parks in the San Francisco Bay Area indicate that picnic tables are rarely fully utilized, and that picnic tables in and of themselves rarely attract visitors. At Kevin Moran Park, visitors are expected to be drawn primarily to the grass areas, the tennis court, the basketball court, the bocce courts, and the meditation garden – and the picnic tables are expected to be used as accessories to other park uses (e.g., by parents waiting for soccer practice to end or by tennis players waiting for the court to vacate). Therefore, the picnic tables are not expected to generate a large number of new vehicle trips. 258 feet 0 60 120 FIGURE 4 SOURCE: MPA DESIGN, SEPTEMBER 2006 I:\CIS0701 kevin moran\figures\Fig_4.ai (2/11/08) Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project Project Site Plan 259 Letter S 12345 260 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 75 Letter S: Nelia and Carlos Garner (December 3, 2007) S-1: This introductory comment is noted. S-2: This comment identifies as a concern that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not prepared for the project. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(2) states: “The lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration if there is not substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.” The Draft IS/MND has not identified substantial evidence that indicates that the project would result in a significant environmental effect, including effects on traffic congestion, noise, and air quality. All impacts identified in the Draft IS/MND would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the City properly prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. S-3: City maintenance staff would be responsible for cleaning, locking, and unlocking bathrooms at Kevin Moran Park, similar to maintenance of other City park restroom facilities. S-4: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. The sports equipment enclosure that is referred to in the comment was included in the project description of the Draft IS/MND but was not shown on Figure 4, Project Site Plan because Figure 4 is a conceptual plan that is intended to show only the key land uses that would be developed at Kevin Moran Park as part of the project. However, Figure 4 has been revised to show the approximate location and configuration of the equipment storage enclosure (see revised Figure 4 in Response to Comment R-6). The sports equipment enclosure would be a screened enclosure without a ceiling, and would be located in the vicinity of the basketball court in the northwest part of the park. The final design – including the materials – for the enclosure has not yet been determined, but it is expected that the enclosure would be approximately 25 feet wide, 9 feet tall, and 12 feet deep. Lighting could be installed around the equipment enclosure to protect public safety. However, all lighting would be directed downward and would not substantially degrade nighttime views or create glare. Refer to Response to Comment V-21 for additional discussion about lighting proposed as part of the project. The enclosure, which would be screened by vegetation, was included in the project plans after numerous workshops and community meetings with neighborhood representatives and other interested parties. The conclusions in the IS/MND regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project apply to the equipment enclosure. S-5 This comment, which suggests that the traffic analysis is not valid (but does not provide support for this claim) is noted. Refer to Response to Comment G-9 regarding the assumptions used in the Draft IS/MND to identify the net increase in park use that would result from the project. 261 Letter T 123 262 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 77 Letter T: Alan Nonnenberg (December 3, 2007) T-1: This comment states that the impacts of the proposed project could change if “usage of the park changes significantly.” As noted on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND, under the current proposal, organized games at Kevin Moran Park would be prohibited. This regulation would be enforced via multiple ways, including: 1) organized user groups seeking to use the park for practice would be required to sign a use agreement contract that explicitly prohibits use of park for games or tournaments; 2) a Code Enforcement Officer would regularly visit the park to ensure that games are not being played; and 3) signs would be placed at the park that prohibit games and provide a phone number to call to report infractions. T-2: This comment, which pertains to the project and not to the adequacy of the environmental review, is noted. T-3: This comment suggests that sports games/competitions at Kevin Moran Park would cause increased traffic. As noted in Response to Comment T-1, organized sport games and competitions would be explicitly prohibited at Kevin Moran Park. As described on page 51 of the Draft IS/MND, traffic generated by organized practices at the park would not result in significant levels of congestion or hazardous roadway conditions. 263 Letter U 12345 264 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 79 Letter U: Naresh Makhijani (December 3, 2007) U-1: This introductory comment is noted. U-2: This comment requests clarification on the characteristics of the grass areas that are proposed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment G-5. The suggestion that the new grass areas be made completely rolling is noted. U-3: This comment requests clarification regarding how the City intends to monitor park usage, and what penalties would be imposed on groups that violate the user agreement with the City. Refer to Response to Comment G-7. U-4: This comment suggests that additional vehicle trips would diminish the safety of Scully Avenue. Refer to Response to Comment L-2. U-5: This comment, which reiterates the point made in comment U-2 (that new grass areas should be made completely rolling) is noted. The park would be subject to regular patrols by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and groups that violate the user agreement and play organized games at the park would be subject to penalties. These procedures are expected to be effective in ensuring that organized groups do not play games at Kevin Moran Park. 265 Letter V 123456 266 Letter V cont.78910 11 12 267 Letter V cont.12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 268 Letter V cont.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 269 Letter V cont.29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 270 Letter V cont.36 cont. 37 271 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 86 Letter V: Mary and Brian Robertson (December 2, 2007) V-1: This introductory comment is noted. V-2: This comment suggests that the Project Description in the Draft IS/MND mischaracterizes the grass areas that are proposed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment G-5 for clarification. V-3: This comment states that “the Initial Study was based on the current usage of two teams in the existing grassy area.” The analysis in the Draft IS/MND was based not on existing park uses, but on the net increase in park use that would result from the project. The use agreement that would govern the use of the proposed grass area by organized sports groups would limit use of the proposed grass area to one team at any given time. The basketball court was included in the project description as a proposed feature because the existing court would be substantially rebuilt as part of the project (and the existing court is in poor condition). V-4: This comment states that the “Initial Study mitigates what is to be additional park usage by two user groups utilizing the added flat grassy area as well as the bowl.” This statement is incorrect. First, the Draft IS/MND analyzes the environmental effects of the net increase in park use that would occur as a result of the project. In this case, the net increase of use includes the activities of one additional soccer team (plus users associated with the tennis courts, bocce courts, and other sports facilities). Refer to Response to Comment G-9 for more detail. Second, no mitigation is required to reduce impacts associated with park use. As discussed in the Draft IS/MND, use of the park – by both organized groups and other visitors – would not result in significant environmental effects, including effects on traffic congestion, noise, and public safety. