Agenda packet — Scotts Valley City Council, October 2, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

CB1 SHEET

HUGH ZIKE, ARCHITECT
838 WESTERN DR
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060
831 818-5808
BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING:

METAL
COLOR: NAVAJO BEIGE

WOOD SHINGLE SIDING
HARDIE
COLOR: KHAKI BROWN

STEEL BEAMS
COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY

AEP SPAN

HORIZONTAL WALL CAP
COLOR: REGAL WHITE

AEP SPAN

METAL ROOFING
COLOR: SAGE GREEN

STONE WAINSCOT

ELDORADO STONE
COLOR: LIMESTONE YORK

REDEVELOPMENT FOR
125 BETHANY DRIVE

PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY

SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2023
2 FARMHOUSE VERTICAL
Home Style 3

AWNINGS
COLOR: BRONZED

DOOR & WDW FRAMES

ALUMINUM AND VYNIL
COLOR: WHITE
Traditionalist
You love the sophisticatio
seek an exterior that evok
harmonious feeling.

You are chic and stylish. Y
option of neutral for any h
1 KHAKI BROWN
Main Color 2 RANHom
Home > Exterior House Color Visualizer
COLO

GROUND FACE CMU

BASALITE
COLOR: 113
STEEL EXIST DOORS AND FRAMES:

COLOR: "JANUS" DESERT SAND

THE DATA SET FORTH ON THIS SHEET IS

THE PDROPERTY OF HUGH ZIKE,
ARCHITECT. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF

SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED,

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE PROPER ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OR

DATA SHALL BE THE USER'S

RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT LIABILITY TO
THE ARCHITECT. UNAUTOORIZED USE IS

PROHIBITED

STEEL ROLL UP DOORS
COLOR: "JANUS" SILHOULETTE GRAY

Page 115 of 500 ends

CB2 SHEET

HUGH ZIKE, ARCHITECT
838 WESTERN DR
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060
831 818-5808

BICYCLE RACK

CYCLE SAFE
COLOR: BLACK

PATIO BENCH
COLOR: ACID WASH BELSON
OUTDOORS MODEL TF160

ALLEN BLOCK

PATIO RETAINING WALL
COLOR: EUROPA BROWN

BEIG CHARCOAL

CALSTONE PAVERS

PATIO PAVING
COLOR: QUARRY STONE

VERSAILLES CHACO CANYON

REDEVELOPMENT FOR
125 BETHANY DRIVE

PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY

SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
DATE: OCTOBER, 2023

THE DATA SET FORTH ON THIS SHEET IS

THE PDROPERTY OF HUGH ZIKE,
ARCHITECT. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF

SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED,

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE PROPER ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OR

DATA SHALL BE THE USER'S

RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT LIABILITY TO
THE ARCHITECT. UNAUTOORIZED USE IS

PROHIBITED
Plan Review Letter
125 Bethany Drive

Page 2 of 3 ends

August 24th,2023
C2G 4444 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 6, Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4529 831/438-4420 • [email protected] • www.civilconsultantsgroup.com ing wall will have an appearance similar to above.
s will have an appearance similar to above.

Plan Review Letter
125 Bethany Drive

Page 3 of 3 ends

August 24th,2023
C2G 4444 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 6, Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4529 831/438-4420 • [email protected] • www.civilconsultantsgroup.com Per Item 19….Bench will be similar to above with color similar to pavers.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding any of these comments, please feel free to contact me by phone or by email.

C2G/Civil Consultants Group, Inc.

By:

Todd Creamer
Principal Engineer
In Ground #12727
Surface #12728
Surface Mount / In Ground Mount
Plastisol {Braced} Racks

Page 116 of 500 ends

C0.1
X" = XX'

REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR

BETHANY PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
125 BETHANT DRIVE

SCOTT'S VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
COVER
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

Engineers/Planners
4444 Scotts Valley Drive / Suite 6
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
T (831) 438-4420 F (831) 438-4420 2

BETHANY PROFESSIONAL
A
B
CD
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 125 BETHANY DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
WM
W W
LEGEND

DESCRIPTION PROPOSED EXISTING

PROPERTY LINEEASEMENT LINE

CENTERLINECURB AND GUTTERSIDEWALK

FIRE HYDRANT

STREET LIGHT

WATER METER

DOMESTIC WATER

SERVICESANITARY SEWERSTORM DRAINSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLE

DRIVEWAY

ADA CURB RAMP

IRRIGATION METER

AND BACK FLOW

PREVENTER

ABBREVIATIONSAB AGGREGATE BASEAC ASPHALT CONCRETE

BFC BOTTOM FACE OF CURBBFP BACK FLOW PREVENTERBFS BOTTOM FACE OF STEPBLDG BUILDING

CONC CONCRETECB CATCH BASINCL CENTERLINECONC CONCRETECOR CORNER

DCDA DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLYDI DROP INLET/DRAINAGE INLETDWY DRIVEWAYEC EDGE OF CONCRETEEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTEG EXISTING GRADE (E) EXISTING

FF FINISH FLOORFG FINISH GRADEFH FIRE HYDRANTFL FLOW LINEFS FINISH SURFACE

GB GRADE BREAK

HP HIGH POINT

INV INVERT

LP LOW POINTMAX MAXIMUMME MATCH EXISTINGMIN MINIMUMNAP NOT A PARTNTS NOT TO SCALEP/L PROPERTY LINER/W RIGHT OF WAY

SD STORM DRAINSDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLESF SQUARE FEETSS SANITARY SEWERSTD STANDARD

TC TOP OF CURBTYP TYPICALWV WATER VALVE

CIVIL SHEET INDEX
CIVIL ENGINEER:

SURVEYOR:

C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DRIVE STE. 6
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066OFFICE: 831.438.4420
C0.1 - COVER SHEETC1.1 - EXISTING SITE AND DEMOLITION PLANC2.1 - SITE IMPROVEMENTSC3.1 - GRADING PLANC3.2 - STORM WATER CONTROL PLANC4.1 - UTILITY AND FIRE SUPPRESSION PLANC5.1 - EROSION CONTROL PLANC5.2 - EROSION CONTROL DETAILSC6.1 - DETAILSC6.2 - DETAILSC6.3 - CITY OF SV DetailsC6.4 - SVWD DETAILS L1 - LANDSCAPE PLANE1 - LIGHTING PLAN
SURVEYOR:

ALPHA SURVEY
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DRIVE
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066
OFFICE: 831.438.4420

VICINITY MAP

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY
CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHOULD ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOBSITE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, DURING THECOURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, AND THAT REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLYCONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED DURING WORKING HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL

DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS HARMLESS FROM

ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THEOWNER OR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.

DISCREPANCIES

IF THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND EXISTINGCONDITIONS WHICH WILL AFFECT THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING SUCH

DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FOR ADJUSTMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER FITTING OF ALL WORKAND FOR THE COORDINATION OF ALL TRADES, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND PERSONS ENGAGED UPONTHIS CONTRACT.

CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING / STAKING
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL SURVEYING AND OR STAKING BY A LICENSEDSURVEYOR FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

GENERAL NOTES

1. NO CHANGE TO THE PLANS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS AND INVERTS OF EXISTING UTILITY PRIOR TO

COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIANCE FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.

3. UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN BASED ON RECORD DRAWINGS AND VISIBLE EVIDENCE FOUND IN FIELD. NO WARRANTY IS MADE REGARDING THE COMPLETENESS ORACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES, AND PRESERVE SAME FROM DAMAGE. PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION, VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THECROSSING POINTS WITH PROPOSED UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OROWNERS REPRESENTATIVES IF CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ANDSHALL NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE CHANGED CONDITION HAS BEEN EVALUATED.CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT (USA) (1-800-227-2600) TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITHCONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATED AND PRESERVE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COORDINATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY

COMPANIES AND/OR AGENCIES TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND/OR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. AND SHALL NOTIFY U.S.A. @ (800) 227-2600 AT LEAST 48-HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXCAVATION.

5. IF ANY INDICATIONS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, ALL WORK SHALL BE HALTED WITHIN 200 FOOTRADIUS OF THE FIND. OWNER SHALL RETAIN A QUALIFIED ARCHEOLOGIST RETAINED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE DISCOVERY AND RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE EVALUATION PROCEDURES.

NOTE:

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS. CALL USA (800) 227-2600. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY APPARENT CONFLICTS FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.

UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES AND USES
CA8TION

THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL

CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THE PLANSC 2016 TODD R. CREAMER, D.B.A. AS C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

UTILITY PROVIDERS

PROJECT DATUM
THE WITHIN PLANS ARE COPYRIGHTED AS AN UNPUBLISHED WORK BY C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC. ALL IDEAS DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS

INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THESE DRAWINGS ARE OWNED BY, AND THE PROPERTY OF C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC. AND WERE CREATED,EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON, AND IN CONNECTION WITH, THE SPECIFIED PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS OR PLANSSHALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

BASED UPON GPS OBSERVED = NORTH
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

PROVIDER CONTACT NUMBER
WATER: SCOTTS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (831) 438-2363
GAS AND ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 1-800-468-4743SANITARY SEWER: SCOTTS VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS (831) 438-0732STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: SCOTTS VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS (831) 438-5854 NORTH
ARCHITECT: PROJECT LOCATION HUGH ZIKES, ARCHITECT

GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER:

ROCK SOLID ENGINEERING
1100 MAIN STREET, SUITE A
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
OFFICE: 831.724.5868
838 WESTERN DRIVESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060OFFICE: 831.818.5808 10-06-23

Page 117 of 500 ends

C1.1
1" = 20'

EXISTING

SITE/DEMOLITION
PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

Engineers/Planners
4444 Scotts Valley Drive / Suite 6
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
T (831) 438-4420 F (831) 438-4420
2 BETHANY PROFESSIONAL
A
B
CD
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
12 125 BETHANY DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

REMOVE EXISTING TREE

AB AGGREGATE BASEAC ASPHALT CONCRETE

BLDG BUILDING

CONC CONCRETE

EC EDGE OF CONCRETEEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTEL ELEVATIONFL FLOWLINE

GB GRADE BRAKEG GROUND

INV INVERT ELEVATION

LP LOW POINTNAP NOT A PARTNG NATURAL GROUNDPL PROPERTY LINE

TG TOP OF GRATE

UG UNDERGROUND

ABBREVIATIONS
LEGEND

X DEMOLITION KEY NOTES
1 23
4 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE

SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING CURBSAWCUT EXISTING AC

REMOVE (E) AC DIKEREMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTERREMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK

SAW CUT EXISTING SIDEWALK
REMOVE SMALL TREES AND VEGETATIONREMOVE LARGE TREESREMOVE EXISTING ACPRUNE TREE ROOTS WHERE PAVEMENT HAS LIFTED IN THIS AREAREMOVE APPROXIMATELY 100 LF OF EXISTING 4" FIRE WATER SERVICE AND BACK FLOWPREVENTER BACK TO THE MAIN AND ABANDON PER SVWD STANDARDS.REMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLREMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNS AND RELOCATEREMOVE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINEREMOVE EXISTING GAS LINEREMOVE EXISTING WATER SERVICE BACK TO MAIN AND ABANDON PER SVWD

STANDARDS

REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
5 SURVEY INFORMATION
SURVEYOR:

ALPHA SURVEY
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DRIVE
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066OFFICE: 831.438.4420
6 789
10 11
BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATION = NORTH ELEVATION DATUM:ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATION = NAVD88 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT
NOTES: 1. DATE OF SURVEY: FEBRUARY 2019.

2. SITE ADDRESS: 125 BETHANY AVENUE, SCOTTS VALLEY, CA.3. ALL DISTANCES ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.4. ALL BEARINGS ARE SHOWN IN DEGREES, MINUTES AND SECONDS.

5. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS FROM UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE AND SURFACE OBSERVATION ONLY AND MAY NOT BE COMPLETE.

6. IF ANY INDICATIONS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, ALL WORK SHALL BE HALTED WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE FIND. ARCHEOLOGIST SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE DURING ALL EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES.
12 13
14 EXISTING PERVIOUS PAVEMENT QUANTITIES
EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED: 12,200 SQ FT.EXISTING AC PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED: 19,600 SQ FT.EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED: 5,110 SQ FT.

TOTAL TO BE REMOVED: 36,910 SQ FT.
15 16
1718
REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.

REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.
10-06-23

Page 118 of 500 ends

C2.1
1" = 20'
SITE

IMPROVEMENTS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23

CONCRETE SIDEWALK BIORETENTION
STORM DRAIN DROP INLET MANHOLE MATCHLINE TYPE "A" CURB & GUTTER TYPE "C" CURB DIMENSION TO FACE OF CURB ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS

1. MATCH AC @ SAWCUT LINE

2. MATCH CONCRETE @ SAWCUT LINE3. CONCRETE SIDEWALK

4. CONCRETE TYPE-C CURB

5. CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER6. CONCRETE CURB TAPER7. TYPE-V VALLEY GUTTER

8. RETAINING WALL9. CONCRETE FLUSH CURB

10. CONCRETE WHEEL STOP11. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON12. LIGHT DUTY AC PAVEMENT13. TRUNCATED DOMES14. ROLLED CURB15. SLURRY 1 2 PUBLIC ROAD WAY

16. BIKE LANE STRIPING17. CENTER LINE STRIPE18. 2" AC GRIND AND OVERLAY19. TEMPORARY TRUCK LOADING/UNLOADING ZONE (8.0'X60.0')

20. MODIFIED TYPE "A" CURB & GUTTER

SQ FT ACRES
NEW
BUILDING 19,253 0.442FRONT PARKING 3,760MIDDLE DRIVEWAY (outside of covered area) 3,840UPPER PARKING 6,920 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS 3,250
TOTAL NEW AND REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA 42,045 0.965
LEGEND

SHEET NOTES

OFFICE WITH
OFFICE/STORAGE - 3
OFFICE/STORAGE -6

STORAGE

PROFESSIONAL
1ST FLOOR
SPACE OFFICE - 2
STORAGE - 1

RETAINING WALL PARKING STALL COUNT XX
Site Plan Rev 7-2021 TC
Scale: 1" = 3'

STANDARD ACCESS DRIVE & PARKING
1 Scale: 1" = 3'
20'-WIDE DRIVE
2 SLURRY LIMITS
compact compact compact compact compact compact E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking
1 2
34 56
7 8
13 11
14 1516
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 12
28 27
26 25
29 32
30 24
31 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 45
46 47
48 49
54 41
42 43
44 50
51 52
9 10
53 SUBGRADE SHALL BE OVER-EXCAVATED
AND RECOMPACTED 1' BELOW FINISHED

SUB-BASE PER THE SOILS REPORT
CL (N) AC PAVEMENT TYPE "A" CURB AND GUTTER
BLDG
FF=686.50

BUILDING FOOTING (TO BE

PROVIDED BY STRUCTURAL

ENGINEER (TYP)

SUBGRADE SHALL BE OVER-EXCAVATED
AND RECOMPACTED 1' BELOW FINISHED

SUB-BASE PER THE SOILS REPORT

AC PAVEMENT
TYPE "A" CURB - FLUSH TYPE "A" CURB - Flush
3 9.0' 9.0' 9.0' 9.0' 9.0' 9.0' 10-06-23
3 3
Planning Comments10-6-23 TC

Page 119 of 500 ends

C3.1
1" = 20'

GRADING AND

DRAINAGE PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

GENERAL GRADING NOTES

1. SURFACE VEGETATION PRESENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE STRIPPED TOGETHER WITH ORGANIC LADEN TOPSOIL. THE ACTUAL DEPTH SHOULD BE DETERMINED BYTHE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR PLANNIG PURPOSESTHE AVERAGE DEPTH MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE 3-INCHES IN VEGETATED AREAS.

2. ALL MATERIAL TO BE USED AS FILL WITHIN BUILDING PAD AREAS & PARKING OR DRIVEWAY

AREAS TO BE FREE OF ALL VEGETATION
& FOREIGN MATTER AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER.

3. THESE SOILS WILL NEED TO BE PROCESSED; MOISTURE CONDITIONED AND RECOMPACTED AS ENGINEERED FILL. AT

A MINIMUM, SUBGRADE SHOULD BE SACRIFIED TO

A DEPTH OF
8-INCHES; MOISTURE CONDITIONED AND RECOMPACTED AS RECOMMENDED IN THEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

4. BUILDING PAD TO BE LEVEL SIDE-TO-SIDE, FRONT-TO-REAR, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.

5. STRIPPINGS MAY BE PLACED IN PLANTING AREAS; ALL EXCESS STRIPPING SHALL BE HAULED OFF. PAVING DEBRIS SHALL BE HAULED OFF TO AN APPROVED DISPOSAL SITE.

6. ALL WORK SHOWN OR NOTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERALMINIMUM STANDARDS AND THE LATEST ADDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.

7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL DURING CONSTRUCTION. THEY SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO NEW CONDITION AT THEIR EXPENSE.

8. VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, SITE DIMENSIONS AND GRADES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.

9. ALL GRADING AND RELATED WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE PROJECT.

10. GRADING SLOPES FOR BOTH CUT AND FILL SHALL NOT EXCEED 2(H):1(V) UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

11. ALL SOFTSCAPE GRADES ADJACENT TO (N) BUILDINGS SHALL BE 8" (MIN.) BELOW FINISH FLOOR.

12. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE TO ENSURE DRAINAGE FLOWS AWAY FROM (N) BUILDINGS.13. IF ANY INDICATIONS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, ALL WORK SHALL BE HALTEDWITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE FIND. ARCHEOLOGIST SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE DURINGALL EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES.

NOTE: THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE

EXCLUSIVE OF WALL FOOTINGS, EXISTING PAVEMENT REMOVAL

AND OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION, UTILITY TRENCH SPOILS & SOIL EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION FACTORS.

ITEM DESCRIPTION CUT (cu.yds) FILL (cu.yds)
1 EG VS. FG 770 1980
NET VOLUME = 1210 CU.YDS. OF FILL
THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY CUT AND FILL TO ACCOMPLISH FINISH GRADE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

STORM WATER POST-CONSTRUCTION

REQUIREMENTS
NET IMPERVIOUS AREA = 45,600 (REFER TO IMPERVIOUS AREA TABLE ON C2.1)PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1 THROUGH 4 ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECTPERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 1 : SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION · DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF ONTO VEGETATED AREAS· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM WALKWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 2 : WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
· BIO-RETENTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 3 : RUNOFF RETENTION
· RETENTION WITHIN ROCKED SECTION OF BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM· PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SET ABOVE RETENTION VOLUME IN ORDER

TO OPTIMIZE INFILTRATION
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 4 : PEAK MANAGEMENT
· PEAK MANAGEMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY DETAINING STORM WATER

ABOVE LIMIT OF RETENTION AND HAVE A RESTRICTOR ON THE OUTLET

STRUCTURE TO RELEASE WATER AT A PRE-DEVELOPMENT RATE
Scale: 1" = 3'

ACCESS DRIVE DRAINAGE TO BIO-RETENTION AREA
1 Scale: NTS

WALL X-SECTION
2 0.7%

1.85%

9.8%

0.25%

2.0%

0.50%
2%

1.0%

0.25%

2.25%

5.0%
18%

5.0%

2.5%

11.0%
FF = 687.00 FF = 690.00 FF = 691.00
FF = 700.04
FF = 691.00

2.0%

1.9%

14.5%

18.0%

10.0%

0.30%

4.5%

1.90%

1.8%

4.40%

0.25%

N
MODIFIED TY3E $
CU5% $ND *UTTE5
C$TC+:
:IDE O3ENIN*S

3 1

Page 120 of 500 ends

C3.2
1" = 20'

STORM WATER

CONTROL PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!
IMPERV Pervious DMA DMA
SQ FT SQ FT REQ Area PROV.Area
DMA 1 20,015 4,220 800 1,200DMA 2 9,375 800 375 509DMA 3 9,579 6,343 383 444DMA 4 --- self treating area --- ____ ______ Total: 1,558 2,153 NET IMPERVIOUS AREA = 42,045 Total Site = 57,499PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1 THROUGH 4 ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECTPERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 1 : SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION · DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF ONTO VEGETATED AREAS· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM WALKWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 2 : WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
· BIO-RETENTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 3 : RUNOFF RETENTION
· RETENTION WITHIN ROCKED SECTION OF BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM· PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SET ABOVE RETENTION VOLUME IN ORDER

TO OPTIMIZE INFILTRATION
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 4 : PEAK MANAGEMENT
· PEAK MANAGEMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY DETAINING STORM WATER

ABOVE LIMIT OF RETENTION AND HAVE A RESTRICTOR ON THE OUTLET

STRUCTURE TO RELEASE WATER AT A PRE-DEVELOPMENT RATE
DMA 1
DMA 3
DMA 4
DMA 2
Planning Comments10-6-23
3 TC
3 10-06-23

Page 121 of 500 ends

C4.1
1" = 20'

UTILITY AND

FIRE SUPPRESSION
PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

POINT OF CONNECTION (POC) TO OFFSITE
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. PER CITY OF SCOTTS
VALLEY

SANITARY SEWER CLEAN-OUT PER CITY OF SCOTTS
VALLEY

SANITARY SEWER NOTES

POINT OF CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER MAINPOTABLE METER AND BOXPOST INDICATOR VALVEDOUBLE DETECTOR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER SVWDREQUIREMENTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION ON FIRE LINENEW VALVE ON MAINLINE WITH CUT IN TEE WATER NOTES:

GENERAL UTILITY NOTES

1. NO CHANGE TO THE PLANS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS AND INVERTS OF EXISTING UTILITY PRIOR TO

COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIANCE FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.

3. UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN BASED ON RECORD DRAWINGS AND VISIBLE EVIDENCE FOUND IN FIELD. NO WARRANTY IS MADE REGARDING THE COMPLETENESS ORACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES, AND PRESERVE SAME FROM DAMAGE. PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION, VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THECROSSING POINTS WITH PROPOSED UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OROWNERS REPRESENTATIVES IF CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND SHALL NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE CHANGED CONDITION HAS BEEN EVALUATED.

CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT (USA) (1-800-227-2600) TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITHCONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATED AND PRESERVE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COORDINATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY

5. IF ANY INDICATIONS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, ALL WORK SHALL BE HALTEDWITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE FIND. OWNER SHALL RETAIN A QUALIFIED ARCHEOLOGIST RETAINED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE DISCOVERY AND RECOMMEND APPROPRIATEEVALUATION PROCEDURES PER ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT. ARCHEOLOGIST SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE DURING ALL EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES.

UNDERGROUND NOTES

1. STORMDRAIN PIPE SHALL BE SDR-26 P.V.C., A.D.S. N-12 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE, OR AS NOTED ON PLAN. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE SHALLBE SHIPPED, STORED, AND INSTALLED PER THE PIPE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

2. ALL CONCRETE DRAINAGE INLETS CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS SHALL BE CHRISTY BRAND PRECAST CONCRETE OR EQUIVALENT. ALL STRUCTURES SHALL BE STORED, HANDLED, AND INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL GRATES IN PAVEMENT AREAS SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT.

3. ALL CONCRETE DRAINAGE INLETS CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS SHALL HAVE A HEAVY RATED FRAME WITH A ADA COMPLIANT GRATE. CATCH BASINS THAT HAVE SILT AND GREASE TRAPS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN.

4. SANITARY SEWER TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SANTA CRUZ SEWER PIPE TRENCH DETAIL.

5. JETTING OF BACKFILL MATERIALS TO ACHIEVE COMPACTION IS NOT ALLOWED.

6. ALL THE WATER PIPING SHALL BE AWWA CLASS 150 OR APPROVED EQUAL, ALL VALVES , ANGLES, AND THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CURRENT CPC SPECIFICATIONS.

7. ALL FIRE SERVICE PIPING AND APPURTENANCES SHALL CONFORM TO NFPA STANDARDS AND

SPECIFICATIONS

8. ANY EXISTING UTILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE RELOCATED AS A PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RELOCATED AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. 2 2
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SSMH #4
48 ∅
700.2
688.0
INV=685.0
INV=684.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #5
2 x 3
700.1698.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #4
2 x 3
690.30688.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2 x 2
685.5682.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2x3
685.9684.2
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #2
2 x 2
684.5681.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #3
48 ∅
685.5680.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #1
2 x 2
684.0679.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #1
48 ∅
685.25677.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=

EX DI
2x3
681.35676.31
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=

EX SSMH
48 ∅
683.54675.61
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=

EX SSMH
48 ∅
690.6683.4
INV=677.5
INV=682.0
INV=685.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #2
48 ∅
685.00675.5
INV=685.0

Page 122 of 500 ends

C5.1
1" = 20'

EROSION

CONTROL
PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

SILT FENCE
· PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY, FOR THE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS:· INSPECTIONS DURING INSTALLATION OF ANY REQUIRED STORM WATER LID (LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT) FEATURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) SUCH AS INSTALLATION OFPERMEABLE PAVERS, PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, BIO-SWALES, BIO-RETENTION AREAS ANDRETENTION/INFILTRATION FACILITIES. · INSPECTIONS DURING INSTALLATION OF ANY REQUIRED STORM WATER QUALITY TREATMENT UNITS SUCH
BIO-PLANTERS, BIO-FILTRATION TREE UNITS, PERK FILTERS, CUDOS, STORM WATER FILTER UNITS,ETC. · FINAL INSPECTION FOR STORM WATER ONCE THE WORK IS COMPLETED AS PART OF THE PERMIT “SIGN-OFF” PROCESS.

INSPECTIONS
LEGEND

STRAW WADDLE/FIBER
ROLL

DIRECTION OF FLOW WITH

STORM DRAIN INSTALLED

STABILIZED

CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE/EXIT

SANITARY FACILITY

CONCRETE/WASTE WASHOUT
C

MATERIALS &EQUIPMENT

STORAGE AREA
NOTE: SEE SHEET C5.2 FOR

BMP NOTES AND DETAILS

SWPPP MANAGER TO MARK

KNOWN LOCATIONS
FILTREXX 8" SOXX W/MIRAFI 140N FABRIC

1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS

REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND ASSOCIATED BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS.

2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE BACK-UP EROSION PREVENTION MEASURES (SOIL STABILIZATION) WITH SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SUCH AS STRAW WATTLES, SILT FENCE, FILTREX 8" SOXX AND MIRAFI 140N, AND/OR SEDIMENT TRAPS OR BASINS. ENSURE CONTROL MEASURES ARE ADEQUATE, IN PLACE, AND IN OPERABLE CONDITIONS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDING INLET PROTECTION, ARE NECESSARY BUT SHOULD BE A SECONDARY DEFENSE BEHIND GOOD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.

3. ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED THROUGHOUT THE SEASON. REPLACEMENT SUPPLIES SHOULD BE KEPT ON SITE.

4. SITE INSPECTIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED BEFORE AND AFTER EACH STORM EVENT, AND EVERY 24

HOURS FOR EXTENDED STORM EVENTS, TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT PROBLEMS OR ANY OTHER POLLUTANT DISCHARGES. IF ADDITIONAL MEASURES ARE NEEDED, REVISE THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND IMPLEMENT THE MEASURES IMMEDIATELY. DOCUMENT ALL INSPECTION FINDINGS AND ACTIONS TAKEN.

5. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF.

6. BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND APRIL 15, EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AT ALL TIMES. HAY BALES, FILTER BERMS, OR OTHER MEANS SHALL BE EMPLOYED TO PREVENT TURBID RUNOFFTO ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

7. UNNECESSARY GRADING AND DISTURBING OR SOIL SHALL BE AVOIDED.

8. ANY EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE OR STOCKPILED IN

A MANNER TO AVOID
RUNOFF ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

9. ANY MATERIAL STOCKPILED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC.

10. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EARTHWORK BEGINS.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE FILTER FABRIC AND ALL SEDIMENT BARRIERS FROM STORM DRAIN INLET UPON COMPLETION OF PROJECT.

GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES
C
C
C
10-06-23

Page 123 of 500 ends

C5.2
1" = 20'

EROSION

CONTROL

DETAILS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
PONDING HT.

STANDARD DETAIL

TRENCH WITH NATIVE BACKFILL
12" MIN.

FLOW
FLOW
RUNOFF
8"
GRAVEL
FLOW
12" MIN.

RUNOFF

ALTERNATE DETAIL

TRENCH WITH GRAVEL
PONDING HT.

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONSTHE HEIGHT OF A SILT FENCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 36 INCHES. STORAGE HEIGHT SHALL NEVER EXCEED 18". THE FENCE LINE SHALL FOLLOW THE CONTOUR AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.

IF POSSIBLE, THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE CUT FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL TO AVOID THE USE OF JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY,FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE SPLICED ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST, WITH AMINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND BOTH ENDS SECURELY FASTENED TO THEPOST.POSTS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND (MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES). WHEN EXTRASTRENGTH FABRIC IS USED WITHOUT THE WIRE SUPPORT FENCE, POSTSPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 6 FEET. TURN THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UPHILL.

A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 6

INCHES DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.

WHEN STANDARD-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC IS USED, A WIRE MESH

SUPPORT FENCE SHALL BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING HEAVY DUTY WIRE STAPLES AT LEAST 1 INCH LONG,TIE WIRES OR HOG RINGS. THE WIRE SHALL EXTEND INTO THE TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES AND SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE.THE STANDARD-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STAPLED OR WIREDTO THE FENCE, AND 6 INCHES OF THE FABRIC SHALL EXTEND INTO THETRENCH. THE FABRIC SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVETHE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. FILTER FABRIC SHALL NOT BE STAPLEDTO EXISTING TREES.WHEN EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSER POST SPACING ARE USED, THE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE ELIMINATED. IN SUCH A

CASE, THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPLED OR WIRED DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS.

THE TRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND THE SOIL COMPACTED OVER THETOE OF THE FILTER FABRIC.

SILT FENCES PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE SHALL BE SET AT LEAST 6 FEET FROM THE TOE IN ORDER TO INCREASE PONDING VOLUME.

SILT FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR

USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEENPERMANENTLY STABILIZED, AND ANY SEDIMENT STORED BEHIND THE SILT FENCE HAS BEEN REMOVED.INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCESILT FENCES AND FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM (1" IN 24 HR.). ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN IT REACHES 1/3 HEIGHT OF THE FENCE OR 9 INCHES MAXIMUM.

THE REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL VEGETATE OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED.

Scale: NTS

SILT FENCE
2 FILTER FABRIC EXTRA STRENGTH NEEDED

MESH SUPPORT WITHOUT WIRE
STREET

WHEEL WASH AREA

PROPERTY LINE
15' RADIUS (TYP)
STD. CURB
20' MINIMUM WIDTH

RAMP - FULL WIDTH

OF ENTRY

DRAINAGE

SILT FENCE (SEE SILT

FENCE DETAIL)
50' MIN.

Scale: NTS

ROCKED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
1 NOTE:

1. INSPECT AND REPAIR FENCE AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY.

2. REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WILL

NOT CONTRIBUTE SEDIMENT OFF-SITE AND CAN BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.

3. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY.

STEEL OR

WOOD POST
10 FT MAX SPACING WITH

WIRE SUPPORT FENCE
6 FT MAX SPACING WITHOUT

WIRE SUPPORT FENCE
WOOD
POST 36"

HIGH MAX

FILTER FABRIC ATTACH
SECURELY TO UPSTREAMSIDE OF POST.
9" MAX.
(RECOMMENDED)
STORAGE HT.
4"x6" TRENCHWITH COMPACTED

BACKFILL
Scale: NTS

FIBER ROLLS
3 2" MIN
4" MAX
12"
MIN
LOCATE FIBER ROLLS ON LEVEL CONTOURS SPACED AS FOLLOWS:
- SLOPE INCLINATION OF 4 :1 (H:V) OR FLATTER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 20 FT.
- SLOPE INCLINATION BETWEEN 4:1 AND 2:1 (H:V) FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 15 FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MOREEFFECTIVE). - SLOPE INCLINATION OF 2:1 (H:V) OR GREATER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 10 FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MOREEFFECTIVE). - TURN THE ENDS OF THE FIBER ROLL UP SLOPE TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM GOING AROUND THE ROLL. STAKE FIBER ROLLS INTO A 2 TO 4 IN. DEEP TRENCH WITH A WIDTH EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE FIBER ROLL.
- DRIVE STAKES AT THE END OF EACH FIBER ROLL AND SPACED 4 FT MAXIMUM ON CENTER.
- USE WOOD STAKES WITH A NOMINAL CLASSIFICATION OF 0.75 BY 0.75 IN. AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 24 IN.
- IF MORE THAN ONE FIBER ROLL IS PLACED IN A ROW, THE ROLLS SHOULD BE OVERLAPPED, NOT ABUTTED. REPAIR OR REPLACE SPLIT, TORN, UNRAVELINGOR SLUMPING FIBER ROLLS.

IF THE FIBER ROLL IS USED AS A SEDIMENT CAPTURE

DEVICE, OR AS AN EROSION CONTROL DEVICE TOMAINTAIN SHEET FLOWS, SEDIMENT THAT

ACCUMULATES IN THE BMP MUST BE PERIODICALLY
REMOVED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN BMP EFFECTIVENESS.

SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN SEDIMENT

ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE-HALF THE DESIGNATED

SEDIMENT STORAGE DEPTH, USUALLY ONE-HALF THE

DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE FIBER ROLL AND
THE ADJACENT GROUND SURFACE. SEDIMENT REMOVED

DURING THE MAINTENANCE MAY BE INCORPORATED

INTO EARTHWORK ON THE SITE OR DISPOSED AT AN
APPROPRIATE LOCATION.

EROSION CONTROL BMP'S

ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES

DELINEATE CLEARING LIMITS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS, TREES, DRAINAGE

COURSES, AND BUFFER ZONES TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE OR UNNECESSARY DISTURBANCE AND EXPOSURE OF SOIL.

1. IDENTIFY ALL STORM DRAINS, DRAINAGE SWALES AND CREEKS LOCATED NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MAKE SURE ALL SUBCONTRACTORS ARE AWARE OFTHEIR LOCATIONS TO PREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING THEM.

2. PRESERVE EXISTING VEGETATION, WHERE REQUIRED AND WHEN FEASIBLE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE.

3. PHASE GRADING OPERATIONS, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, TO LIMIT AREAS OF

DISTURBANCE AND TIME OF EXPOSURE

4. AVOID AND/OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING DURING WET WEATHER AND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING EXPECTED WET WEATHER.

5. MINIMIZE CUTS AND FILLS.

6. IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EROSION, MANAGE STORM WATER RUNOFF,

AND PREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FROM ENTERING STORM DRAINS.

7. ALIGN TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ROADS AND DRIVEWAYS ALONG SLOPE CONTOURS.

8. WASH VEHICLES AT AN APPROPRIATE OFF-SITE FACILITY. IF EQUIPMENT MUST BE

WASHED ON-SITE, USE WASH DOWN AREAS DEVELOPED FOR SPECIFIC SITE REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. DO NOTUSE SOAPS, SOLVENTS, DEGREASERS, OR STEAM CLEANING EQUIPMENT, ANDPREVENT WASH WATER FROM ENTERING STORM DRAINS.

MINIMIZE SOIL MOVEMENT

1. STOCKPILED SOIL AND MATERIALS SHOULD BE COVERED AND STABILIZED WITH

TARPS, GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, HYDROSEEDING AND/OR EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS.

2. CREATE A BERM AND/OR INSTALL SILT FENCING AROUND STOCKPILED MATERIALS TO PREVENT STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM TRANSPORTING SEDIMENT OFFSITE.

3. USE STANDARD EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, PLANTING, MULCHING, GEOTEXTILE

FABRIC AND/OR EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS TO STABILIZE DISTURBED SOIL AND REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION.

4. USE OTHER SOIL STABILIZERS AS APPROVED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

STRUCTURES TO CONTROL AND CONVEY RUNOFF

1. CONVEY RUNOFF BY USE OF EARTH DIKES, DRAINAGE SWALES AND/OR DITCHES WHEN FEASIBLE.

2. USE SLOPE DRAINS TO COLLECT AND CONVEY WATER FOR DISCHARGE BELOW SLOPES WHEN FEASIBLE.

3. USE VELOCITY DISSIPATION DEVICES, FLARED CULVERT END SECTIONS AND/OR

CHECK DAMS TO REDUCE RUNOFF VELOCITY AND MITIGATE EROSION WHEN FEASIBLE.

CAPTURE SEDIMENT

1. USE TERRACING, RIPRAP, SAND BAGS, ROCKS, APPROVED TEMPORARY VEGETATION AND/OR OTHER APPROVED BMP’S ON SLOPES TO REDUCE RUNOFFVELOCITY AND TRAP SEDIMENTS. DO NOT USE ASPHALT RUBBLE OR OTHER DEMOLITION DEBRIS FOR THIS PURPOSE.