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(2) states: “The lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration if there is not substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant significant effect on the environment.” The Draft IS/MND has not identified substantial evidence that indicates that the project would result in a significant environmental effect, including effects on traffic congestion, noise, and air quality. All impacts identified in the Draft IS/MND would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the City properly prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. V-5: This comment is correct in stating that soccer is not the only organized sport that would be permitted in Kevin Moran Park. In the near-term at least, soccer groups would likely use the park because they have expressed interest in conducting practices at the park and currently maintain an agreement to use Kevin Moran Park. If other organized groups submit an application for park use, that application would be reviewed by the City. If the City determines that the sport would result in a public safety hazard, the permit would not be granted. However, the sports listed in the comment (baseball, cricket, football, lacrosse, and rugby) are played in urban parks throughout California without posing significant physical safety risks to residents around parks and other park users. The City has the expertise to determine whether certain sports would result in a significant risk to public safety, and the authority to reject use agreement applications for such sports. Therefore, no 272 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 87 mitigation is required to address impacts that could result from organized sports other than soccer. Refer to Response to Comment V-4 regarding the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project. V-6 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not specify the number of teams (and the number of players on each team) that would be permitted to practice at Kevin Moran Park at any given time. Refer to Response to Comment G-9. V-7: This comment suggests that use agreements granted to organized user groups should include a prohibition on subletting park space to another group. Like the existing user agreement in place at Kevin Moran Park, the future user agreement would be “neither transferable nor assignable,” and would prohibit subletting. V-8: This comment, which states that organized groups would not be subject to time restrictions during the six Saturday practice sessions allowed each year, is correct. Use of the proposed grass area by organized teams would would be permitted on each of the six Saturdays a year when organized play is allowed. Practice would be permitted only from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (or dusk). There is little or no demand for early morning or late evening soccer practices on Saturdays, and this trend is expected to continue. Use of the park by organized groups would only be permitted on six Saturdays a year, meaning that organized groups would not use the park’s grass areas on 89 percent of all Saturdays. V-9: This comment suggests that contract provisions be established that identify the grass area that each user group can utilize. Such provisions would not be necessary to avoid or reduce physical environmental impacts. The use restrictions imposed on organized groups using Kevin Moran Park (including the provision limiting use of the park to two organized groups at one time) would ensure that the proposed grass areas are adequately protected from over-use. V-10: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project, is noted and may be considered by the City. As a point of clarification, the project would include a screened enclosure for equipment storage, as indicated on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND, and as indicated in revised Figure 4 of the Draft IS/MND (refer to Response to Comment R-6). Refer to Response to Comment S-4 for a description of the proposed screened enclosure. V-11: This comment suggests that additional mitigation is needed to protect the large heritage oak tree in the northern portion of the site. The tree would be protected during the construction period by Mitigation Measure AES-1, discussed on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft IS/MND. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require the implementation of several tree protection measures, including protective fencing, grading and trenching restrictions under the tree canopy, and restrictions on the use of herbicides and pesticides. The heritage oak tree would be located in a low-use area of the park near the northern boundary, and the ground under the tree would be covered with woodchips. This part of the park would be set back from the grass area by a berm and is not expected to be subject to substantial pedestrian activity of the type that would cause root compaction. In general, people prefer not to sit on wood chips because they are not as comfortable for lounging as grass areas. In addition, the area beyond the tree canopy would be planted with native groundcovers that would be drought resistant and would not require large amounts of irrigation, particularly once the 273 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 88 groundcover is established. The irrigated grass area, and the berm, would be at least 15 feet away from the tree’s dripline and would not adversely affect the tree’s health. Grass irrigation devices would not be pointed at the tree. Cobbles are not recommended for placement under the tree by the City arborist because they tend to hold in moisture over time, can be thrown by people, and are easily buried (requiring a high level of maintenance).10 Therefore, no additional mitigation, including the use of cobbles under the tree instead of wood chips, is warranted. V-12: This comment assumes that park visitors would be able to stand on the berm proposed in the northern portion of the park and see over the proposed 6-foot fence into adjacent residential properties. This assumption is incorrect. As described on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND, the 1.7-foot-tall berm would be located approximately 100 feet to the south of the proposed 6-foot fence. The sight line between the berm and fence (and the proposed evergreen hedge) would not permit visual access into adjacent residential properties to the north of the site. As noted on page 13 of the Draft IS/MND, “[t]he landscape changes that would result from project implementation would