2. PROTECT STORM DRAIN INLETS FROM SEDIMENT-LADEN RUNOFF. STORM DRAIN

INLET PROTECTION DEVICES INCLUDE GRAVEL BAGS, FILTER FABRIC FENCES AND BLOCK AND GRAVEL FILTERS.

OTHER RUNOFF CONTROLS

1. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN

2. SEDIMENT TRAP3. BRUSH OR ROCK FILTER

4. SILT FENCE

5. SAND OR GRAVEL BAG BARRIER

TRACKING CONTROL

1. IMPLEMENT MEASURES AS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE TRACKING OF SOIL OFF SITE

2. USE DRY SWEEPING METHODS WHEN CLEANING SEDIMENTS FROM STREETS, DRIVEWAYS AND PAVED AREAS BY HAND. WHEN USING MECHANICAL STREET

SWEEPERS, USE FINE WATER SPRAY TO REDUCE DUST AND IMPROVE SEDIMENT REMOVAL WHILE MINIMIZING RUNOFF.

PAINT WORK

1. DO NOT CLEAN PAINT BRUSHES OR RINSE PAINT CONTAINERS INTO A STREET, GUTTER, STORM DRAIN, OR CREEK.

2. FOR WATER-BASED PAINTS, PAINT OUT BRUSHES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND RINSE TO A DRAIN LEADING TO THE SANITARY SEWER (I.E., INDOOR PLUMBING).

3. FOR OIL-BASED PAINTS, PAINT OUT BRUSHES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, AND FILTER AND REUSE THINNERS AND SOLVENTS. DISPOSE OF UNUSABLE THINNERS, OIL-BASED PAINT, SLUDGES AND RESIDUE AS HAZARDOUS WASTE.

4. NON-HAZARDOUS PAINT CHIPS AND DUST FROM DRY STRIPPING AND SAND BLASTING MAY BE SWEPT UP OR COLLECTED IN PLASTIC DROP CLOTHS ANDDISPOSED OF AS TRASH. CHEMICAL PAINT STRIPPING RESIDUE AND CHIPS ANDDUST FROM MARINE PAINTS OR PAINTS CONTAINING LEAD OR TRIBUTYL TINMUST BE DISPOSED OF AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE.

5. WHEN STRIPPING OR CLEANING BUILDING EXTERIORS WITH HIGH-PRESSURE WATER, COVER OR BERM STORM DRAIN INLETS. COLLECT (MOP OR VACUUM) BUILDING CLEANING WATER FOR DISPOSAL IN A PRE-AUTHORIZED MANNER.

6. RECYCLE, RETURN TO SUPPLIER OR DONATE UNWANTED WATER-BASED (LATEX) PAINT.

7. DRIED LATEX PAINT MAY BE DISPOSED OF IN THE TRASH.CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORK

1. AVOID MIXING EXCESS AMOUNTS OF FRESH CONCRETE OR CEMENT MORTAR ON-SITE.

2. STORE DRY AND WET CONCRETE AND CEMENT UNDER COVER, PROTECTED FORM RAINFALL AND RUNOFF.

3. WASH OUT CONCRETE TRANSIT MIXERS ONLY IN DESIGNATED WASH-OUT AREAS.

WHENEVER POSSIBLE, RECYCLE WASHOUT BY PUMPING BACK INTO MIXERS FOR REUSE. DO NOT DISPOSE OF WASHOUT INTO THE STREET, STORM DRAINS,DRAINAGE DITCHES, OR CREEKS. DESIGNATED WASH-OUT AREAS MUST BEMAINTAINED TO PREVENT OVER FLOW.

4. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, RETURN CONTENTS OF MIXER BARREL TO THE OFF-SITE YARD FOR RECYCLING. DISPOSE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF EXCESS CONCRETE, GROUT, AND MORTAR IN THE TRASH.

ROADWORK/PAVEMENT

5. APPLY CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND SEAL COAT DURING DRY WEATHER TO PREVENT CONTAMINANTS FROM CONTACTING STORMWATER RUNOFF.

6. COVER STORM DRAIN INLETS AND MANHOLES WHEN PAVING OR APPLYING SEAL COAT, SLURRY SEAL, FOG SEAL, AND SIMILAR MATERIALS.

7. ALWAYS PARK PAVING MACHINES OVER DRIP PANS OR ABSORBENT MATERIALS, SINCE THEY TEND TO DRIP CONTINUOUSLY.

8. WHEN MAKING SAW-CUTS IN PAVEMENT, USE AS LITTLE WATER AS POSSIBLE.

COVER POTENTIALLY AFFECTED STORM DRAIN INLETS COMPLETELY WITH FILTER

FABRIC DURING THE SAWING OPERATION AND CONTAIN THE SLURRY BY WET-VACUUMING, OR BY PLACING STRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, OR GRAVEL DAMSAROUND THE CATCH BASINS. AFTER THE LIQUID DRAINS OR EVAPORATES, SHOVEL

OR VACUUM THE SLURRY RESIDUE FROM THE PAVEMENT OR GUTTER AND REMOVE FROM SITE.

9. WASH DOWN EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE ONLY WHEN THE WASH WATER CAN: (1) FLOW ONTO A DIRT AREA; (2) DRAIN ONTO A BERMED SURFACE FROM WHICH IT CAN BE PUMPED AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY; OR (3) BE VACUUMED FROM THE AREA ALONG THE CURB WHERE SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED BYBLOCKING A STORM DRAIN INLET.

10. ALLOW AGGREGATE RINSE TO SETTLE, AND PUMP THE WATER TO THE SANITARY SEWER IF ALLOWED BY YOUR LOCAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY.

11. DO NOT WASH SWEEPINGS FROM EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE INTO A STREET OR STORM DRAIN. COLLECT AND RETURN TO AGGREGATE BASESTOCKPILE, OR DISPOSE WITH TRASH.

12. RECYCLE BROKEN CONCRETE AND ASPHALT.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILL PREVENTION, SPILL REPORTING

AND RESPONSE

1. ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED SO THAT THEY ARE PROTECTED FROM INCLEMENT WEATHER AND VANDALISM.

2. MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL NOT BE FUELED ON THE PROJECT SITE.3. SPILL CONTAINMENT MEASURES MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO FUELING WHEN FUELING EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN MOTOR VEHICLES.

4. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, OTHER THAN EMERGENCY REPAIRS, SHALL NOT BE PERFORMED ON THE PROJECT SITE.

5. APPROPRIATE EMERGENCY SPILL CONTAINMENT SUPPLIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR.

6. SPILLS GREATER THAN ONE QUART SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNTY INSPECTOR.

7. SPILLS SHALL BE DIKED OR CONTAINED BY TRAINED PERSONNEL TO PREVENT THE

SPILLED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FROM ENTERING THE STORM WATER SYSTEM OR LEAVING THE PROJECT SITE.

8. SPILLS OF LESS THAN FIVE (5) GALLONS SHALL BE ABSORBED USING AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. ALL CONTAMINATED MATERIALS SHALL BE

CONTAINERIZED, REMOVED FROM THE JOBSITE AND DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.

9. SPILLS IN EXCESS OF FIVE (5) GALLONS SHALL BE ABSORBED USING AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL AND PLACED IN CONTAINERS UNDER THE DIRECTION OFTHE COUNTY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.

10. ANY CONTAMINATED SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND REPLACED WITH ACCEPTABLE FRESH SOIL.

11. RESPONSE SHALL BE CARRIED OUT BY APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSONNEL UTILIZING SAFE PRACTICES.

GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES

1. DO NOT WASH DOWN PAVEMENT OR SURFACES WHERE SILT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OR MATERIALS HAVE SPILLED. USE DRY CLEANUP METHODS.

2. AVOID CONTAMINATING CLEAN RUNOFF FROM AREAS ADJACENT TO YOUR SITE BY USING BERMS AND/OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCHES TODIVERT WATER FLOW AROUND THE SITE.

3. COVER EXPOSED PILES OF SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND WASTES WITH PLASTIC SHEETING OR TEMPORARY ROOFS. BEFORE IT RAINS, SWEEP ANDREMOVE MATERIALS FROM SURFACES THAT DRAIN TO STORM DRAINS, CREEKS, OR CHANNELS.

4. PLACE TRASH CANS AROUND THE SITE TO REDUCE POTENTIAL LITTER. DISPOSE

OF NON-HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION WASTES IN COVERED DUMPSTERS OR RECYCLING RECEPTACLES. RECYCLE LEFTOVER MATERIALS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

5. DISPOSE OF ALL WASTES PROPERLY. MATERIALS THAT CAN NOT BE REUSED OR RECYCLED MUST BE TAKEN TO AN APPROPRIATE LANDFILL OR DISPOSED OF ASHAZARDOUS WASTE, AS APPROPRIATE.

6. COVER OPEN DUMPSTERS WITH PLASTIC SHEETING OR A TARP DURING RAINY WEATHER. SECURE THE SHEETING OR TARP AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE DUMPSTER. IF THE DUMPSTER HAS A COVER, CLOSE IT.

7. TRAIN YOUR EMPLOYEES AND INFORM CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS

ABOUT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR COMPLIANCE.

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

VERTICAL SPACING

MEASURED ALONG

THE FACE OF THE

SLOPE VARIES
BETWEEN 10' AND
20'
NOTE: INSTALLFIBER ROLL ALONG

A LEVEL CONTOUR

INSTALL A FIBER ROLL

NEAR SLOPE WHERE IT

TRANSITIONS INTO A

STEEPER SLOPE
4' MAX
4' MAX
4' MAX
4' MAX

FIBERROLLS
SLOPE VARIES FIBER ROLL 8"
∅ MIN
3/4"X3/4"
WOOD
STAKES
FILTREXX® 8" SOXX™
CURB
SECURE SOXX™ TO GRATE WITH

RUBBER TIE DOWNS

DRAIN INLET PLAN DRAIN INLET SECTION
NOTES:

1. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET FILTREXX® SPECIFICATIONS.

2. FILTER MEDIA™ FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

3. COMPOST MATERIAL TO BE DISPERSED ON SITE, AS DETERMINED BY ENGINEER.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXTEND MIRAFI 140N FABRIC 6" BEYOND CATCH BASIN AFTER PLACEMENT OF GRATE

5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FILTER FABRIC FROM ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS UPON COMPLETION OF PROJECT EXCESS SOXX™ MATERIAL TO BE
DRAWN IN AND TIED OFF TO 2x2

WOODEN STAKE
FILTREXX® 8" SOXX™
CATCH
BASIN
CATCH
BASIN

CURBSIDE SECTION
MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
WIRE TIES, (TYP.) STORM GRATE
EXCESS SOXX™ MATERIAL TO BE
DRAWN IN AND TIED OFF TO 2x2
WOODEN STAKE, (TYP.)
CURB
FILTREXX® 8" SOXX™
CURBSIDE OPTION "B" PLAN
CURB

STORM GRATE
CURBSIDE OPTION "A" PLAN
MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
Scale: NTS
FILTREX® INLET PROTECTION
4 10-06-23

Page 124 of 500 ends

C6.1
1" = 20'

DETAILS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Scale: NTS
MODIFIED TYPE "A" CURB & GUTTER
5 FLOW LINE OF BIO-RETENTION

3.0'
3' OPENINGS IN 6" VERTICAL CURB AT

BIORETENTION AREAS (TYP)
6" VERTICAL CURB

CONCRETE MOWBAND
NOTES:

1. OUTSIDE OF PARKING STALL CONTRACTOR MAY
ADJUST OPENINGS ±1 FT IN LENGTH AS NEEDED

1.33' GUTTER PAN

2.5' DEEPENED EDGE W/ #4 @24" O.C.

INSTALL 6" WIDE STRIP OF
RIP-RAP @ CURB & GUTTER
OPENINGS. ENSURE THAT
THERE IS A 1" CLEAR FROMTOP OF RIP-RAP TO CURB
OPENING.

3.0'

3.0'
(N) 4" THICK CONCRETE SLAB(3,000 PSI)
FG
SUBGRADE @ 95%

RELATIVE COMPACTION
4" THICK CLASS II

AGGREGATE BASE ROCK
Scale: NTS

CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION
2 #4 REBAR @ 24" OC EW
Scale: NTS

CONCRETE CURB & CURB TAPER
3 Scale: NTS

AC PAVEMENT SECTION
1 (N) 9" AB CLASS II COMPACTED
TO 95% R.C.

CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY AND
RECOMPACT 12" BELOW (N) BASE
TO 95% R.C.
(N) 4" AC TYPE A - 1/2" MAX. MED. LIFTS SHALL

BE CONDUCTED PER CAL TRANS SPECS SECTION
39-6.01
Scale: NTS

ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL DETAIL
8 Scale: NTS TRUNCATED DOME DETAIL
9 Scale: NTS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE DETAIL 10

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
4" WIDE BLUE STRIPE

PAINT ALL CONCRETE CURBSBLUE WITHIN ACCESSIBLEPARKING SPACES 3" WIDE BLUE STRIPES AT
PERIMETER AND 2" WIDE AT
INTERIOR, AND 36" O.C. TYP.3'-0" X 3'-0" PAINTEDSYMBOL TYP OF 2 WITHIN PATH PAINT THEWORDS "NO PARKING" IN
12" HIGH LETTERS MIN.

VAN

ACCESSIBLE
SPACE
18'-0" MIN.
9'-0"
MIN
8'-0" (OR 5'-0" SEE PLAN) 9'-0"
45°
2'-0" PRECAST CONCRETE BUMPER. TYP OF 2
1'-0"

ADA PARKING SIGN
(TYP FOR 2)

1.67" APPROX.

2.35" APART

2.35" APART
A
A
.9" AT BASE
.45" AT TOP
.2 HT.

TYPICAL SECTION A - A

TYPICAL PLAN

TAPERED EDGES

WHERE EXPOSED

AFFIX TO

CONCRETE WITH

THICKENED EPOXY
NOTE: AT MINIMUM, 4" CONC. OVER 2" SAND IS REQUIREDBENEATH ALL TRUNCATED DOMES. INSTALLING TRUNCATEDDOMES ON ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.

CONCRETESECTION (PCC)
REQUIRED. SEENOTE BELOW
12W X 18"H REFLECTOR.

SIGN PANEL MINIMUM OF
16 GA. GALV. STEEL W/
PORCLEAIN ENAMELFINISH. WHITE FIGURE ON
A BLUE BACKGROUND. THE
BLUE COLOR SHALL BE EQ.

TO COLOR NO. 15090 IN
FEDEREAL STANDARD595a. ALL LETTERS TO BE PARKING MIN. OF 1" IN HIGH.

ONLY

FOR STANDARD

ACCESSIBLE STALLS ISA

SYMBOL ONLY IS
REQUIRED. FOR VAN

ACCESSIBLE STALLS ISA

SYMBOL AND LETTERING
"VAN ACCESSIBLE" ISREQUIRED. (CBC 1129B.5)
VAN

ACCESSIBLE

MINIMUM
FINE $250
PER IR 11B-7 6" MIN
6'-8"
1'-2" MIN.
3"
2'-6"
(4) #3 REBAR, ONE @ EA.

CORNER
1/4" TYP.

FINISH SURFACE
CONC. FOOTING
2" x 2" GALV. STEEL TUBE

BOTTOM OF SIGN
Scale: NTS
POST INDICATOR VALVE 11
KENNEDY/CLOW INDICATOR POST TYPE 2945A
TELESCOPING BARREL SIZE "B" (Paint: Red)

TAMPER SWITCH (POTTER
PCVS-1 OR SIMILAR APPROVEDBY ENGINEER)

SEE FIRE ALARM PLANS FORCONTINUATION

CONNECTION TO FIRESUPPRESSION SYSTEM

PADDLE LOCK PER

HARDWARE

SPECIFICATIONS

POST INDICATOR VALVE SEEELEVATION BELOW

KENNEDY/CLOW INDICATOR POST
VALVE TO MATE WITH 2945A
POST
Scale: NTS

CONCRETE CURBS & GUTTER TYPES
7 SAND OR AGGREGATE BASE TYPE C CURB

TYPE A CURB AND GUTTER
2" SAND OR A.B.
4" CONCRETE
6"
6" A.B.
2" A.C.
6"
SCORELINE 6" 1-1/2"
R = 1
2" 6" MIN. 12" SEE NOTE #3 REGARDING REBAR

REQUIREMENTS
6"
3/4" *
R = 1"
R = 1
2" 31-1/2" 16" 1-1/2" 6"
6"
1-1/2"
6"

TOP OF CURB

FACE OF CURB
R=1/2"
8"

FLUSH CURB
2" SAND OR A.B.
4" CONCRETE
6"
6" A.B.2" A.C.
8"

SCORELINE
R = 1
2" 8"

1. TYPE A, B, C, & FLUSH CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLASS B CONCRETE, 6 SACK MINIMUM.

2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT 20° INTERVALS, AND AT THE ENDS OF RETURNS. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE AT MAXIMUM 60 FEET SPACING.

3. IF SIDEWALK IS NOT INSTALLED MONOLITHICALLY WITH CURB & GUTTER, PLACE #4 DOWELS 18" LONG AT 4' O.C. IN BACK OF CURB 2" DOWN FROM TOP OF CURB, 6" IN CONCRETE. * COUNTER SLOPE OF ADJOINING GUTTERS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN 24" OF THE CURB RAMP SHALL NOTBE STEEPER 1"V IN 20"H (CBC 11B-406.5.8) ** SLOPE OF GUTTER PAN SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% MAX WITHIN CURB RAMPS, ACCESSIBLE DROP-OFF LOCATIONS, OR

WITHIN ANY OTHER ACCESSIBLE PATHS OF TRAVEL
6"MIN.
11"
30"
14" 16"
6"
3-1/2"

SAND OR AGGREGATE BASE

TOP OF CURB
R=6" R=1/2"

TYPE B CURB AND GUTTER (SPILL)
SLOPE

BOTTOM FACE

OF CURB (BFC)
(BFC)
(BFC)
6"MIN.
9-1/2"
30"
14" 16"
6"
6"
3-1/2"

TOP OF CURB
R=8" R=1/2"

TYPE B CURB AND GUTTER (CATCH)

BOTTOM FACE OF CURB (BFC)
1-1/2"

COMPACT BASE
MATERIAL TO 95%RELATIVE COMPACTION
6"MIN.
9-1/2"
16"
6"
3-1/2"

TOP OF CURB
R=8"
R=1/2"

TYPE B CURB (MODIFIED)

BOTTOM FACE

OF CURB (BFC)

COMPACT BASE MATERIAL
TO 95% RELATIVE

COMPACTION

TYPE V-VALLEY GUTTER
36"
18"
1-1/2" OR (3/8")**
6" MIN.6" MIN.

SAND OR
AGGREGATE BASE COMPACT BASE MATERIAL TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION SEE NOTE ** BELOW FOR SLOPE OF GUTTER

PAN WITHIN ACCESSIBLE DROP-OFF LOCATIONS
R=9"
R=9"
R=9"
#4 BARS CONTINUOUS
AND 3" CLEAR TYPICAL
R=1/2"
#4 BARS CONTINUOUS
AND 3" CLEAR TYPICAL
#4 BARS CONTINUOUS
AND 3" CLEAR TYPICAL
R=1/2"
R=1/2"
TYPE "A" CURB & GUTTER (SEE

PLANS FOR CONTINUATION)
TYPE "B" SPILL AND/OR

CATCH CURB & GUTTER
(SEE PLANS FOR CONTINUATION)

FLOW LINE AND/OR BFC WITHIN

TRANSITION AREA SHALL ALIGN

WITH ADJACENT CURB AND GUTTERS
2'
R=1"

TOP OF CURB

TOP OF PAVEMENT

CONSTRUCTION JOINT
2'
6"
2' TRANSITION

0.67'

CONSTRUCTION JOINT
6"

CONSTRUCTION JOINTCONSTRUCTION JOINT

TYPE A & C CURB AND GUTTER TAPER

TYPE B CURB AND GUTTER TAPER
Scale: NTS

WHEEL STOP
6 2-3/4"
5-1/4"

ELEVATION
PLAN
A
6' 3-1/4"
4-1/2"
9"
#4 x 24" LONG REBAR AT THIRD POINTS, DRIVE
TOP OF REBAR 1/2" TO 3/4" BELOW SURFACE OF

BUMPER & GROUT FLUSHPRECAST CONCRETE BUMPERMASTIC

ASPHALT PAVING OVER AGGREGATE BASE PER
SITE PLAN.

Scale: 1" = 2'

CALSTONE RETAINING WALL SECTION
4 10-06-23

Page 125 of 500 ends

C6.2
1" = 20'

DETAILS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

Engineers/Planners
4444 Scotts Valley Drive / Suite 6
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
T (831) 438-4420 F (831) 438-4420 2

BETHANY PROFESSIONAL
A
B
CD
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 125 BETHANY DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Scale: NTS
SEWER/STORM CLEAN OUT DETAIL 1
PLUG
12"
4" MIN.
12"
CLASS "B" CONCRETE
LONG RADIUS 1/8 BEND

RISER SAME AS MAIN
6" MIN.
12" MIN.

PROVIDE RUBBER EXPANSION PLUG AS
SHOWN. (FOR SEWER ONLY)

FREE-RESTING CAP OVER
OPENING. MATERIAL TO BE
SAME AS RISER.

PEA GRAVEL
6" MIN.
26" MIN. DIA. COLLAR
CHRISTY G5 BOX OR APPROVED EQUAL.COVER MARKED WITH "SEWER" OR "STORM". SEE SHEET C4.1
FG

WYE FITTING
Scale: NTS
STANDARD UTILITY TRENCH 6

PAVING WIDTH
NOTES:

1. TRENCH WIDTH DETERMINED BY PIPE DIAMETER.

2. PAVING WIDTH MAY HAVE TO BE SAW CUT.

3. MAINTAIN 6" VERTICAL CLEARANCE WHEN CROSSING OTHER UTILITIES (EXCEPT SEWER, SEE SEC 15.)
EXIST. PAVING
A.C. PAVING AS REQ'D
1 3
2 TRENCH WIDTH
6" MIN.

IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL
MATERIAL 95%RELATIVE COMPACTION

NATIVE MATERIAL

TRACING WIRE

BASE ROCK
COMPACTED TO 95% R.C.
36"
GENERAL DETAIL NOTES:

1. PAVEMENT SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND, HOWEVER, MIN. REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a. PAVED ROADS - 3" A.C. TYPE B OVER 12" PRIME COATED CLASS 2 A.B.

2. UNLESS CONCRETE BEDDING IS REQUIRED AROUND UTILITY PIPES, FREE-DRAINING CLEAN SAND SHOULD BE USED AS BEDDING. SAND BEDDING SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% R.C.

3. APPROVED IMPORTED CLEAN SAND SHALL BE USED AS UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL. BACKFILL IN TRENCHES LOCATED

IN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AND ADJACENT TO STRUCTURAL FILL, FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SLABS AND PAVEMENTS SHOULD BE PLACED IN HORIZONTAL LAYERS NO MORE THAN 8 INCHES THICK (FOR ALL HARDSCAPE SURFACES). EACH LAYER OF TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE WATER CONDITIONED AND COMPACTED TO 95% R.C.

Scale: nts
ANGLED STORM DRAIN OUTLET 9

SECTIONPLAN
15-7/8"
15-7/8"
3/4"
6-1/4"
3/4"
6" or 12"
12"
22"
9-1/2"
6-1/2"
16" 16"
18-3/8"
18-3/8"11"
1-3/4"
V64-71CGrate
Scale: NTS
V64 CHRISTY BOX 4

THIS CONCRETE DRAIN BOX HAS A CAST-IN GALVANIZED FRAME AND IS SPECIFICALLY

ENGINEERED FOR DRAINAGE IN MEDIUM AREAS SUCH AS PARKING LOTS, SCHOOL GROUNDS, WALKWAYS, ETC. ITS DESIGN PERMITS FINAL GRADING MATERIAL TO "LOCK IN" & FINISH CLEAN. KNOCK-OUTS ACCOMMODATE UP TO 8" O.D. PIPE.

APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN.

Scale: NTS
BIORETENTION AREA 3
22"

1. HYDROSTOR HS180 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D2418. HS180 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S LATEST INSTALLATION GUIDELINES.

2. SUBGRADE: TRENCH BOTTOMS WITH UNSTABLE OR UNYIELDING MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER AND REPLACED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. FOR UNSTABLE MATERIALS, THE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING SUBGRADE SUITABILITY.

3. FOUNDATION STONE: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A 3/4 - 2 INCH (19 - 51 mm), WASHED, CRUSHED ANGULAR STONE, OR AASHTO M43 SIZES (3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57) WITH WASHED, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE ADDED TO THE GRADATION, e.g., WASHED, CRUSHED, ANGULAR #3(AASHTO M43) STONE. MINIMUM FOUNDATION STONE THICKNESS TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ENGINEER. MINIMUM OF 6" (150 mm) RECOMMENDED. REFER TO PRINSCO DESIGN MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE.

4. EMBEDMENT BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A 3/4 - 2 INCH (19 - 51 mm), WASHED, CRUSHED ANGULAR STONE, OR AASHTO M43 SIZES (3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57) WITH WASHED, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE ADDED TO THE GRADATION, e.g., WASHED, CRUSHED, ANGULAR #3(AASHTO M43) STONE. EMBEDMENT BACKFILL SHALL EXTEND FROM TOP OF BEDDING TO NOT LESS THAN 6" (150 mm) INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NO COMPACTION IS REQUIRED BUT AN EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO HAND KNIFE STONE IN BETWEEN ALL CORRUGATIONS.

5. INITIAL BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A GRANULAR, WELL GRADED SOIL WITH LESS THAN 35% FINES OR AASHTO M43 SIZES (3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10). MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS FALL WITHIN THIS GRADING CRITERIA. INITIAL BACKFILLSHALL EXTEND FROM TOP OF EMBEDMENT BACKFILL TO NOT LESS THAN 18 INCHES (450 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. COMPACT TO A MINIMUM OF 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY.

6. FINAL BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE ANY SOIL DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. FINAL BACKFILL SHALL EXTEND FROM TOP OF INITIAL BACKFILL TO NO MORE THAN 8 FEET (2.44 m) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. COMPACTION LEVELS SHOULD FOLLOW ENGINEERSRECOMMENDATIONS.

7. MINIMUM COVER: FOR TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS A MINIMUM COVER OF 18 INCHES (450 mm) IS REQUIRED, MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER TO THE BOTTOM OF THE FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 24 INCHES (600 mm). ADDITIONAL COVER MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADS.

8. MAXIMUM COVER: A COVER HEIGHT OF OVER 8 FEET (2.44 m) IS NOT RECOMMENDED. COVER HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE

CHAMBER TO THE TOP OF THE PAVEMENT

9. LOAD RATING: HS180 CHAMBERS ARE TRAFFIC RATED FOR H-20 VEHICLES WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR LANE LOADING, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS HL-93 LOAD RATING (AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK).

10. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: INSPECTION OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD OCCUR BIANNUALLY TO ENSURE LARGE AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT OR DEBRIS HAVE NOT BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SEDIMENT ROW. DURING THE FIRST YEAR, INSPECTION SHOULD OCCUR MORE FREQUENTLY DUE TO CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT LOADING. TO CLEAN THE SYSTEM, A JET/VAC PROCESS CAN BE USED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROMTHE SEDIMENT ROW. FOR MORE INFORMATION, REFER TO PRINSCO'S "RETENTION/DETENTION CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE" TECHNICAL NOTE.

11. ACCESS PIPE: PRINSCO RECOMMENDS A 24 INCH (600 mm) DIAMETER ACCESS PIPE TO THE SEDIMENT ROW. A 24 INCH (600 mm) INTERNAL SLEEVE ADAPTER (PART # HS180A-24) WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO HS180 END CAPS. CONTACT YOUR LOCAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

1. 4" (100 mm) INSPECTION PORTS MAY BE CONNECTED

THROUGH ANY CHAMBER CIRCULAR CUT OUT POINT,
LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF EACH HS180 CHAMBER.
6" (150 mm) OR 8" (200 mm) INSPECTION PORTS MAY BE
CONNECTED THROUGH A CORED HOLE, CENTERED ON ACORRUGATION.

2. TAP TEE CONNECTION CAN CONSIST OF QWICKSEAL,

INSERTA TEE OR
APPROVED ENGINEERING EQUIVALENT.

3. ALL PVC FITTINGS TO BE SOLVENT CEMENTED.

4. PVC MAY BE EITHER SDR 35 OR SCH 40

5. CORED HOLE SIZES AS FOLLOWS: 4" (100 mm) CUT TO 5" (125 mm);
6" (150 mm) CUT TO 7" (180 mm); 8" (200 mm) CUT TO 9" (230 mm)
Scale: nts
UNDERGROUND STORM WATER CHAMBERS 6
Scale: NTS
UG CHAMBER SECTION - IN 5A Scale: NTS UG CHAMBER SECTION - OUT 5B Scale: NTS
RESTRICTOR DETAIL 5C

PLAN VIEW

SIDE VIEWSECTION B

FRONT VIEW

SECTION A
Scale: NTS
48"∅ MANHOLE 2
NOTES:

1. PRECAST CONCRETE PIPE SECTIONS, ADJUSTMENT RINGS

AND TAPERED SECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO CLASS II
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (ASTM C 76).

2. ALL RAMNECK JOINTS SHALL BE SMOOTHLY FINISHED WITH
WATER PROOF MORTAR.

3. THE USE OF MORE THAN 12" OF ADJUSTING RINGS TO
CONFORM TO GRADE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.4. CONCENTRIC MANHOLES MAY BE USED WHEN A UTILITYCONFLICT OCCURS OR WHEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

5. ALL INCOMING LINES TO BE SET TO MATCH CROWNS WITH

OTHER PIPES IN MANHOLE, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY
ENGINEER.

6. APPROVED IMPORTED CLEAN SAND SHALL BE USED AS
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL. BACKFILL IN TRENCHES LOCATED

IN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AND ADJACENT TO

STRUCTURAL FILL, FOUNDATIONS, CONCRETE SLABS AND
PAVEMENTS SHOULD BE PLACED IN HORIZONTAL LAYERS NOMORE THAN 8 INCHES THICK (FOR ALL HARDSCAPE SURFACES). EACH LAYER OF TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE
WATER CONDITIONED AND COMPACTED TO 95% R.C.

CAST-IN-PLACE CLASS "B" CONCRETE BASE
SLOPE=1" PER FOOT
MIN. GROUT & SHAPE
TO A SMOOTH FINISH.

MORTAR ALL

JOINTS SEE
NOTE 2
12"x10" CLASS "B" CONCRETE

COLLAR (CONTRACTOR TO AVOID

EXCAVATING INTO SUBGRADE

WHEN INSTALLING COLLAR)

PAVEMENT GRADE STANDARD FRAME &
COVER, STAMPED "SD" OR
"SS"
SEE NOTE 3
12"
MIN.
2" MIN. ASPHALT CAP
12"
2'-0"
4'-0" STD.
4" MIN.

VARIESVARIES
3" MIN.
10"
15" TO
30" D1
6" MIN.
4"∅ PERF. PIPE

NO INFILTRATION

FOR BIORETENTIION

ADJACENT TO BUILDING
NOTES:

1. INSTALL OVERFLOW DRAIN
PIPE CONNECTED TO STORMDRAINAGE SYSTEM.
1 3
1 3
GENERAL NOTE: · SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR

PLANTING REQUIREMENTS

BIO-TREATMENT MEDIA
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
15 MIL. IMPERMEABLE LINER.

LINER SHALL EXTEND UP TO

THE PONDING HEIGHT
(STEGO WRAP OR APPROVED

SUBSTITUTE BY ENGINEER)

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED

SUBSTITUTE BY ENGINEER)

PONDING HEIGHT
PRINSCO HS180

CHAMBER
3 4" ANGULAR ROCK
2 LF OF 8"∅ HDPE
@ S=2.0%
(N) PERK
FILTER

FINISH GRADE
9 LF OF 8"∅ HDPE
@ S=0.5%

RETENTION VOLUME

DETENTION VOLUME

RESTRICTOR

OVERFLOW
BYPASS

RESTRICTED
FLOW

CORE DRILL & DOWEL INTO SDMH
(TYP 2 PER SIDE)
2-1/3" DRILLED HOLE
1"∅ HOLE FOR PULL

ROPE (FORMAINTENANCE)

SDMH BTM

CONCRETE
1-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1/4"
STAINLESS STEEL CHANNEL24" LONG (TYP OF 2)
2'-10"(L) x 1/2"(W) x 21" (H)STAINLESS STEEL PLATE W/ ORIFICE

INNER WALL
OF MANHOLE4'∅
1-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1/4"
STAINLESS STEEL CHANNEL24" LONG (TYP OF 2)

CONCRETE
10-06-23

Page 126 of 500 ends

C6.3
NONE

DETAILS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!
10-06-23

Page 127 of 500 ends

C6.4
1" = 20'

SVWD DETAILS
Date:Scale:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.13.20 TC/JB
338-40
C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC.

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
1 TC CITY COMMENTS DATED 11/19/21

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
2 TC FIRE COMMENTS DATED 08/24/23
10-06-23

Page 128 of 500 ends

L1
1" = 20'

LANDSCAPE PLAN
Date:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

02.20.19 TC/JB
338-40
A
B
CD
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
1 1 TC City COMMENTS DATED 9/8/23
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!

BETHANY PROFESSIONAL
125 BETHANY DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
1 1
1 1

WUCOLS WATER USE CLASSIFICATION

TREE COUNTS

ZONE ZONE AREA WATER FLOW PLANT TYPE
1 compact compact compact compact compact compact E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking
10-06-23
Planning Comments10-6-23
3 TC
3

Page 129 of 500 ends

E1
1" = 20'

LIGHTING PLAN
Date:Drawn:

Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet:

REVISIONS BY

11.20.21 TC/JB
338-40
BETHANY PROFESSIONAL PROP.

A
B
CD
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
1 125 BETHANT DRIVE

SCOTT'S VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!
compact compact compact compact compact compact E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking E.V. Parking
10-06-23
Planning Comments
3 10-6-23 TC

Page 130 of 500 ends

1 DON'T TAKE THE MONEY SOMEBODY BROKE ME ONCE LOVE WAS A CURRENCY A SHIMMERING BALANCE ACT I THINK THAT I LAUGHED AT THAT AND I SAW YOUR FACE AND HANDS COLOURED IN SUN AND THEN I THINK I UNDERSTAND WILL I UNDERSTAND? WILL WE FIGHT, STAY UP LATE? IN MY DREAMS I'M TO BLAME DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BED ROLL YOUR EYES, SHAKE MY HEAD NOW WE'RE STUCK IN THE STORM WE WERE BORN TO IGNORE AND ALL I GOT IS A CHANCE TO JUST SIT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY I SLEPT ON MY OWN THOSE NIGHTS WAS STILL IN MY PARENTS HOUSE AND I CUT OFF MY T-SHIRT SLEEVES AND CLAIM A NEW CONTINENT 'TIL I SAW YOUR FACE AND HANDS COVERED IN SUN AND THEN I THINK I UNDERSTAND WILL I UNDERSTAND? WILL WE FIGHT, STAY UP LATE? IN MY DREAMS I'M TO BLAME DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BED ROLL YOUR EYES, SHAKE MY HEAD NOW WE'RE STUCK IN THE STORM WE WERE BORN TO IGNORE AND ALL I GOT IS A CHANCE TO JUST SIT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR SHADOW STANDING ON THE EDGE OF YOURSELF PRAYING ON THE DARKNESS JUST DON'T TAKE THE MONEY DREAMING OF AN EASY WAKING UP WITHOUT WEIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HEARTLESS YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY WELL, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY JUST DON'T TAKE THE MONEY HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=PO2AHZUZIEW&INDEX=4&LIST=RDEMTZWQ9PH1A_JFG1KY9ULMNW

ABBREVIATIONS
LEGEND

DEMOLITION KEY NOTES

SURVEY INFORMATION
SURVEYOR:

REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.

EXISTING PERVIOUS PAVEMENT QUANTITIES

S C O T T S V A L L E Y D R I V
Tree Location & Removal Plan
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California
Sheet T1
of 2 sheets
K.F.
5/27/2021
APN: 023-
102-15
.
. .
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

T1 WHITE BIRCHDBH 15"
.

T2 LIQUIDAMBAR11"
T3 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 11"
T8 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 12"
.
.

T4-T7 XYLOSMADBH 9",10",10",10"
T9 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 13"
T10 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 14"
T11-T13 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 16",16", 14"
.