enhance the privacy of residents adjacent to the project site.” Therefore, mitigation is not required. V-13: This comment, which notes that the existing user agreement does not permit use of the park by organized groups on Saturdays, is correct. Refer to the text changes made as part of Response to Comment G-10. V-14: This comment suggests that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment V-4. V-15: This comment, which claims that the Draft IS/MND contains contradictory statements pertaining to groundcover, is incorrect. There is sparse groundcover in the northern portion of the site, and as noted in the comment, this groundcover would be maintained as part of the project. Page 15 of the Draft IS/IS/MND notes that the remnant orchard land is “generally devoid of groundcover,” but does not imply that no groundcover exists in these areas. V-16: This comment suggests that “further mitigation” is needed to discourage recreational uses near the residences adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. The commenter does not specify why additional mitigation is needed. As part of the project, this part of the site is expected to be subject to low use levels because no programmed uses (i.e., trails, sports courts, or grass areas) are proposed there. V-17: This comment recommends additional mitigation to preserve existing trees on the site. As described on page 14 of the Draft IS/MND, all landscaping activities at the park would be performed in accordance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM Plan). The IPM Plan prohibits the use of certain chemicals, and requires that pesticides and herbicides to control pest insects and weeds be used only as a last resort. Compliance with the IPM Plan, and the requirement in Mitigation Measure AES-1 that herbicides and pesticides not be applied under tree canopies, would ensure that trees proposed for preservation on the site would not be harmed by chemical use. The amount and type of chemicals used beyond tree canopies would not harm trees. The IPM Plan would also ensure that residences adjacent to 10 Bear, Kate, 2008, February 25. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. 274 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 89 the site would not be exposed to harmful amounts of pesticides and herbicides. Prior to project approval, the City will develop a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which will specify how the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft IS/MND (including those pertaining to tree protection) will be monitored. Mitigation Measure AES-1, on page 14 of the Draft IS/MND, is modified as follows to clarify that fencing around trees shall be installed outside of the dripline. Mitigation Measure AES-1: The City shall implement the following measures: 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on the project site. Fencing shall be installed outside the dripline around all trees that are immediately adjacent to active construction areas and that are shown for retention on project plans. The fencing shall comprise 6-foot high chain-link fencing mounted on 8-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing shall remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. V-18: This comment suggests that construction activities associated with the proposed project could disturb wildlife (squirrel, skunk, opossum, rat, and other rodents) that would infiltrate local residences. Refer to Response to Comment P-7. V-19: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project (it requests that the equipment enclosure be removed from the project) and not the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. Refer to Response to Comment S-4 regarding the conceptual design of the equipment enclosure. V-20: This comment requests that Mitigation Measure AES-1 be modified to restrict refueling or vehicle maintenance activities to outside the dripline of trees. Such activities would be effectively prohibited under the existing mitigation measure (see: “3. Unless otherwise otherwise approved, all construction activities shall be conducted outside the designated fence area, including the time after fencing is removed. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.”) Refueling and maintenance would fall under the rubric of construction activities as defined in this mitigation measure. V-21: This comment expresses concern about light pollution that could result from new lighting installed on the project site. As noted on page 16 of the Draft IS/MND, “[a]dditional lights may be installed on the project site, similar to those that currently exist in the Park.” The existing lights in Kevin Moran Park do not substantially increase glare or interfere with nighttime views. The installation of similar lights in the redeveloped portions of the park would not introduce new light or glare such that nighttime views would be degraded. Any new lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize glare; additional glare created by new lighting would be incremental and less than significant. Therefore, no significant impact was identified in the Draft IS/MND. The City would review the configuration of lighting proposed for the site when final project plans are developed, and 275 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 90 would verify that proposed lighting would not substantially increase glare. Therefore, additional mitigation is not required. Many of the lights that would be installed in the site (e.g., lights near the restroom) would be developed for security reasons and would not substantially contribute to glare. V-22: This comment requests that additional watering be required as part of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to ensure that dust does not blow into the yards of neighboring residences. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is a comprehensive mitigation measure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to ensure that dust generation during the construction period is minimized. Dust reduction measures are not limited to the watering of construction sites, and include the application of soil stabilizers at least three time daily on all unpaved access roads and staging areas, the application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, and the suspension of construction activities during windy periods. Based on the nature and expected duration of project construction activities, these combined measures are anticipated to be effective in reducing wind-blown dust to a lessthan-significant level. Additional mitigation, including a requirement that active construction sites be watered more than twice a day, is unnecessary. V-23: This comment requests mitigation to prevent dirt bikes from accessing the soil stockpiles that may be present during the construction period. It is highly unlikely that dirt bikes would create a nuisance on the site due to the regular patrols of the site conducted by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and the Sheriff. Use of dirt bikes on the site, and in other parks in Saratoga, is explicitly prohibited, and offenders would be penalized. In addition, construction sites would be occupied during the day by construction workers, who would contribute to the enforcement of the motor bike ban. Because use of the site by dirt bikers is unlikely, mitigation is not required. V-24: This comment suggests that Mitigation Measure AIR-1 be made more stringent by further reducing vehicle speed limits and restricting the location of access