T14 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 13"
T16 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 10"T15 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 12"
T17 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 23"T18 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 24" T19 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20"
T20 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 15"
T21-T24 EVERGREEN PEARDBH 10",10",10",9"
T25 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 5",4",4",4"
T1-A JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 6",5",5",4"
T2-A PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T26 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 7"
T27 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T28 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 6"
T29 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 9"
T30 OLIVEDBH 8",8",5",4"
T31 OLIVEDBH 6",6"
T32 OLIVEDBH 6",6"
T33 OLIVE6",5",5",4"
T34 OLIVEDBH 6",6",5"
T35 CALLERY PEARDBH 8"
T37 CALLERY PEARDBH 9"
T36 OLIVEDBH 9",5",4"
T38 OLIVEDBH 9",9",7",7"
T39 CRAPE MYRTLEDBH 10"
T42 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 23"
T40 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 6",4"
T43 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20"
T41 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 5"
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
xx
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
------- -------- -----
------- -- -------------- ---- ---
Base map provided by C2G Civil Consultants, Scotts Valley, CA

Page 131 of 500 ends

DON'T TAKE THE MONEY SOMEBODY BROKE ME ONCE LOVE WAS A CURRENCY A SHIMMERING BALANCE ACT I THINK THAT I LAUGHED AT THAT AND I SAW YOUR FACE AND HANDS COLOURED IN SUN AND THEN I THINK I UNDERSTAND WILL I UNDERSTAND? WILL WE FIGHT, STAY UP LATE? IN MY DREAMS I'M TO BLAME DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BED ROLL YOUR EYES, SHAKE MY HEAD NOW WE'RE STUCK IN THE STORM WE WERE BORN TO IGNORE AND ALL I GOT IS A CHANCE TO JUST SIT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY I SLEPT ON MY OWN THOSE NIGHTS WAS STILL IN MY PARENTS HOUSE AND I CUT OFF MY T-SHIRT SLEEVES AND CLAIM A NEW CONTINENT 'TIL I SAW YOUR FACE AND HANDS COVERED IN SUN AND THEN I THINK I UNDERSTAND WILL I UNDERSTAND? WILL WE FIGHT, STAY UP LATE? IN MY DREAMS I'M TO BLAME DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BED ROLL YOUR EYES, SHAKE MY HEAD NOW WE'RE STUCK IN THE STORM WE WERE BORN TO IGNORE AND ALL I GOT IS A CHANCE TO JUST SIT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR SHADOW STANDING ON THE EDGE OF YOURSELF PRAYING ON THE DARKNESS JUST DON'T TAKE THE MONEY DREAMING OF AN EASY WAKING UP WITHOUT WEIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HEARTLESS YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY WELL, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY (I'M IN LOVE AND YOU'VE GOT ME, RUNAWAY) YOU STEAL THE AIR OUT OF MY LUNGS, YOU MAKE ME FEEL IT I PRAY FOR EVERYTHING WE LOST, BUY BACK THE SECRETS YOUR HAND FOREVER'S ALL I WANT DON'T TAKE THE MONEY JUST DON'T TAKE THE MONEY HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=PO2AHZUZIEW&INDEX=4&LIST=RDEMTZWQ9PH1A_JFG1KY9ULMNW TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SSMH #4
48 700.2688.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #5
2 x 3
700.1698.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #4
2 x 3
690.5687.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2 x 2
685.5682.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2x3
685.9683.2
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #2
2 x 2
684.5681.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #3
48 685.5680.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #1
2 x 2
684.0679.0
SAN. SEWER NOTES
WATER NOTES:

GENERAL UTILITY NOTES

UNDERGROUND NOTES
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #2
48 683.75675.5
INV=684.0
INV=683.0
INV=677.5
INV=683.0
INV=682.0
INV=685.0
Tree Protection Plan
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California
Sheet T2
of 2 sheets
K.F
5/27/2021
APN:023-
102-15
--- ----- ----- -------- ------- >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>
------ --- --------
---
>>>
>>>>>>
.
.
.
.

T11 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 16"
T12 LIQUIDAMBARDBH16"
T17 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 23"
T18 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 24"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Use Ditch Witch first 24" depth or hand dig.

Base map provided by C2G Civil Consultants, Scotts Valley, CA Additional tree protectioin information can be found in Appendix G of Arborist Report dated 5/28/2021. .
.
.
.
.

T34 OLIVEDBH 6",6",5" T29 JAPANESE MAPLE
DBH 9"
T28 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 6"
T27 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T2-A PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
.
.
.

Replacement Tree .

Page 132 of 500 ends

Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation ¯ 0 250 500 Feet
011724
Attachment 3: General Plan Amendment Map
Commercial Professional
Legend
Light Industrial

Page 133 of 500 ends

Existing Zoning Classification Proposed Zoning Classification ¯ 0 250 500 Feet
011724
Attachment 4: Zone Change Map
Legend
C-P: Commercial Professional
I-L: Light Industrial

Page 134 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Negative Declaration | Page 1
7/24/2023
Negative Declaration
Name of Project
125 Bethany Drive
Lead Agency
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact
Susie Pineda
Contract Planner
[email protected]
Project Applicant
Owner/Developer: Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC
Project Location
The project site is on a one 1.35-acre parcel (APN 023-102-15) located on the north side of Scotts Valley Drive between Tabor Drive and Bethany Drive.

Project Description
The project would demolish the two existing one- and two-story commercial buildings (totaling 12,200 sf). The site, known as Bethany Park, was previously the support offices for Bethany University. The property was sold to Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC when Bethany University was redeveloped as the 1440 Multiversity Campus.

The proposed 125 Bethany project (the project) is a mixed-use three-story commercial redevelopment which consists of one 52,822 gross square feet (sf) building. This building would include 10,465 net square feet of professional and administrative office space, and 42,357 net square feet of storage for up to 227 user spaces. The first and second floors of the building will be bifurcated by a drive aisle that allows vehicles to park for loading and unloading. The third floor will be continuous over the drive aisle. There will be three office spaces on the first floor, six office spaces on the second floor and six office spaces on the third floor. The project would provide 54 parking spaces located on the north and south extents of the project site, and along a central corridor which would also include loading spaces.

Page 135 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Negative Declaration | Page 2
7/24/2023
Public Review and Comment Period
July 24, 2023 to August 24, 2023
Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or wishing to comment on the project may submit written comments to the City of Scotts Valley at the address listed above. All comments received by 5:00 PM on August 24, 2023 will be considered by the City of Scotts Valley.

Findings and Reasons
With the implementation of identified standard conditions of approval, the Initial Study did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. The project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment; would have no significant impact on longterm environmental goals; would have no significant cumulative effect upon the environment; and would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The following reasons support these findings:

1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of Scotts Valley General Plan, and the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

2. City staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Scotts Valley.

Page 136 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley
125 Bethany Drive Initial Study
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 137 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Table of Contents | Page i
7/17/23
Table of Contents
Initial Study 1
Background & Project Description............................................................................................... 1 Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................. 4 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................................... 4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................. 6 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 7 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................12 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................15 Energy .......................................................................................................................................17 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................18 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................22 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................23 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................26 Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................................29 Mineral Resources .....................................................................................................................30 Noise .......................................................................................................................................31 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................36 Public Services............................................................................................................................37 Recreation..................................................................................................................................38 Transportation ...........................................................................................................................39 Tribal Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................41 Utilities and Service Systems .....................................................................................................43 Wildfire.......................................................................................................................................44 Mandatory Findings of Significance...........................................................................................46 Determination............................................................................................................................48 Kimley>>>Horn

Page 138 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Table of Contents | Page ii
7/17/23
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Building Elevations
Figure 5: Landscape Plan
Figure 6: Lighting Plan
Figure 7: Grading Plan
Figure 8: Drainage Plan
Note: All figures are inserted at the end of the document.

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Arborist Report
Appendix B: Cultural Resources Evaluation
Appendix C: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D: Stormwater Control Plan
Appendix E: Noise Assessment Study
Appendix F: Traffic Report
Kimley>>>Horn

Page 139 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 1
7/17/23
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
125 Bethany Drive
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact
Susie Pineda
Contract Planner
[email protected]
Project Location
As shown in Figure 1: Regional Location, and Figure 2: Project Vicinity, the project site is on a one 1.35-acre parcel (APN 023-102-15) located on the north side of Scotts Valley Drive between Tabor Drive and Bethany Drive.

Project Applicant
Owner/Developer: Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC
General Plan Designation
Commercial Professional
Zoning
Commercial Professional (C-P)
Project Description
Note: Subsequent to the preparation of this Initial Study, the project plans were modified to accommodate additional parking and increase the setback on the north side of the project, adjacent to two single-family residential units. This change reduced the total square footage from 66,204 gross square feet(sf.) to 52,822 sf. The project description reflects this change, but the environmental analysis assumed the previous larger project. Because the project as now proposed would be the same uses but smaller, it was assumed that all impacts would be the same or less.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 140 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 2
7/17/23
The project would demolish the two existing one- and two-story commercial buildings (totaling 12,200 sf). The site, known as Bethany Park, was previously the support offices for Bethany University. The property was sold to Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC when Bethany University was redeveloped as the 1440 Multiversity Campus.

As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, the proposed 125 Bethany project (the project) is a mixed-use three-story commercial redevelopment which consists of one 52,822 gross sf. building. This building would include 10,465 net sf. of professional and administrative office space, and 42,357net sf. of storage for up to 227 user spaces. The first and second floors of the building will be bifurcated by a drive aisle that allows vehicles to park for loading and unloading. The third floor will be continuous over the drive aisle. There will be three office spaces on the first floor, six office spaces on the second floor and six office spaces on the third floor. The project would provide 54 parking spaces located on the north and south extents of the project site, and along a central corridor which would also include loading spaces.

As shown in Figure 4: Building Elevations, the exterior building materials would include vertical “board and batten” metal siding, low clear glass windows in white vinyl frames, veneer stone, single composite siding, wood soffit details, roll-up steel doors, and standing seam metal roofs.

The project would include sustainable features including energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems, energy efficient windows, and water-conserving fixtures such as low-flow toilets and drought-resistant landscaping.

As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, access to the project site would be from three driveways on Tabor Drive and two driveways on Bethany Drive.

As shown in Figure 5: Landscaping Plan, a majority of the existing landscaping would be removed and replaced with a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials, and groundcovers and grasses. Trees along the perimeter of Bethany Drive and Tabor Drive would include Chinese pistache and Coast live oaks.

As shown in Figure 6: Lighting Plan, 19 pole-mounted light fixtures, 15 feet in height, would be installed on the project site. These LED fixtures would be directed downward to limit lighting entirely within the project site.

As shown in Figure 7: Grading Plan, grading for the project would require a cut of 770 cubic yards of soil, and fill of 1,980 cubic yards, for a net import of 1,210 cubic yards.

As shown in Figure 8: Drainage Plan, four drainage management areas (DMAs) would be created to treat 42,045 sf. of net impervious area. Storm drainage from constructed impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, driveways) would be conveyed via curbs and gutter to channelized surface flow and direct runoff onto vegetated areas or via collector storm drainpipes to an underground stormwater storage and infiltration chamber(s).

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 141 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 3
7/17/23
Water and sewer services would connect to an existing sanitary sewer and water main located on Bethany Drive.

Project-Related Approvals and Permits
In addition to environmental certification, the project would require the following City approvals:
 General Plan amendment from Commercial Professional to Light Industrial  Zone Change from C-P Professional Commercial to Light Industrial (I-L).  Planned Development in conjunction with the Zone Change request to allow for the approval of a general development plan incorporating alternative development standards.
 Use permit.
 Design Review to evaluate the site design and architecture.  Cultural Resources Alteration Application.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
None.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 142 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 4
7/17/23
Environmental Checklist
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. This analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework to address each environmental resource.

Aesthetics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion
Scenic Vista
The project site contains an existing one- and two-story office building. Surrounding buildings include an elementary school to the west, residential to the south, and Highway 17 to the south Kimley>>> Horn

Page 143 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 5
7/17/23
and east. The project site is relatively flat and would not block any scenic vista nor substantially change an important view from a scenic vantage point, and therefore there would be no impact.

Scenic Resources and Visual Character
The project site is not located along a state scenic highway or designated scenic corridor. Per the 1994 General Plan Figure OS-1 Viewsheds and Scenic Corridors, Highway 17 viewing south adjacent to the project site is considered an “Important Vista” as the views affords a longdistance view of the valley character of Scotts Valley. The project would not impede or otherwise cause a distraction to this view as it is set back away from the highway to the west.

Although the project would represent a visual change from the existing conditions, it would be consistent with the type of development that currently exists in the area and is consistent with the policies related to visual resources in the General Plan.

The project site is zoned C-P Professional Commercial. As described in Chapter 17.20 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, the maximum building height is 35 feet. Per the project plans, the maximum building height would be 34 feet nine inches, consistent with City regulations.

Because there are no scenic resources and the visual character would not be substantially altered and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, impacts would be less than significant.

Light and Glare
Existing ambient sources of nighttime lighting include lighting of building exteriors and architectural accents, illumination through windows, landscape lighting, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The project would include outdoor lighting typical of a residential development.

As shown in Figure 6: Lighting Plan, the project design incorporates 19 pole-mounted (15 feet high) low-level LED lighting fixtures that would minimize lighting spill effects on adjacent properties. Furthermore, as a condition of approval, the project applicant would be required to utilize downward-directed fixtures on building exteriors with concealed light sources.

Consistent with City building regulations, lighting will need to be controlled for security, aesthetics, safety, and identification without interfering with adjacent land uses.

Implementation of these Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce potential off-site light impacts to a less than significant level.

Findings
The project would not affect a scenic vista or scenic resource, would not change the visual character of the project area, and therefore there would be no impact. The project would not result in a substantial change to light and glare and therefore impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 144 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 6
7/17/23
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Department 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 non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 145 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 7
7/17/23
Discussion
The property is not located on land that is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency. Therefore, no agricultural impacts would occur as a result of the project.

Findings
As described above, there would be no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 146 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 8
7/17/23
Discussion
Air Quality Plan and Air Quality Standards
The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which includes Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County, comprising an area of approximately 5,159 square miles along the central California coast. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the NCCAB.

MBARD has developed the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (2012 AQMP) The 2012 AQMP is a transitional plan shifting focus of MBARD’s efforts from achieving the 1-hour component of the State ozone AAQS to achieving the 8-hour ozone requirement. The Plan includes an updated air quality trends analysis, which reflects both the 1- and 8-hour standards, as well as an updated emission inventory, which includes the latest information on stationary, area and mobile emission sources.

In March 2017, MBARD adopted the 2012-2015 Triennial Plan Revision, which assesses and updates elements of the 2012 AQMP, including the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs. The 2017 AQMP Revision only addresses attainment of the State ozone standard. In 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB as in attainment of the current national 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm1.

The following MBARD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and operation of residential development pursuant to the project:
 Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) – Discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, is prohibited.
 Rule 402 (Nuisances) - No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt) – The use of cutback asphalt (asphalt cement that has been blended with petroleum solvents) is restricted.
1 On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. However, U.S. EPA has not yet reviewed recent NCCAB emissions to determine attainment with the current 0.070 ppm standard. Therefore, this attainment status is based upon U.S. EPA’s prior 0.075 ppm standard.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 147 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 9
7/17/23
 Rule 426 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule limits the emissions of ROGs from the use of architectural coatings.

The MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides criteria for determining cumulative impacts and consistency. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that a project which is inconsistent with an Air Quality Plan would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Any emissions sources that would be generated as part of the project would be subject to the MBARD rules and regulations. The proposed development (the point source) does not include any processes or activities that would emit significant air pollutants. The proposed use would not conflict with the AQMP for the Monterey Bay Region and would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant ozone impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction
MBARD CEQA Guidelines state that construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that emit 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Based on this emissions threshold, construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day may result in significant PM10 emissions (MBARD, 2015). Because development of the project would not result construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day, impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, Standard Conditions of Approval require that development projects reduce dust generation from project grading and construction to minimal levels, the project proponent shall require the grading contractor to implement best management practices (BMPs) for dust control, including watering down exposed earth surfaces each non-rainfall day at intervals that attenuate dust problems. Any dirt tracked on to adjacent roadways shall be removed daily in a manner that does not create substantial airborne dust. Standard conditions of project approval would require the project applicant to implement the following BMPs for the project during site grading:
 Limit grading to 8.1 acres per day, and grading and excavation to 2.2 acres per day.  Water graded/excavated areas and active unpaved roadways, unpaved staging areas, and unpaved parking areas at least twice daily or apply non‐toxic chemical soil stabilization materials per manufacturer’s recommendations. Frequency should be based on the type of operations, soil and wind exposure.  Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (more than 15 mph).  Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or gravel for temporary roads and any other methods approved in advance by MBARD.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 148 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 10
7/17/23
 Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked for durations longer than 1 month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non‐invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
 Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.  Use street sweepers, water trucks, or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the project site. Reclaimed (non‐potable) water should be used whenever possible;
 Spray dirt stockpile areas daily as needed.
 Place gravel on all roadways and driveways as soon as possible after grading. In addition, construct building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding, soil binders, or frequent water application are used.
 Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.  Unpaved road travel shall be limited to the extent possible, for example, by limiting the travel to and from unpaved areas, by coordinating movement between work areas rather than to central staging areas, and by busing workers where feasible.  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the project site and inspect vehicle tires to ensure they are free of soil prior to carry‐out to paved roadways.
 Sweep streets at the end of each day, or as needed, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible.

Operational
The project would result in new long-term operational emissions from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape equipment and household products). Mobile source emissions constitute most operational emissions from this type of development project. However, emissions associated with operation of the project are not expected to exceed any applicable MBARD thresholds.

Therefore, the project would not generate a significant level of operational emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity include single-family residential located to the north and an elementary school to the west.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 149 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 11
7/17/23
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust which is a known toxic air containment (TAC). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified diesel exhaust particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant, and assessment of toxic air contaminant cancer risks is typically based upon a 70‐year exposure period. Project grading and construction activities that would utilize diesel‐powered equipment would expose receptors to possible diesel exhaust for a very limited number of days (approximately 10 days). Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70‐year exposure period and given the limited and short‐term duration of activities that would use diesel equipment, construction‐ related diesel emissions are not considered significant.

Furthermore, the State is implementing emission standards for different classes of on‐ and off‐ road diesel vehicles and equipment that applies to off‐road diesel fleets and includes measures such as retrofits. Additionally, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (section 2485(c)(1)) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location.

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks is considered a less‐than‐significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.

Additionally, Standard Conditions of Approval require that prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.

Odors
During construction activities, temporary odors from vehicles exhaust and construction equipment engine would occur. However, construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Therefore, no objectionable odors are anticipated from construction activities associated with the project and there would be no impact.

Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not include any uses that would be associated with objectionable odors. Odor emissions from the project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and idling cars. The project does not include any known sources of objectionable odors associated with the long-term operational use and therefore there would be no impact.

Findings
A significant air quality impact is defined as any violation of an ambient air quality standard, any substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or any exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed above, the MBARD thresholds of significance have not been exceeded. Therefore, there would be no significant air Kimley>>>Horn

Page 150 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 12
7/17/23
quality impacts and no mitigation is required in addition to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for construction dust control at the time of development.

Biological Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
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 US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 151 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 13
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
Discussion
The project site is developed and contains buildings, parking lots, areas with tuff, and a variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers.

Sensitive Natural Communities, Special Status Species, and Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
The project site is a developed site that is urban in character and does not contain any sensitive natural communities, or Special Status plant or animal species. As an urban infill site, the project would not impede the movement of native wildlife nursery sites or migratory wildlife corridors. As such, the project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

State and Federal Regulated Waterways and Federal Wetlands Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act protects wetland habitats that are classified as federal “jurisdictional wetlands”. Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code also protects wetland habitats and requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for the alteration of most wetlands.

Because there are no jurisdictional waters, or other types of wetlands on the project site, the project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

Conflict with Local Polices, HCP or NCCP, or Other Conservation Plan Per SVMC Section 17.44.080(E)(4), tree removal request shall be included as part of the development application, including an arborist's report, and shall be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. The development review process shall seek to preserve healthy Kimley>>> Horn

Page 152 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 14
7/17/23
trees, trees that contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of an area, and to preserve significantly sized trees that are important to the overall landscape of an area.

As described in the Arborist Report (see Appendix A), a total of 45 trees were surveyed on the project site. Of these 18 are protected and 27 are not protected. The dominant species and most of the “protected” trees were liquidambar, (Liquidambar styraciflua). Other frequently planted species include olive (Olea europaea) and purple-leaf plum, (Prunus cerasifera). Two London plane trees, (Platanus x hispanica), are the largest specimens on the property. Two trees on an adjacent property, one Japanese maple, (Acer palmatum), and one purple-leaf plum were also surveyed.

Most of the trees were identified as being in good or fair condition. Only one tree was found in poor condition, a severely drought stressed European white birch (Betula pendula).

Management of trees on the property was good except for the purple-leaf plums and a group of evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii) trees. These trees had been topped at 10 feet above grade and the resulting re-growth was identified as being poorly attached.

The project would remove 13 protected trees (10 liquidambar and three olive). As shown in Figure 7: Landscape Plan, new trees will be installed at a recommended tree replacement to compensate for their removal at a minimum 2:1 tree replacement using 15-gallon or 24-inch box size trees. This recommendation is consistent with City regulations, as described above.

Standard conditions of project approval require the project applicant to implement all measures contained within the Arborist Report for the protection of existing trees to remain, including but not limited to the required procedures and sequence, required tree replacement, tree preservation and protection, and appraised value of preserved trees in the report.

Furthermore, no known habitat conservation plans are in effect for this project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or applicable HCP’s and there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval wherein protected tree removals are compensated at a minimum of 2:1 ratio consistent with the City’s Tree Protection Regulations (17.44.080).

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 153 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 15
7/17/23
Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Discussion
Cultural Resources Evaluation was prepared for the project site by Archaeological Resource Management (ARM) in June 2021 (see Appendix B). The analysis below is based on a peer review and findings as described in this report.

Cultural Resources
On July 14, 2023, the City sent notifications to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. Any comments received will be considered and, if necessary, this Initial Study amended accordingly prior to CEQA certification by the City of Scotts Valley
The project site and immediate area are mapped within a High And Moderate Sensitivity Zone based on information available in the early 1990s and as shown in the City’s 1994 General Plan Figure OS Archaeological Sensitivity Zones. Research over the past 30 years suggests a low or low-moderate sensitivity for the project site and vicinity based on completed and ongoing development and the lack of significant reported discoveries.

The archival research by ARM revealed that one informally recorded archaeological resource, P2, is located within or adjacent to the project area. This consisted of three chert flakes noted as Kimley>>> Horn

Page 154 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 16
7/17/23
part of a broad archaeological survey which included the proposed project area within its scope, S-3913. Three additional previously recorded resources are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed project area: CA-SCR-238, CA-SCR-239, and P-44-402.

No significant cultural materials, prehistoric or historic, were noted during surface reconnaissance; however; surface visibility was limited due to existing structures, hardtop surfaces, and landscaping materials. In addition, the proposed project area is located in close proximity to Carbonera Creek, a watercourse along which prehistoric sites have been encountered in the past. Therefore, ARM recommended that archaeological monitoring be carried out during earth moving activities.

Human Remains
No known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

Findings
As discussed above, the project site is located within areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity. Implementation of the following City Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce this impact to less than significant.

1. The project applicant shall ensure that notes on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials.

2. The project applicant shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource under CEQA, he/she shall notify the City of Scotts Valley and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation inplace, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options.

4. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Kimley>>>Horn

Page 155 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 17
7/17/23
Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be developed in consultation with any regulatory agencies and culturally affiliated Native American tribes who have expressed interest with tribal cultural resources for Scotts Valley.

Energy

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
Discussion
Energy consumption associated with construction of the project would be temporary and shortterm. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Additionally, the project includes other design features including efficient low-energy lighting, and natural ventilation systems.

The project would also be required to be built according to City and State energy efficiency standards. The project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s General Plan. Vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive as compared to historic levels due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 156 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 18
7/17/23
Findings
The project would comply with existing State energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There would be no impact to energy.

Geology and Soils

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

X
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.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 157 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 19
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
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?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
Discussion
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project site by Rock Solid Engineering (RSE), dated February 9, 2021 (see Appendix D). The analysis below is based on a peer review and findings as described in this report.

Based on their review of the Geologic Map of Santa Cruz County, California (Reference 3), the site is mapped as Santa Cruz Mudstone (Tsc) and Purisima Formation (Tp). Purisima Formation deposits are described as very thick bedded yellowish-gray tuffaceous and diatomaceous siltstone containing thick interbeds of bluish-gray, semi-friable, fine-grained andesitic sandstone. The results of field exploration by RSE indicate that the subsurface soils present are consistent with the Purisima Formation. Perched groundwater was only encountered in Boring B-8 at 17 feet below existing grade.

The site is located within a seismically active area but is outside an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Rupture Zone as delineated by the State of California. The site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone as delineated by Santa Cruz County GIS.

The entire Central Coast Area is considered to be an active seismic region due to the presence of several active faults. Three northwest-trending major earthquake faults that are responsible Kimley>>> Horn

Page 158 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 20
7/17/23
for the majority of the movement on the San Andreas fault system extend through the San Francisco Bay Area. They include the San Andreas fault, the Calaveras fault and the Hayward fault, which are respectively located approximately 5.9 miles, 23.6 miles, and 28.3 miles to the northeast. Other faults closer to the site are the Zayante-Vergeles fault, Butano, and Sargent fault which are respectively located approximately 2.5 miles, 5.3 miles, and 6.0 miles to the northeast.

In general, RSE concluded that the project site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed project provided the recommendations contained in their Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation are incorporated in the design and implemented during site grading and foundation construction.

Earthquake Faults, Landslides, and Seismic Ground Shaking Project construction would subject the buildings and their inhabitants to periodic seismic shaking associated with the San Andreas Fault and other active faults within the Monterey Bay area. As part of the building permit application submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, the project applicant would be required to submit plans that comply with the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards consistent with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

Prior to approval of any entitlements, City staff will review project plans and verify that the CBC Seismic requirements are printed on the plans. Building Division staff shall verify that CBC standards are met prior to issuance of Building Permits. Building inspectors shall conduct site inspections to assure that construction occurs consistent with approved plans.

The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure S3 ("Liquefaction Potential") indicates that the project site is located in an area with a Moderate Potential for Liquefaction. However, based on RSE’s and our review of Geology and Liquefaction Potential of Quaternary Deposits in Santa Cruz County, California (Reference 8), the site is not mapped in an area of potential liquefaction. Their observations confirmed that the potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction to occur is considered low due to the presence of relatively dense soils and the lack of a continuous shallow groundwater table.

Figure S-4 ("Landslide Deposits") indicates that the site is not in an area containing landslide deposits. Figure S-5 ("Slopes") indicates that the project site is not located within any mapped geological hazard areas. In addition, the subject site slopes only gently, therefore, the potential for landsliding to occur across the site and cause damage to structures is considered low.

Per the earthquake hazard zones defined by the Alquist Priolo map, the risk of earthquake induced ground rupture occurring across the project site is moderately low.

Because compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is required for all future projects, potential impacts associated with earthquake-related ground rupture would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 159 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 21
7/17/23
Soil Erosion
The project would involve grading activities associated with the construction of buildings, infrastructure, and roads. Grading would largely be limited to the project site, which would limit the amount of exposed soil area that would be subject to erosion. Measures to control erosion would be incorporated into the construction specifications pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction. In addition, to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction, projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger would protect water quality during construction activities. Compliance with the erosion control ordinances and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that soil erosion impacts associated with development pursuant to the project would be less than significant.

Sewage Disposal
The project would involve disposal of wastewater through the City’s existing sanitary sewer system, and there would be no septic systems constructed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Unique Geological Features and Paleontological Resources There are no known paleontological resources on the project site. However, development of the project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. Should evidence of paleontological resources be encountered during grading and construction, adherence to City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes related to archaeological and paleontological resources would ensure the adequate protection of historic and pre-historic resources. This includes City Standard Conditions of Approval requiring compliance with these laws should paleontological resources be encountered. With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant.

Findings
Compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code and NPDES requirements would reduce any potential impacts associated with geological and soil resources to a less than significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 160 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 22
7/17/23
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Discussion
Construction
Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials. MBARD does not have a threshold for construction GHG emissions, which would be one-time, short-term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the project.

In the absence of quantitative significance thresholds in CEQA guidance, this analysis turns to other programs. For example, the CARB Mandatory Reporting program requirements are triggered for sources of GHG emissions exceeding 2,500 MTCO₂e) per year. AB 32 requires California agencies to take actions that would reduce GHG emissions by 2020 to the levels of 1990, and then substantially further reduce emissions by 2050. Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHGs to create a project-specific impact to significantly influence climate change; therefore, this impact typically involves an analysis to determine if a project’s GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable (significant cumulative impact). Once construction is complete, the generation of construction related GHG emissions would cease. The project is not expected to exceed the CARB Mandatory Reporting applicability level of 2,500 MTCO2e per year. As a result, the short‐term emission of GHG during construction would be less than significant.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 161 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 23
7/17/23
Operational
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the project’s life. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The project would meet CalGreen and CBC standards for energy efficiency standards including passive solar design and natural ventilation and natural lighting.

Additionally, the project would be required to install water-efficient landscape, water-reducing features, and low-impact development practices to reduce water use consistent with City and State regulations. Building construction is also required to comply with the energy efficiency standards of the California Building Code. All these factors result in a project that would not significantly contribute to a cumulative GHG impact. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Findings
While some GHGs would be generated as a result of development of the project, its contribution to GHGs would not be cumulatively considerable and there would not be any significant impacts associated with GHGs. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 162 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 24
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
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?
X
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 or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 163 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 25
7/17/23
Discussion
Hazardous Substances
Regarding on-site hazards, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No records of the project site were found pertaining to open cases of LUSTs, toxic releases, or site cleanup requirements.

It is likely that oils, lubricants, and similar materials may be used to maintain and/or fuel construction vehicles and machinery during the construction phase of the project. Standard conditions of approval require the project applicant to have the construction contractor implement a best management practice/hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
 Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidentally discharged downslope or into Scotts Valley Drive.  Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.

The project’s commercial use may involve use and storage of some materials that are considered hazardous, although these materials are typically limited to everyday use solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in use throughout the City. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous substances would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Release of Substances Near Schools
Vine Hill Elementary School is located on the west side of Tabor Drive, adjacent to the project site. However, project construction and operation would not involve the emission of hazardous materials, therefore impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Emergency Response
General Plan Safety Element Figure S-6 “Evacuation Routes” shows Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route in the City’s Emergency Response Plan. Construction of the project would not change the function of Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route. Therefore, the project would have no impact on emergency response.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 164 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 26
7/17/23
Public Airport or Private Airstrip
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Wildland Fire
Refer to the Wildfire Section below for further discussion.

Findings
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites, nor would the residential use involve the use of hazardous materials that would require permitting by the Santa County Health Department and therefore impacts would be less than significant. The project would not impact the City’s primary evacuation routes, nor is it located within two miles of an airport, and therefore there would be no impacts. No mitigation is required.

Hydrology and Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 165 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 27
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii. 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?
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Discussion
A Stormwater Control Plan was prepared for the project site by C2G/Civil Consultants Group, Inc. in October 2020 (see Appendix D). The analysis below is based on the findings of the prepared report.

Groundwater Demand
Due to the characteristics of the type of commercial storage use proposed, the project would use approximately the same amount of water as current commercial uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 166 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 28
7/17/23
Groundwater Recharge
The project is not located in an area designated on the Scotts Valley General Plan Hydrological Resources Map, Figure OS-5, as a Potential Groundwater Recharge Area.

According to the Stormwater Control Plan, the project site contains impervious surface area associated with the buildings, sidewalks, and parking lots. Redevelopment would result in 42,045 sf. of new and replaced impervious area. To offset the potential loss of groundwater infiltration, the project would include the use of curb and gutter to channelize surface flow and direct runoff into area drains and catch basins. Area drains and catch basins would be used to collect runoff and convey it onto vegetated areas or via collector storm drainpipes to an underground stormwater storage and infiltration chamber(s) to allow retention and detention for Tier 3 and Tier 4 requirements.

This system would be designed to accommodate the relatively low infiltration rates found at this site. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

Stormwater Runoff
The Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) addresses potential impacts from stormwater runoff. The SCP includes project site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality in accordance with the current edition of the City of Scotts Valley Stormwater Technical Guide. The BMPs address the construction and maintenance of storm drain inlets, irrigation and use of pesticides, maintenance of hardscapes, and maintenance of underground stormwater facilities.

Furthermore, Standard Conditions of Approval require the project applicant and construction contractor to implement best management practices to prevent sedimentation and discharge of contaminants off-site during project construction, including hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
 Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidentally discharged downslope or into Scotts Valley Drive.  Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.

Implementation of recommendations as described in the SCP and preparation of a SWPPP for review and approval prior to construction activities would ensure that impacts from stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 167 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 29
7/17/23
Floodplains, Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Related Hazards The property is not located within a floodplain. There is no possibility of a seiche or tsunami occurring that could affect the project. The project is not located on or near a lake or ocean coastline. Therefore, the project would have no impacts.

Findings
Implementation of recommendations as described in the SCP and preparation of a SWPPP would reduce impacts on hydrology and water resources to a level of less than significant.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Discussion
Surrounding land uses include an elementary school to the west, residential to the south, and Highway 17 to the south and east. No community or neighborhood would be physically divided by the project.

The proposed project includes a General Plan amendment from Commercial Professional to Light Industrial, and a Zone Change from C-P Professional Commercial to Light Industrial (I-L).

The Scotts Valley General Plan defines Light Industrial land uses as neither commercial/retail nor residential, but states that they may create noise, odor, dust, glare, traffic, or impacts on the aquifer and/or air quality. Planning review shall assure that activities conducted on the property do not unreasonably interfere with the character of adjoining land uses.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 168 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 30
7/17/23
The I-L Light Industrial zoning district applies to all lands designated in the General Plan as “Light Industrial.” This land use classification accommodates industrial and industrially related land uses and provides a location for businesses that are inappropriate in commercial or residential zones because of their operations or size; and because they may create noise, odor, dust or glare and create impacts to traffic, the aquifer or air quality. Uses in this classification shall not encroach upon the character of adjoining land uses and will not expose adjoining uses to hazardous conditions. SVMC Section 17.26.030 allows ministorage as a conditional use, with approval of a Conditional Use permit.

The project will also include approval of a Planned Development (PD) in conjunction with the Zone Change. PD districts must be combined with base zoning districts and are individually designed to meet the needs of the property. Development of the property can only occur pursuant to a PD permit issued in strict conformity with the general development plan, or with the underlying base district. The general development plan must be adopted as part of the PD and includes detailed specifications such as permitted land uses and sizes, landscape areas and open space, dimensioned streets and driveways (both public and private), use standards, and other development standards.

Findings
Concurrent with City Council approval, the project would be consistent with the amended General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. Any potential conflicts with the development standards—such as maximum height, setback, or other requirements—would be resolved through the Planned Development (Zoning) Overlay and Permits (PD) general development plan approval process. The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.

Mineral Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 169 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 31
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
Discussion
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure OS 4, indicates that there are no significant mineral deposits on the project site. The project is not located in an area known to contain regionally significant mineral resources and would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource of regional value. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area that has been identified by the City of Scotts Valley as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

Findings
The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.

Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 170 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 32
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or 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?
X
Discussion
A Noise Assessment Study (NAS) was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates Inc., dated June 25, 2021 (see Appendix E). The analysis below is based on a peer review and findings as described in this report.

The noise exposures and noise levels presented in the NAS were evaluated against the standards of the City of Scotts Valley General Plan Noise Element, the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, and the State of California CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures.

The analysis of the on-site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to vehicular traffic sources on Highway 17. Traffic on Bethany Drive and Tabor Drive do not significantly affect the on-site noise environment.

Short Term Noise Levels
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur adjacent to existing single-family residences; however, construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.

Project construction would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160, which states that all construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday. These permitted hours of construction are included in the code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Construction would Kimley>>> Horn

Page 171 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 33
7/17/23
occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensory receptors. Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and impacts would be less than significant.

The NAS also recommended additional measures to reduce construction noise impacts. These recommendations will be included as part of the City’s standard Conditions of Approval for the project and included as notes on the civil plan set:

Operational and Situational Controls
 Schedule construction operations that comply with the limits of the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code.
 Construction Hours = Per City Requirements, 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM Monday-Friday, and 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Saturdays. No work is permitted on Sundays.  Minimize material movement along the west and north sides of the site.  Locate stockpiles adjacent to residential neighbors and along Tabor Drive as much as possible to help shield residences and Vine Hill Elementary School from on-site noise generation.
 Keep mobile equipment (haul trucks, concrete trucks, etc.) off of local streets near residences as much as possible.
 Utilize temporary power service from the utility company in lieu of generators wherever possible.
 Keep vehicle paths graded smooth as rough roads and paths can cause significant noise and vibration from trucks (particularly empty trucks) rolling over rough surfaces. Loud bangs and ground-borne vibration can occur.
 All work within 10 ft. of the property lines common with residential uses or noise sensitive uses should be performed by hand.