roads. As described in Response to Comment V-22, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is a comprehensive mitigation measure developed by the BAAQMD to reduce airborne dust. The mitigation measure includes several components that work together to effectively reduce dust. More restrictive provisions are not necessary to reduce dust to a less-than-significant level during the temporary construction period. V-25: This comment requests additional clarification on a provision of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 that requires vegetation to be planted as quickly as possible in disturbed areas. The vegetation that would be replanted is indicated in Figure 4 (on page 8) of the Draft IS/MND. The specific vegetation (including type and size) that would be planted as part of the project would be noted in the detailed landscape plan prepared by MPA Design and approved approved by the City of Saratoga Public Works Department. The time frame for replanting would be at the discretion of the construction contractor, but any planting activities would be monitored by the City to ensure that they occur as quickly as possible, as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Monitoring requirements would be outlined by a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) developed by the City prior to project approval. 276 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 91 V-26: This comment suggests that the removal of trees from the site would adversely affect air quality and noise. As discussed on page 12 of the Draft IS/MND, approximately 96 percent of the trees that would be removed as part of the project have a “poor” or “moderate” suitability for preservation. These trees do not make a substantial contribution to the noise environment or air quality. Therefore, tree removal would not result in significant noise or air quality impacts. The comment regarding the tree replacement ratio that would be implemented as part of the project pertains to the merits of the project and not to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, and is noted. The City may consider planting replacement trees at a higher ratio than currently proposed when it considers project approval. The current proposed planting ratio (0.75 tree planted for every 1 tree removed) would reduce impacts associated with tree removal to a less-than-significant level and would not create adverse impacts in and of itself. V-27: This comment, which states that the site is used by the tiger swallowtail butterfly, is noted. The tiger swallowtail is not a protected animal species in California. V-28: This comment seeks modification to a line on page 27 of the Draft IS/MND that states: “Development of 4 acres of the park occurred in 1973, including an open grass area, pathways, preschool play area, and general landscaping.” This text is correct in that 4 acres of the park were developed in 1973 (2 additional acres of the park were subsequently developed). V-29: This comment suggests that grading activities and proposed site features such as swales could result in flooding in adjacent residential properties. The City has not identified any evidence suggesting that the project could cause flooding. The site is generally flat and gently sloping, and development of the project would not substantially change the existing topography (although small berms and rolling grass would be developed in certain areas). These minor topographical changes would not cause water to pool in off-site locations. Therefore, mitigation is not required. V-30: This comment requests that mitigation be provided to ensure that irrigation activities do not damage the roots of the heritage oak tree in the northern part of the site. Refer to Response to Comment V-11. V-31: This comment requests clarification on text that was inadvertently inserted into the Draft IS/MND. This text is removed from page 40 of the Draft IS/MND, as shown below: a) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As described above, two new bridges are proposed at the creek crossings within the project site. Preliminary site plans and bridge specifications do not indicate exact locations or engineering designs for the bridges. V-32: This comment, which restates text from page 43 of the Draft IS/MND regarding the project construction period, is noted. V-33: This comment requests mitigation to ensure that vegetation on neighboring properties is not damaged by construction activities within the project site. Such measures would be 277 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 92 implemented by the City as part of its standard construction protocol. No additional mitigation is required. V-34: This comment claims that stockpiling soil in the site would violate privacy and cause safety concerns. This claim is speculative and is not based on fact. Stockpiles are a part of standard construction practice and construction sites throughout the Bay Area use soil stockpiles in ways that do not create privacy concerns or cause hazards. No mitigation is required. V-35: This comment claims that the analysis in the Draft IS/MND underestimates the increase in ambient noise levels that would result from the project. Audibility does not imply that noise standards have been exceeded. Noise generated by the project would not exceed the standards of the City of Saratoga Municipal Code. Refer to Response to Comment G-20 and pages 43 to 46 of the Draft IS/MND. V-36: This comment claims that enforcement of the noise ordinance would be the responsibility of residents. The project site would be regularly patrolled by the Code Enforcement Officer, who would report noise violations. Although residents could report violations, such reporting would not be required to reduce the impacts of the project to a less-thansignificant level (because the project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels or exceed the City’s single-event noise standard). This comment states that “rogue” groups that use the park would need to be controlled by the City. The City and the Sheriff’s Office have not identified “rogues” as a problem at Kevin Moran Park; however, the Code Enforcement Officer would report any violations, including those by “rogue groups.” V-37: This comment asks about the maintenance plan for the restroom. Similar to other City parks in Saratoga, City maintenance staff would be responsible for cleaning, locking, and unlocking bathrooms at Kevin Moran Park. The restroom would be unlocked in the morning and locked at night. A maintenance plan has not yet been developed, but would be based upon the City’s maintenance requirements of this site. 278 Letter W12 279 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 94 Letter W: Richard Collins (December 3, 2007) W-1: This comment pertains to the merits of the project (i.e., the need for the proposed equipment enclosure) and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. Refer to Response to Comment S-4 for a description of the conceptual design and placement of the proposed equipment enclosure. W-2: This comment pertains to the merits of the project (i.e., the need for and appropriateness of the proposed tennis court) and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. An IS/MND is not required to substantiate the need for a project (but must identify the environmental impacts of a project). 