Interior Works
 For interior work, the windows of the interior spaces facing neighboring residences where work is being performed shall be kept closed while work is proceeding.  Noise generating equipment indoors should be located within the building to utilize building elements as noise screens.

Equipment
 Use the lowest vibration inducing equipment when within the distance limits shown in Table V. Small grading and earth moving equipment, such as “Bobcat” size equipment should be used.
 Place long-term stationary equipment as far away from the residential and school areas as possible.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 172 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 34
7/17/23
 Circular saws, miter or chop saws and radial arm saws shall be used no closer than 50 ft. from any residential property line unless the saw is screened from view by any and all residences using an air-tight screen material of at least 2.0 lbs./sq. ft. surface weight, such as ¾” plywood.
 Music shall not be audible off site.
 Earth Removal: Use scrapers as much as possible for earth removal, rather than the noisier loaders and hauling trucks.
 Building Construction: Power saws should be shielded or enclosed where practical to decrease noise emissions. Nail guns should be used where possible as they are less noisy than manual hammering.
 Generators and Compressors: Use generators and compressor that are housed in acoustical enclosures rather than weather enclosures or none at all.  Backfilling: Use a backhoe for backfilling, as it is less costly and quieter than either dozers or loaders.
 Ground Preparation: Use a motor grader rather than a bulldozer for final grading.

Wheeled heavy equipment is less noisy than track equipment. Utilize wheeled equipment rather than steel track equipment whenever possible, with the exception of work within the vibration distances shown in Table V. The soil conditions at the site indicate that wheeled equipment may generate higher levels of ground vibration than tracked equipment. Small, rubber tracked equipment, such as skid steers, would produce the lowest levels of noise and vibration.
 Use electrically powered tools rather than pneumatic tools whenever possible.  The greatest potential for noise abatement of current equipment should be the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers.
 It is recommended that all internal combustion engines used at the project site be equipped with a type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.  All equipment should be in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines, drive-trains and other components. Worn, loose or unbalanced parts or components shall be maintained or replaced to minimize noise and vibration.

Noise Compliant Management
 Designate a noise complaint officer. The officer shall be available at all times during construction hours via both telephone and email. Signs shall be posted at site entries.  Notify, in writing, all residents and Vine Hill Elementary School within 300 ft. of the project perimeter of construction. The notification shall contain the name, phone number and email address of the noise complaint officer. A flyer may be placed at the doors of the residences.
 A log of all complaints shall be maintained. The logs shall contain the name and address of the complainant, the date and time of the complaint, the nature/description of the Kimley>>> Horn

Page 173 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 35
7/17/23
noise source, a description of the remediation attempt or the reason remediation could not be attempted.

Long Term Noise Levels
To determine existing noise levels, measurements were recorded at two locations. Location 1 was near the existing front lawn/parking lot border, 150 ft. from the centerline of Highway 17.

Location 2 was along the north property line of the site, 36 ft. from the centerline of Bethany Drive. Recoded noise at Location 1 ranged from 60.7 to 68.4 dBA during the daytime and from

53.0 to 64.7 dBA at night. At measurement Location 2, the Leq’s ranged from 48.6 to 57.8 dBA during the daytime and from 43.6 to 53.1 dBA at night.

The DNL’s for the two measurement locations were calculated as a decibel average of the Leq's as they apply to the daily time periods of the DNL index. The DNL is a 24-hour noise descriptor that uses the measured Leq values to calculate a 24-hour time-weighted average noise exposure. The results of the calculations found that the noise exposure at measurement Location 1 was 67 dB DNL. The noise exposure at measurement Location 2 was 56 dB DNL.

Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity from residential sources, mechanical equipment, and landscape maintenance. These noise sources would be similar to those generated throughout the City. Such noise would primarily occur during the “daytime” activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the noise standards set forth in the City’s General Plan (NA-458) and Municipal Code. Given the nature of the proposed use, traffic generated noise would be similar to existing conditions and would be less than the traffic noise generated from Highway 17.

Therefore, there would be no impact from long-term noise levels.

Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations
The contractors used for the demolition and construction have not yet been selected, nor has a construction schedule and list of equipment been developed. The NAS analyzed potential vibration impacts based on a list of typical construction equipment, their vibration levels at 25 ft. reference distances, and the vibration levels at the building setbacks of the adjacent residential buildings to the north. The NAS determined that some equipment (e.g., vibratory roller, compactor) would generate ground-borne vibration levels exceeding the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV significance threshold vibrations. Methods to reduce demolition and construction vibratory noise can be accomplished by the use of improved mufflers as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. As such, exposure to groundborne vibrations would be less than significant.

Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
The project site is not located within any airport noise impact contours and not located within the vicinity of any private air strip, and therefore there would be no impact.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 174 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 36
7/17/23
Findings
The project would not expose future residential uses to short-term construction nor long-term operational noise levels in excess of City standards. Noise generated during the construction phase is temporary and would be limited to Monday-Saturday daytime hours per compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Population and Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Discussion
The project is a commercial storage facility and would not induce a substantial increase in population, nor displace existing people or housing. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

Findings
There is no potential for a significant impact due to substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 175 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 37
7/17/23
Public Services

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
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:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Discussion
Fire Services
The project site contains existing commercial uses and is located in an existing urban area that is currently served by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. The closest fire station is located at 251 Glenwood Drive, less than a half mile of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Police Services
The project site contains existing commercial uses. Replacement of these uses by the project would not generate a demand beyond what the police department can accommodate. The Scotts Valley Police department is located less than two miles south of the project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 176 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 38
7/17/23
Schools
The project is replacement of a commercial use and would not generate a significant demand on the City’s school system and therefore there would be no impact.

Parks
The project is replacement of a commercial use and would not generate a significant demand on the City’s park system and therefore there would be no impact.

Other Public Facilities
The project does not have the potential to affect other public facilities (e.g., library, city administrative services, etc.), in excess of that previously considered by the General Plan.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would have no impact on public services and therefore no mitigation is required.

Recreation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
X
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?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 177 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 39
7/17/23
Discussion
The project is replacement of a commercial use and would not generate a significant demand on the City’s park system. The project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities and therefore there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

Finding
No significant impacts to recreation and open space resources would occur.

Transportation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 178 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 40
7/17/23
Discussion
A Focused Transportation Study was prepared for the project site by Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, dated December 12, 2021 (see Appendix E. The analysis below is based on the findings of prepared report.

Conflict with City Policies or Programs, Increase Hazards, Impair Emergency Access As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, access to the project site would be from three driveways on Tabor Drive. Additionally, one exit-only driveway would be located on Bethany Drive, close to the intersection of Scotts Valley Drive. No changes to the City’s circulation network are proposed.

The design of the roadway would be consistent with City standards to ensure there is adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Increase Vehicle Miles Travelled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. Because the City of Scotts Valley has not formally adopted VMT significance criteria, this CEQA analysis uses guidance per the City of Scotts Valley’s Draft VMT Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn and Associates, July 2020).

The VMT Implementation includes screening criteria to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings for non-significant transportation impacts. Small projects that generate less than 110 trips per day are exempt from VMT analysis. However, upon issuance of the building permit, the project would be required to pay a City traffic impact fee.

Based on the Transportation Study (see Appendix E), the project would generate an estimated 82 daily trips. Because this is less than the 110-trip threshold for small projects, the project would qualify for the screening criteria and as such is exempt from further VMT analysis.

Findings
The project would not conflict with City policies or programs regarding the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project would not cause a hazard nor impair emergency access. The project is considered a “small project” per the City VMT Implementation Guidelines and is exempt from further analysis. Therefore, there would be no impacts to transportation and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 179 of 500 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 41
7/17/23
Tribal Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is:

X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 100 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 42
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California
Discussion
Cultural Resources Evaluation was prepared for the project site by Archaeological Resource Management (ARM) in June 2021 (see Appendix B). The analysis below is based on a peer review and findings as described in this report.

Section 21080.3.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code (AB 52) requires a lead agency formally notify a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated within the geographic area of the discretionary project when formally requested.

As described in the Cultural Resources section, no formal consultation requests have been received to date.

Findings
No California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley. Therefore, no impact to the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource is anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 101 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 43
7/17/23
Utilities and Service Systems

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) 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?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 102 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 44
7/17/23
Discussion
Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The proposed project would use less water and therefore generate less wastewater than the current existing commercial use which be replaced. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications
The project would require new upgraded connections to PG&E for electricity and natural gas. In addition, the project would require new telecommunication connections with the respective service providers. The project site is already served by various dry utility providers. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Solid Waste
The proposed project would generate less solid waste than the current existing commercial use which be replaced. Therefore, there would be no impact
Findings
Existing utilities and service systems are available to serve the project and no new facilities would be required to be constructed. Therefore, the project would have no impacts associated with utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.

Wildfire

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 103 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 45
7/17/23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Discussion
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped the relative wildfire risk in areas of large population by intersecting residential housing density with proximate fire threat according to three risk levels, namely Moderate, High, and Very High.

Wildfires are large-scale brush and grass fires in undeveloped areas. The project is within an urbanized area and not within a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CALFIRE.

Additionally, the project would incorporate all applicable fire safety code requirements, including fire protection devices and appropriate fire-resistant landscaping on the project site, as required by the Scotts Valley Fire District, and therefore there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would not affect emergency response/evacuation plans, would not expose residents or structures to a wildfire risk, and would not exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wildfires, and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 104 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 46
7/17/23
Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 105 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 47
7/17/23
Discussion
As discussed in the individual sections, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants.

As described in the Biological Resources section, the project would comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval wherein protected tree removals are compensated at a minimum of 2:1 ratio consistent with the City’s Tree Protection Regulations (17.44.080).

The project site is located within areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity. As described in the Cultural Resources section, the project would comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval. Implementation of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce this impact to less than significant. This includes retaining a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction.

As described in the environmental resource sections of this Initial Study, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The project would result in temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, and consistency with adopted City policies, construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

As described above, these impacts would be temporary, and the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and noise impacts in the project area.

The project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the remaining environmental resources and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.

Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact and no mitigation is required.

Kimley>>>Horn

Page 106 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley 125 Bethany Drive
Initial Study | Page 48
7/17/23
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. _________________________________ _____________________________ Susie Pineda Date
Contract Planner
Kimley>>> Horn

Page 107 of 541 ends

Source: USGS, 2023
Not to scale
Casa Way Residential Subdivision
Source: USGS, 2023
Figure 1: Regional Location
Cabrillo Hwy
Coa
s
t
R
d
Henry Cowell
Redwoods State
Park
Wilder Ranch
State Park
Boulder Creek
Ben Lomond
Twin Lakes
enport
SantaCruz
Scotts Valley
Santa Cruz
Ben
Lomond
Mountain
S a n
t a C r u z M o u n t a i n s
17 Sierra Azul
788 ft
3780 ft
Los Gatos Creek
Los
Gatos Creek
Cabrillo
Hwy
Freedom Blvd
So
qu
e
l
Dr
Summit
Rd
The Forest of
Nisene Marks
State Park
Soquel
Demonstration
State Forest
Rio del Mar
Freedo
Opal Cliffs
Live Oak
Capitola
S a n
t a
C r u z M o u n t a
El Granada
Half Moon Bay
Franklin
Point
3836 ft
Alameda Creek
Big Basin
Redwoods State
Park
San Mateo
Los Gatos Santa Clara
Alum Rock
Redwood City
Saratoga
Palo Alto
Campbell
Milpitas
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Sierra Azul
S a n t a
C l a r a
V a l l e y
S a n t a C r u z M o u n t a i n s Scott Creek
1 Boulder Creek
Ben Lomond
Scotts Valley
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Morgan
S a
n t
a
C r u z M
o u n t a i n s
S a n t a
County of San

FAO, METI/N

CGIAR, USGS
3/20/2023, 2:08:51 PM
0 0
City of San Jose | Esri, CGIAR, USGS | County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, MET Not to scale
Figure 1: Regional Location
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Kimley>>>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.

Page 108 of 541 ends

Not to scale
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Source: Nearmaps, 2023
Bethany Drive
Tabor Drive
Riesling Way
Scotts Valley Drive
Vine Hill Elementary
School
Vine Hill School Road
Highway 17
Project Site
Siltanen Community
Park
East Glenwood Open
Space Preserve
Scotts Valley Drive
Kimley>>>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.

Page 109 of 541 ends

Source: C2G, 2023.
compact compact compact compact compact compact
E XIT
O N LY
E.V. Parking E.V. Parking
E.V. Parking E.V. Parking
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
24 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
25 26
27 28
33 32
31 29 30
34 38
44 39
40 41
42 43
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 59
52 58
53 54
57 56
55 35
37 11
23 36

E N T R Y
O N LY

E N T R Y E XIT E N T R Y E XIT

E XIT E N T R Y
5'-6" 19'-10" 5'-6" 31'-0" 5'-6"
9'-8" 127'-4"
5'-6" 70'-0" 5'-6" 31'-0" 5'-6"

SET BACK LINE
147'-8"
137'-4"
13'-4"
75'-0" 5'-6"
15'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
15'-0"
100'-0"
70'-0"
66'-4" 55'-4" 15'-8"

SET BACK LINE
59'-4" 54'-8"
20'-0"
61'-6"
16'-4" +-
VERIFY
10'-0"
50'-2" 5'-6"
193'-0"

T A B O R D R

B E T H T A N Y D R

S C O T T S V A L L E Y D R
50'-0"
FF 687.00
FF 690.00 FF 690.67
FF 699.71

BICYCLE PARKING

COVERED SECURE BICYCLE

PARKING

COVERED TRASH

ENCLOSURE

COVERED SECURE

BICYCLE PARKING

BICYCLE PARKING
FF
690.00

SET BACK LINE

ADJACENT TO

RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING MONUMENT

SIGN TO REMAIN
8'x60' LOADING
AREA
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
EXIT
Sheet No.

Scale
1/16
A
Tota
Project Title

REDEVELOPMENT FOR
125 BETHANT DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
APN 023
102
15 Design Firm

HUGH ZIKE AIA
838 WESTERN DR
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
Designed ByDrawn ByChecked By
DateRevisionProject ID
03-29-23
Revision
S
M
S
V
ll
C
EX
G

T TS A OF
E
LIC
SE
N
E
U
H

THE DATA SET FORTH ON THIS SHEET IS

THE PROPOERY OF HUGH ZIKE
ARCHITECT. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF

SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED,

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
Not to scale
Figure 3: Site Plan
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Kimley>>>Horn ®
Expec t More · Experience Better.

Page 110 of 541 ends

Figure 4a: Building Elevations
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Source: C2G, 2023.

Sheet No.

Scale
1/8" = 1'-0"
A4.1
Total Sheets
of
Project TitleSheet Title

REDEVELOPMENT FOR

EXTERIOR ELEVATION
125 BETHANT DRIVE

SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
APN 023-102-15
Design FirmConsultant

HUGH ZIKE AIA
838 WESTERN DR
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831-818-5808
Designed ByDrawn ByChecked ByReviewed BySubmitted By
DateRevisionProject IDDrawing CodeCAD File Name
03-29-23
Revision
Store More Scotts Valley
Drawing Code
NORTH ELEVATION 2 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
C #11897
EXP. 3/23
G

T TS A OF CAL
E

N OR IF
LIC

HI A SED N RC T
E
E

Z U H KE
H
I

THE DATA SET FORTH ON THIS SHEET IS

THE PROPOERY OF HUGH ZIKE
ARCHITECT. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF

SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED,

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
WRITTEN CONCENT OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE PROPER ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF

DATA SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF

THE USER WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE
ARCHITECT. UNAUTHORIZED USE IS

PROHIBITED
EAST ELEVATION 1 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

OPEN DRIVE THROUGH

OPEN WALK WAY TYPICAL
34'-6" MAX 35'-0"

HOLLOW METAL

EMERGENCY EXIT DOORS
AND FRAMES - "JANUS"

DESERT SAND
oe-------
oe-------
Kimley>>>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.

Page 111 of 541 ends

Figure 4b: Building Elevations
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Source: C2G, 2023.

Sheet No.

Scale
Project Title

REDEVELOPMENT FOR
125 BETHANT DRIVE
Design Firm

HUGH ZIKE AIA
838 WESTERN DR
Designed ByDrawn By
DateRevision
03-29-23
Revision

SOUTH ELEVATION
2 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

STANDING SEAM METAL

ROOF AEP SPAN SAGE
GREEN

METAL COPING AEP SPAN

REGAL WHITE
VERTICAL "BOARD AND BATTEN"

METAL SIDING - NAVAJO BEIGE

BRONZ ANODIZED ALUMINUM

SUN SCREENS

LOW E CLEAR GLASS IN

WHITE VINYL FRAME

VENEER ELDORADO STONE

LIMESOTNE - YORK
"2x6" TRIM - WHITE

PAINTED EXPOSED STEEL

BEAMS CHARCOAL GREY

SHINGLE HARDIE COMPOSITE

SIDING - KHAKI BROWN
"REDWOOD" SOFFIT

BRACKETS
125

BUILDING NUMBERS -
MINIMUM 4" HIGH ON A

CONTRASTING

BACKGROUND

DOWN SPOUTS TYPICAL SEE

ROOF PLAN

METAL GUTTERS TO MATCH

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING

WEST ELEVATION
1 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

OPEN WALK WAY TYPICAL

OPEN DRIVE THROUGH

OPEN WALK WAY TYPICAL

BUILDING NUMBERS -
MINIMUM 4" HIGH ON A

CONTRASTING

BACKGROUND
125 BETHANY DR

PENWALKWAYTYPICAL
TS A
LIC
E

THE DATA SET FORTH ON THIS SHEET IS

THE PROPOERY OF HUGH ZIKE
0 ,-..---- oe-------
Kimley>>>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.

Page 112 of 541 ends

Not to scale
Figure 5: Landscape Plan
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Source: C2G, 2023
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I
I
1 i5
K
£\

PLANT LIST TREES BOTANICAL & COMMON
AGONIS FlEXUOSA "AFTER DARK"
"AFTER DARK" PEPPERMINT TREE

CERCIS OCCIOENTALIS

WESTERN REDBUD

LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA

CRAPE MYRTLE
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA "ST. MARY'S"
"ST. MARY'S" MAGNOLIA

PISTACIA CHINENSIS

CHINESE PISTACHE

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA

COAST LIVE OAK
ACER PALMATUM "BLOODGOOD"
"BLOODGOOD" JAPANESE MAPLE

EXISTING TREE
-
0 0
0 C)
Kimley>>>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.