280 Letter X 123 281 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 96 Letter X: Stephen and Laurie Pakula (December 3, 2007) X-1: This comment requests clarification regarding the characteristics of the user groups that would be permitted to conduct practices at the park. Refer to Response to Comment G-9. Traffic generated by existing uses plus traffic generated by proposed uses would not result in significant levels of traffic congestion on roadways surrounding the project site during the peak PM commute hour. Refer to Response to Comment L-1 regarding potential hazards on Scully Avenue and other local roads resulting from traffic generated by the project. X-2: This comment requests that “there needs to be a specific notation in the project that KMP will not be used for organized sports.” While organized groups would be permitted to use Kevin Moran Park during certain times of the week and day, as noted on page 9 of the Draft IS/MND, “[o]rganized user groups would not be permitted to play games at the park.” This prohibition would be enforced enforced via regular patrols of Kevin Moran Park by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer. X-3: This concluding comment is noted. 282 Letter Y 1234 283 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 98 Letter Y: Sandeep Pandya (December 3, 2007) Y-1: This introductory comment is noted. Y-2: This comment requests clarification of the grass areas that would be developed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment G-5. Y-3: This comment suggests that traffic associated with the project could result in roadway hazards due to the lack of sidewalks on local streets. Refer to Response to Comment L-1. Y-4: This comment asks that games be prohibited at the park and suggests that games may occur on Saturday. Some organized teams play games on Saturdays, while other teams practice. Because organized games would be explicitly prohibited at Kevin Moran Park, games would not be played on Saturday, regardless of whether certain teams only play games (elsewhere) on Saturday. 284 Letter Z 12345 285 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 100 Letter Z: Ken and Donna McKenzie (December 3, 2007) Z-1: This introductory comment is noted. Z-2: This comment requests clarification of the grass areas that would be developed as part of the project. Refer to Response to Comment G-5. Z-3: This comment asks whether the City is required to adhere to the tree protection provisions in the Saratoga Municipal Code. As noted on page 14 of the Draft IS/MND, the City is not required to adhere to these provisions, and is not responsible for replacing removed trees on City property (although in the case of the proposed project, 80 removed trees would be replaced with 60 new trees). As discussed on page 12 of the Draft IS/MND, approximately 96 percent of the trees that would be removed as part of the project have a “poor” or “moderate” suitability for preservation. Z-4: This comment suggests that traffic associated with the project could result in roadway hazards due to the lack of sidewalks on local streets. Refer to Response to Comment L-1. Z-5: This comment requests that “extra care be taken in regards to the large Heritage oak located at the park.” Refer to Response to Comment V-11. 286 Letter AA1 287 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 102 Letter AA: Bruce Euler (December 3, 2007) AA-1: The commenter is correct that the proposed equipment enclosure is not identified on Figure 4 in the Draft IS/MND. Refer to Response S-4 for a description of conceptual design and placement of the equipment enclosure. The equipment enclosure is shown on the revised Figure 4 (see Response to Comment R-6). 288 Letter BB123 289 Letter BB cont.3cont. 45 290 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 105 Letter BB: Jules and Connie Farago (December 3, 2007) BB-1: This comment, which introduces the subsequent comments, is noted. BB-2: This comment claims that traffic generated by the project could create safety hazards on local roadways and could impede access by emergency vehicles. Refer to Responses to Comments L-1 and L-4. BB-3: This comment asks why “deep” soil samples were not collected and tested as part of the Limited Phase II Soil Investigation conducted as part of the project. Soil samples were collected only from shallow soils (0-2.5 feet below the ground surface) because the hazardous materials concern at the project site is agricultural chemical residues. Because agricultural chemicals are applied at the surface, contaminant concentration gradually diminishes as soil depth increases. Soil sampling at the site was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural Fields at School Sites, which provides sampling protocol that is highly protective of human and environmental health. If unacceptable levels of contaminants were identified at the site, deeper samples would have been collected. All contaminants were reported at levels that would not pose a significant long-term threat to human health or the environment. Residual levels of DDT were identified on the site, but concentrations were below Environmental Screening Levels for residential uses and direct contact by construction workers. Therefore, removal of soil around the root balls of trees would not result in a significant human or environmental health risk. BB-4: This comment suggests that construction activities associated with the proposed project could disturb wildlife (squirrel, skunk, opossum, rat, and other rodents) that would infiltrate local residences. Refer to Response to Comment P-7. BB-5: This comment asks how often the proposed restroom would be cleaned, and how/when the restroom would be locked and unlocked. Similar to other City parks in Saratoga, City maintenance staff would be responsible for cleaning, locking, and unlocking bathrooms at Kevin Moran Park. The restroom would be unlocked in the morning and locked at night. A maintenance plan has not yet been developed, but would be based upon the City’s maintenance requirements and would be in keeping with other similar facilities in Saratoga. 291 Letter CC1234 292 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 107 Letter CC: Roger and Joanne Piazzia (December 3, 2007) CC-1: This introductory comment is noted. CC-2: This comment claims that other development in the vicinity of the project site, combined with the proposed project, would result in traffic volumes that are “5 times the current load.” No evidence is provided to support this claim. The project is expected to generate an additional 38 vehicle trips during the peak period, and 76 total daily trips. These daily trips represent a small fraction of Scully Avenue’s tolerable operational capacity (approximately 2,500 vehicles per day) and would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative traffic volumes generated by other development in the area. The comment also makes the same argument set forth in Comment Y-4: that games would be played at Kevin Moran Park on Saturdays because certain teams play games on Saturday. This argument is unsupported. Refer to Response to Comment Y-4. CC-3: This comment suggests that the responsibility for enforcing the Saratoga Municipal Code would be borne by local residents. This is untrue. The park would be regularly patrolled by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer. CC-4: This concluding comment is noted. 293 Letter DD123 294 L S A A S S O C IATES , INC . 109 Letter DD: Matt DiMaria (December 3, 2007) DD-1: This comment pertains to traffic hazards associated with increased traffic at the park. Refer to Response to Comment L-1. DD-2: This comment claims that new uses developed as part of the project would generate “numerous choke points” on local roadways. The project is expected to generate an additional 38 vehicle trips during the peak period, and 76 total daily trips. These daily trips represent a small fraction of Scully Avenue’s tolerable operational capacity (approximately 2,500 vehicles per day) and would not degrade the existing level of service or create choke points. Refer also to Response to Comment G-14. DD-3: This comment claims that the proposed project would increase parking demand beyond the available capacity. Refer to Response to Comment G-16. Parking demand generated by the project is not expected to result in adverse environmental impacts. 295 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project (project) in the City of Saratoga. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements. The MMRP specifies the City department responsible for implementing and monitoring each measure. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 is the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND. The first column of Table 1 identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation,” names the party responsible for for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Implementation Procedure,” describes the steps involved in implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Implementation Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fifth column, “Party Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. “Action by Monitor” outlines the steps for monitoring the action identified in the mitigation measure. The seventh column, entitled “Monitoring Timing,” states the time the monitor must ensure that the mitigation measure has been implemented. The last column will be used by the City to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored. C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 1 296 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date AESTHETICS AES-1: The City shall implement the following measures: 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on the project site. Fencing shall be installed outside the dripline around all trees that are immediately adjacent to active construction areas and that are shown for project retention on project plans. The fencing shall comprise 6-foot high chain-link fencing mounted on 8-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing shall remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the contractor following installation of protective fencing and prior to start of work to review tree protection measures. Public Works Department 1. Install protective fencing around the dripline of trees that are planned for retention and that are within or immediately adjacent to project construction areas. 2. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the contractor to review tree protection measures. 3. Conduct all construction activities outside the fencing around trees, unless otherwise approved. Construction activities include the ones specifically listed in Mitigation Measure AES-1, in addition to refueling and maintenance activities. No irrigation devices shall be placed under or pointed at trees that are to be retained. 4. Perform grading or trenching beneath tree Prior to and during project construction Public Works Department Verify that the construction contractor and/or City employees involved in project construction are following tree protection requirements. Prior to and during project construction Name: Date: C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 2 297 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 3 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date 3. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities shall be conducted outside the designated fenced area, including the time after fencing is removed. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4. Any approved grading or trenching beneath tree canopies shall be performed manually using shovels. 5. Any pruning of trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 6. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, and gasoline) shall be prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on the site where drainage occurs beneath tree canopies. In addition, fuel shall not be stored and refueling or maintenance of equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of a tree trunk. canopies manually. 5. Prune trees under the supervision of a certified arborist, and according to International Society of Arboriculture standards. 6. Dispose of harmful products in accordance with recognized hazardous materials disposal protocol away from tree canopies or areas that drain to trees, and do not store fuel or maintain equipment within 20 feet of a tree trunk. 7. Do not apply herbicides and pesticides beneath tree canopies and, elsewhere in the site, use herbicides that are safe for use near trees. 298 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 4 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date 7. Herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied beneath tree canopies as part of the proposed project. Where used on the site, herbicides shall be labeled for safe use near trees. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -There are no significant Agricultural Resources impacts. AIR QUALITY AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site during the construction and pre-construction phases of the project: 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 3. Apply water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil Construction Contractor Implement all the dust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Plant vegetation on the site as soon as feasible after soil disturbance has been completed. During project construction Public Works Department Visit project site and verify that dust control measures are being successfully implemented (and that vegetation has been replanted). Verify that substantial dust/soil is not being deposited in off-site locations. During project construction Name: Date: 299 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 5 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Mitigation Measure Date material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously disturbed areas inactive for ten days or more). 7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. Minimize idling time (to 5 minutes or less). 13. Maintain properly-tuned equipment. AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 300 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 6 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1a: Pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls on or within 500 feet of areas subject to ground disturbance shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction-related activities. If burrowing owls are observed on or near the construction area during these surveys, the construction contractor shall implement an exclusion zone (i.e., an area where all project-related activity shall be excluded) around the nest burrow. Exclusion zones shall comprise a 160-foot radius from occupied burrows during the nonbreeding season of September 1 to January 31. Passive relocation of owls that includes the placement of one-way doors over burrow entrances, allowing owls to exit but not return, may occur at that time. During the breeding season of February 1 to August 31, exclusion zones shall comprise at least a 250-foot radius from nest burrows. No project activity shall occur within the exclusion area until the young have fledged (approximately 4 weeks). Public Works Department Conduct preconstruction surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls. Create exclusion zones around any burrowing owls found in the survey. Passively relocate owl individuals only between September 1 and January 31 and with the permission of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Prior to project construction Public Works Department Review the preconstruction biologist surveys and verify that appropriate exclusion zones are established and passive relocation has occurred only when necessary. Prior to project construction Name: Date: 301 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 7 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date BIO-1b: The City shall develop a mitigation plan in accordance with CDFG requirements if the project would result in the loss of burrowing owl habitat. The mitigation may require the provision of on-or off-site habitat. Off-site habitat, if required, could be provided on suitable City-owned land or other land for which the City controls development rights (suitable land would include land containing existing burrowing owl individuals and/or ground squirrel burrows). Suitable habitat may also be provided in the form of credits at a CDFG-approved habitat conservation bank. The acreage of mitigation habitat would be based on the number of owls identified during the preconstruction survey. Public Works Department Develop a mitigation plan for the loss of burrowing owl habitat if the project would result in the loss if suitable habitat. Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that a mitigation plan has been prepared if there is the loss of burrowing owl habitat and ensure that it meets CDFG requirements. Verify that the mitigation plan has been implemented. Prior to construction Name: Date: BIO-2: If feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (i.e., September through February) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work must be scheduled during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area to determine if any birds are Public Works Department Remove vegetation from September through February, if feasible. If vegetation is removed outside this period, retain a qualified ornithologist to conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area, as described in Mitigation Measure Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that vegetation removal takes place during the non-breeding season or review the pre-construction ornithologist survey and verify that appropriate buffers have been established around nests Prior to project construction Name: Date: 302 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 8 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date nesting in or in the vicinity of vegetation to be removed. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March to May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June to August. If active nests are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and shall be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. BIO-2. Establish buffers around identified nests, in consultation with CDFG. BIO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted Construction Contractor and Public Works Department If potential archaeological materials are uncovered during the construction period, do not conduct work within 25 feet of the discovery. The Public During project construction Public Works Department Review the archaeology report and verify that recommendations have been followed. During project construction Name: Date: 303 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 9 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date to assess the finds and make recommendations. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or such effects shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery (by capturing scientific information after developing an appropriate research design). Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting methods and results of the assessment, and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. Works Department shall retain a qualified archaeologist to assess the finds and make recommendations. The Public Works Department shall follow these recommendations. CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Refer to Mitigation Measure CULT-1 CULT-3: A paleontologist shall monitor initial project ground disturbing activities at or below 5 feet from the original ground surface (i.e., at or below the average project soil and fill Construction Contractor and Public Works Department Hire a paleontologist to monitor initial project ground disturbing activities. Monitor ground disturbing activities During project construction Public Works Department Review the paleontology report and verify that recommendations have been followed. During project construction Name: Date: 304 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 10 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date depth). After the initial monitoring, the paleontologist can then determine if further monitoring or periodic site reviews for paleontological resources would be appropriate. Paleontological monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review the possible paleontological material and to protect the resource while it is being evaluated. Monitoring shall continue until, in the paleontologist’s judgment, paleontological resources are not likely to be discovered. If paleontological resources are discovered during project activities (with or without a monitor present), all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected until a paleontological monitor has assessed the situation, consulted with agencies as appropriate, and made recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources until fossils are not likely to be discovered. If potential paleontological materials are uncovered during the construction period, no work shall occur within 25 feet of the discovery. The Public Works Department shall retain a qualified paleontologist to assess the finds and make recommendations. Follow these recommendations regarding avoidance or the resource or data recovery. 305 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 11 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, adverse effects on the resources shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated (through data recovery). CULT-4: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the assessment, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural Construction Contractor and Public Works Department If human remains are found during the construction period, do not conduct work within 25 feet of the discovery. The Public Works Department shall contact the County Coroner and an archaeologist. The Public Works Department shall follow the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant and archaeologist, if the remains are of Native American origin. During project construction Public Works Department Review the archaeology report and verify that the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant and archaeologist are followed. During project construction Name: Date: 306 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 12 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -There are no significant Geology and Soils impacts. HAZARDS -There are no significant Hazards impacts. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYD-1: The final project design shall incorporate design, control, and engineered treatment measures to reduce polluted storm water runoff from the site to a less-than-significant level. These measures shall include the use and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) for site design and storm water treatment, and shall be designed in accordance with approved numeric sizing criteria and guidelines put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and the California Stormwater Quality Association. The final project design plans shall also specify how proposed BMPs will be maintained. Public Works Department Incorporate design, control, and engineered treatment measures to reduce and manage storm water runoff in project design plans. Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that storm water management features have been incorporated into the project design plans, and that these features are designed in accordance with guidelines from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and the California Stormwater Quality Association. Prior to project construction Name: Date: 307 C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 13 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date LAND USE AND PLANNING -There are no significant Land Use and Planning impacts. MINERAL RESOURCES -There are no significant Mineral Resources impacts. NOISE NOISE-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures: • In accordance with Article 7-30-060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, construction activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekday holidays. • A notice of these construction hour restrictions shall be conspicuously posted at the entrance to the work site prior to commencement of the work informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, material suppliers and all other persons at the property of the basic limitations upon noise and construction activities provided in the City’s Municipal Code. Construction Contractor Implement the noisereducing measures outlined in Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. During project construction Public Works Department Regularly visit construction site to verify that noisereducing measures are being implemented. During project construction Name: Date: 308 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . K E V I N M O R A N P A R K IMP R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T ION F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T ING PROGRAM Table 1 Continued C:\Documents and Settings\AWeinstein\Desktop\LSA\Kevin Moran Park\Kevin Moran MMRP-2.doc 14 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/Date • During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment shall be acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control blankets, or other appropriate equipment. • Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be utilized. NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. Refer to Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. Refer to Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 POPULATION AND HOUSING -There are no significant Population and Housing impacts. PUBLIC SERVICES -There are no significant Public Services impacts. RECREATION -There are no significant Recreation impacts. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – There are no significant Transportation/Traffic Impacts. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -There are no significant Utilities and Service Systems impacts. 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review a proposal from the Buxton Company to prepare a Retail Site Assessment for the City to promote Economic Development RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct Staff Accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: At the City Council retreat on February 1st the Council requested that the proposal from the Buxton Company be agendized for discussion. DISSCUSSION: The proposed report would provide the City with pro-active approach to attract retailers and restaurants and other services through customer analytics. This report would provide a clear picture of the people who live in the community and identify which type of retailers and services they use. The City of Saratoga could then directly approach retailers with this information in an effort to attract them to the community or share the information with existing businesses to help them increase their sales. The resulting economic development could increase tax revenue, add jobs, and keep retail dollars in the city. The last economic study for the City was conducted in 1995. This study was oriented toward what citizens wanted to see in the Village. The difference between the proposed study is it will show where citizens actually spend their money. This would allow the City to seek out retailers that provide those services, and to help existing retailers to focus on products or services our residents have been shown to purchase elsewhere. FISCAL IMPACTS: The attached proposal is for $20,000. The proposed project is not currently funded, therefore the funds would need to be allocated either from the Council Contingency Fund which currently has $29,400 in the account or funded through the budget process that will start this spring. Page 1 of 2 329 Page 2 of 2 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City would not be able to provide this information to interested retailers to help promote new retailers coming to the City. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Council could deny the proposal or recommend that it be modified. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposal from the Buxton Company 330 December 12, 2007 Dave Anderson City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dave, Buxton is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Saratoga. The objective of this proposal is to outline the scope of services that Buxton can provide for the City of Saratoga, as they pursue a better understanding of the city and the attraction of retail. Scope of Services Trade Area Delineation -Buxton will delineate a trade area around a central point, as determined by the City of Saratoga. Psychographic Analysis and Retail Site Assessment -Buxton will profile the psychographic segmentation of the City of Saratoga, based on the determined centralized point o Each unique household will be categorized into 1 of 66 unique segments o Over 4,500 lifestyle characteristics and purchasing behaviors are considered when segmenting any household -Category retail trade potential numbers will be provided to give the City an idea of the dollar demand within the trade area City Level Leakage Analysis -Buxton will produce a supply/demand report at the city and trade area level. Buxton will analyze city data between the supply and demand in order to understand the value of the retail dollar being spent within the city versus outside the city. -The City of Saratoga is losing sales tax revenues due to retail development in surrounding areas. Data will be provided at city and trade area levels to give the City of Saratoga an indication as to how much sales tax revenue is being lost. Cost and Timeline $20,000 Twenty (20) business days Please sign below indicating your approval of this proposal. ______________________ ______________________ David Glover Dave Anderson Chief Financial Officer City Manager Buxton City of Saratoga 2651 S. Polaris Drive 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ft. Worth, TX 76109 Saratoga, CA 95070 331