I ,_ \ I
I
I ---
0 <7 l
I
I
I
7 I
N 09"51'49" E ----e1.12-
N11"32'00"E --743a-
/2f.!l._.,_~;,?_;",_;.,Jc~"'-,~~=2':'.=-\ I
.,...,....,......... \
~'®§3i~"tt'=---=:::::,-,- \ ,_, \

Page 113 of 541 ends

Source: C2G, 2023
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
Not to scale
Figure 6: Lighting Plan
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
;::: -·
.,,_
Q1 3
(D ~-<
ii M
Q1
-0
~
. :::c
s o
g' -,
:::s
e
\, C,
\,-4.
,'<' '<' <)
-4.t
't-
~ ,-4.
\ "'
I\. \ ' g ? I ""' ', / //
~
, ~o __
Cij.
--
-- \---- 1/, '1· '.-- · /,( ' •---~ . L\l'li
'v"
I \
I \
I \
; '
IH
/\\
/
-- ---
I ,,I~
'l
I,
~1g
\::J "' V'\ \ _____ l
-----
y~;TI,
-1~ :~
I~
',
--
\l:r
'~
-.._ I I"
:•Jo
' " I
I
I
' I I
' \II
i
..
t]
-
_:
1 - lr
oO
',,~,t' I
7o~-}[
_, --f-
__
'
i ,, // ·~--1---
1 I

Page 114 of 541 ends

Not to scale
Figure 7: Grading Plan
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
Source: C2G, 2023.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NOTE: THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE

EXCLUSIVE OF WALL FOOTINGS, EXISTING PAVEMENT REMOVAL

AND OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION, UTILITY TRENCH SPOILS & SOIL EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION FACTORS.

ITEM DESCRIPTION CUT (cu.yds) FILL (cu.yds)
1 EG VS. FG 770 1980
NET VOLUME = 1210 CU.YDS. OF FILL
THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY CUT AND FILL TO ACCOMPLISH FINISH GRADE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. 7' -· ~3
l ro ~<
!ii M
-0 ;. :::c:
~o
g' ....
:J
e

1.,"
,x- /)
.J.. t
)-,
t • /
/
\ '\ '\
)-, \ ,_-
1>
...,,s
...,,.J..
, l I.)(' ~---.\ ___ ,, -- .. f .. t ___ _,
,!ill
••• I
I
I
I
gZ~t, ~"
"' L0'\69 ""
;,:,
:i!
;,:,
:><;
:i,;
c!:

Vi
i;::, "V\ \ _____ i :)../1 ("')
' '
--
-l /
:J
" I
I
I
~JW
.]j /
--1 tir
1 -,
rti
"
I~ -
~-
I \I'~' I I'
1-705,11-
--
~--J,_
--r-- ' -H .l :~,
,.1111,lfl
I
$

Page 115 of 541 ends

Not to scale
Figure 8: Drainage Plan
125 Bethany Drive
Draft Initial Study
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Call Two Working Days Before You Dig!
IMPERV Pervious DMA DMA
SQ FT SQ FT REQ Area PROV.Area
DMA 1 20,015 4,220 800 1,200
DMA 2 9,375 800 375 375
DMA 3 12,655 3,267 506 202
DMA 4 --- self treating area --- ____ ______
Total: 1,758 1,777
NET IMPERVIOUS AREA = 42,045 Total Site = 57,499
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1 THROUGH 4 ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 1 : SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION · DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM WALKWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 2 : WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
· BIO-RETENTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 3 : RUNOFF RETENTION
· RETENTION WITHIN ROCKED SECTION OF BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM · PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SET ABOVE RETENTION VOLUME IN ORDER

TO OPTIMIZE INFILTRATION
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 4 : PEAK MANAGEMENT
· PEAK MANAGEMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY DETAINING STORM WATER

ABOVE LIMIT OF RETENTION AND HAVE A RESTRICTOR ON THE OUTLET

STRUCTURE TO RELEASE WATER AT A PRE-DEVELOPMENT RATE
DMA 1
DMA 3
DMA 4
DMA 2
Source: C2G, 2023.

F
E
D
C
B
IMPERV Pervious DMA DMA
SQ FT SQ FT REQ Area PROV.Area
DMA 1 20,015 4,220 800 1,200
DMA 2 9,375 800 375 375
DMA 3 12,655 3,267 506 202
DMA 4 --- self treating area --- ____ ______
Total: 1,758 1,777
NET IMPERVIOUS AREA = 42,045 Total Site = 57,499
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1 THROUGH 4 ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 1 : SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION · DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM WALKWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
· DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 2 : WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
· BIO-RETENTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 3 : RUNOFF RETENTION
· RETENTION WITHIN ROCKED SECTION OF BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM · PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SET ABOVE RETENTION VOLUME IN ORDER

TO OPTIMIZE INFILTRATION
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT 4 : PEAK MANAGEMENT
· PEAK MANAGEMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY DETAINING STORM WATER

ABOVE LIMIT OF RETENTION AND HAVE A RESTRICTOR ON THE OUTLET

STRUCTURE TO RELEASE WATER AT A PRE-DEVELOPMENT RATE
DMA 1
DMA
DMA 4
DMA 2
0 I
I
I
,:--t __ , /
-·r:=i.-JL
-• Y---so.c
\if~', l
--1
--- I
-l
__ ]
,;, I
J~t--
1 /\ ' I
I
I
I
I
,'
't
f
0 f.J-1_
~11: r ---\
/ \}t<
1/
, .II ,1,
/ .....__..,,),
~r-~--% ~' ,~
,~
'\
',
c/ -?-\
@
C:
....
c g ::c ·~
a. ~ Jj
~e
>-~
Q) "ll
Et
2

Page 116 of 541 ends

ARBORIST REPORTTree Inventory, Impact Assessment & Protection Plan Bethany Professional Commercial Property
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15
Scotts Valley, CA
May 29, 2021

Prepared for:

Heritage Real Estate Ventures LLC
PO Box 379
Ames, IA 50010

Prepared by:

ISA Certified Arborist WE0681A
~Kurt
~ Fouts Arbor e- .. on 9,,c
826 Monterey Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
831-359-3607
ku [email protected]

Page 117 of 541 ends

Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1 Assignment .................................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the Assignment.............................................................................................. 2 Purpose and use of the report...................................................................................... 2 Resources.................................................................................................................... 2 OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................3-9 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................10 Species List................................................................................................................ 10 Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods................................................................... 10 Condition Rating ........................................................................................................ 11 Suitability for Preservation ......................................................................................... 11 Tree Protection Zone ................................................................................................. 12 Critical Root Zone ...................................................................................................... 12 Root Disturbance Distance………………………………………………………………………………………………13 Impacts to Subject Trees……………………….....…………………………………………………………………….14-16 Tree Removal……………………………………………………………………..…………………17
Tree Protection Specifications…………………………………………………………...…………..…18 Tree Appraisal & Tree Replacement…………………………………………………………………………………..20 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………..21
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………………………...22

Page 118 of 541 ends

Attachments: Appendix A - H
Appendix A – Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix B – Criteria for Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix C - Tree Location & Removal Plan
Appendix D – Tree Protection Plan
Appendix E – Bibliography
Appendix F – Glossary of Terms
Appendix G – Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions
 Protecting Trees During Construction
 Project Arborist Duties & Inspection Schedule
 Tree Protection Fencing
 Tree Protection Signs
 Monitoring
 Root Pruning
 Tree Work Standards & Qualifications
 City of Scotts Valley Protected Trees
Appendix H - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions

Page 119 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 1

SUMMARY
This report provides the following information:

1. A summary of the health and structural condition of 45 trees.

2. An evaluation of anticipated construction impacts to the trees.

3. Recommendations for retention or removal of assessed trees based on their condition and anticipated construction impacts.

4. Tree protection specifications for retained trees.
 The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
 A commercial parcel with existing buildings will be demolished and site improvements including a mini storage complex will be constructed.
 Forty-five trees within or near the parcel boundaries were inventoried. Eighteen are “protected”.
 Four “protected” trees are suitable for preservation and can be incorporated in the proposed project.
 Thirteen “protected” trees are recommended for removal due to anticipated high construction impacts.
 One “protected” tree is in poor condition and is not suitable for retention in the project.  If removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.  This is a preliminary evaluation, once final plans are completed, tree protection specifications based on the final plans will be required.

Background
Plans will be submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, to develop the two parcels into a multi-unit housing complex. Heritage Real Estate Ventures has requested my services, to assess the condition of trees on the applicant’s property and the construction impacts that may affect them.

Further, to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to meet City of Scotts Valley planning requirements.

Assignment
Provide an arborist report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter, height and canopy spread), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. Further, to review the preliminary development plans and assess the potential construction impacts.

To complete this assignment, the following services were performed:
 Tree Resource Evaluation: Tag with metal tags, inventory, evaluate and assign suitability for preservation ratings for subject trees.

Page 120 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 2 Assignment continued:
 Plan Review: Reviewed provided plans including: Civil Binder, by C2G Civil Consultants, dated 11/13/2020.
 Construction Impact Assessment: Combine tree resource data with anticipated construction impacts, to provide recommendations for removal or retention of trees.  Mapping: Tree locations were plotted onto: Demolition Plan, by C2G Civil Consultants, dated 2/20/2019, and a Tree Location Plan was created. Utility Plan, was base map used for Tree Protection Plan.

Limits of the Assignment
The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection on 5/23/2021.

The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in questions may not arise in the future.

Purpose and use of the report
The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the developer, their agents, the City of Scotts Valley, as a reference for existing tree conditions and to help satisfy the City of Scotts Valley planning requirements.

Resources
All information within this report is based on site plans as of the date of this report. Resources are as follows:
 Civil binder, by C2G Civil Consultants, dated 11/13/2020.  Site Visit, Tree Survey & Condition Evaluation at 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Drive, Scotts Valley, on 5/23/2021.
 City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code –Section 17.44.080 Tree Protection Regulations (applicable sections).
 1) Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition, 2) Species Classification and Group Assignment, (Wester Chapter Edition).

Page 121 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 3

OBSERVATIONS
The roughly 1.25-acre parcel is a developed commercial property. The corner property is bordered by streets on three sides and residential properties on the fourth side. The property gently slopes from a high point adjacent to Tabor Drive, down to Scotts Valley Drive to the south and down to Bethany Drive to the east. Several retaining walls bisect the property to create level areas for most of the property. (Image #1).

Image #1 –Project area bordered by Tabor Drive, top of image, Scotts Valley Drive, to left and Bethany Drive, bottom of image.

I surveyed 45 trees on the commercial property. The dominant species and most of the “protected” trees were liquidambar, (Liquidambar styraciflua). Other frequently planted species include olive (Olea europaea) and purple-leaf plum, (Prunus cerasifera). Two London plane trees, (Platanus x hispanica), are the largest specimens on the property. Two trees on an adjacent property, one Japanese maple, (Acer palmatum), and one purple-leaf plum were also surveyed.

Most of the trees were in good or fair condition. Only one tree was found in poor condition, a severely drought stressed European white birch (Betula pendula).

Page 122 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 4 Many of the mature liquidambars are showing drought stress from chronic water deficit. The small planting areas, with limited rooting areas, are largely responsible for this condition.

The liquidambars are growing too close to paved areas. Curb and pavement damage is seen in much of the parking lot area (Image #2). This species is well known for shallow rooting and hardscape damage.

Image #2 - Tree T8, liquidambar. Note cracked and lifted curb and pavement.

Page 123 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 5 Multiple liquidambar trees are creating curb and pavement problems in the south parking lot, (Image #3).

Image #3 – Tree T9, liquidambar. Curb and asphalt lifting and cracking.

Page 124 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 6 In some areas the asphalt has completely failed creating holes with exposed roots, (Images 4 & 5).

Image #4 – Tree T11, liquidambar. Note exposed root (circled).

Image #5 – Tree T8, with exposed root in asphalt.

Page 125 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 7 At the northern end of the property several olive trees and purple-leaf plum grow. These species second most common species surveyed on the parcel.

All are in good or fair condition (Image #6).

Image #6 – View from Tabor Drive. Trees T30- T34 olive, on right. Trees T29, Japanese maple and T28, purpleleaf plum, on left.

Page 126 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 8 The two largest specimens on the property are London plane tree (Image #7). They are in fair condition, showing minor drought stress. They have good structure and limbs are well attached.

Because they grow in a turf area, competition with the turf for available moisture is likely contributing to water deficit issues.

Image #7 – Trees T17 & T18, London plane tree.

Page 127 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 9 Management of trees on the property was good except for the purple-leaf plums and a group of evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii) trees. These trees had been topped at 10 feet above grade and the resulting re-growth is poorly attached, (Image #8).

Image #8 – Trees T21 – T24 evergreen pear. Health of the trees is fair. Trees were topped at 10’ above grade, resulting in poorly attached new growth.

Most of the liquidambar have overextended limbs and could use some targeted crown reduction pruning on the overly long limbs.

Twenty-seven “not protected” trees were surveyed. All were in good or fair condition.

Page 128 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 10

DISCUSSION
Species List
TOTAL SUBJECT TREES: 45 Trees
Protected: 18
12 Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua)
3 Olive (Olea europaea)
2 London Plane Tree (Platnus x hispanica)
1 European White Birch (Betula pendula)
Not Protected: 27
1 Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua)
4 Olive (Olea europaea)
6 Purple-leaf plum (Prunus cerasifera)
5 Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum)
4 Evergreen Pear (Pyrus kawakamii)
4 Shiny Xylosma (Xylosma congesta)
2 Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana)
1 Crape Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica)
Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods
Site evaluations were made on 5/23/2021. The survey included two trees on an adjacent property with canopies overhanging the project limits. The health and structural condition of each tree was assessed and recorded. Based on the trees health and structural condition, each trees suitability for preservation was rated and recorded.

The recorded data is included in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A, of this report. Tree numbers were plotted on the attached Tree Location Map sheet, T1. To correlate the data in the Tree Assessment Chart to the tree’s location on the site, refer to the Tree Location & Removal Plan, sheet T1 - Appendix C.

Page 129 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 11 Condition Rating
A trees condition is determined by an assessing both the health and structure, then combining the two factors to reach a condition rating. If the health rating and the structure rating differ, the lower rating becomes the default condition rating. Tree condition is rated as poor, fair or good. The quantity of trees assigned for each category (good, fair or poor), is indicated below:

Tree Condition Rating- Protected Trees
 Good - 0
 Fair - 17
 Poor - 1
Suitability for Preservation
A trees suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species characteristics and longevity using a scale of good, fair or poor. The quantity of trees assigned to each category (good, fair or poor), is listed below.

Suitability Rating- Protected Trees
 Good - 0
 Fair – 17
 Poor - 1
Trees Recommended for Removal Due to Poor Condition - Protected Trees - One tree
T1 European White Birch (Betula pendula)

Page 130 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 12 Tree Protection Zone
The tree protection zone (TPZ), is a defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction.

The size of the optimal TPZ can be determined by a formula based on 1) trunk diameter 2) species tolerance to construction impacts, and 3) tree age (Matheny, N. and Clark, J 1998). In some instances, tree drip line is used as the TPZ. Development constraints can also influence the final size of the tree protection zone.

Fencing is installed to delineate the (TPZ), and to protect tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches from construction equipment. The fenced protection area may be smaller than the optimal or designated TPZ area in some circumstances. Tree protection may also involve the armoring of the tree trunk and/or scaffold limbs with barriers to prevent mechanical damage from construction equipment. See Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions – Appendix E.

Once the TPZ is delineated and fenced (prior to any site work, equipment and materials move in), construction activities are only to be permitted within the TPZ if allowed for and specified by the project arborist.

Where tree protection fencing cannot be used, or as an additional protection from heavy equipment, tree wrap may be used. Wooden slats at least one inch thick are to be bound securely, edge to edge, around the trunk. A single layer or more of orange plastic construction fencing is to be wrapped and secured around the outside of the wooden slats. Major scaffold limbs may require protection as determined by the City arborist or Project arborist. Straw wattle may also be used as a trunk wrap and secured with orange plastic fencing.

Data has been entered in the Tree Assessment Chart – Appendix A, which indicates the optimal Tree Protection Zone for each tree.

Critical Root Zone
Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located that provide critical stability, uptake of water and nutrients required for a tree's survival. The CRZ is the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching that requires root cutting should occur and can be calculated as three to the five times the trunk Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). For example, if a tree is one foot in trunk diameter then the CRZ is three to five feet from the trunk location. We will often average this as four times the trunk diameter or 1ft. DBH = 4ft. CRZ (Smiley, E.T., Fraedrich, B. and Hendrickson, N. 2007).

Page 131 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 13 Root Disturbance Distance
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty, what distance from a tree a soil disturbance such as excavation for construction should be, to ensure it will not significantly affect tree stability or health. Or to what degree, (low, moderate or high), a tree might be impacted. There are simply too many variables involved that we cannot see or anticipate. However, three times the D.B.H. (diameter at breast height), is a widely accepted minimum used in the industry for root disturbance, on one side of the trunk, and is supported by several research studies including (Smiley, Fraedich & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a project in order to estimate root loss due to construction activities. This distance is a guideline only and should be increased for trees with significant leans, decay or other structural problems.

The ISA, International Society of Arboriculture- Root Management (2017) publication recommends, “cutting roots at a distance greater than six times the trunk diameter (DBH) minimizes the likelihood of affecting both health and stability. This recommendation is given further direction by the companion publication, A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management, when roots are cut in a non-selective manner, i.e. in a straight line on one side of a tree. It says, if the cutting is “within six times the trunk diameter (DBH), mitigation shall be recommended”. Further, A.N.S.I. recommends the “minimum distance from the trunk for root cutting should be adjusted according to trunk diameter, species tolerance to root loss, tree age, health and site condition”.

In general, root cutting that occurs at a distance less than six times the diameter of a tree should be undertaken by hand digging and hand (or Sawzall), root pruning. These methods help mitigate root loss impacts.

Page 132 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 14 Impacts to Subject Trees
Construction impact assessments are based on the Site Improvements, sheet C2.1, dated 11/13/2020, and Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet 3.1, dated 2/20/2019, by C2G/Civil Consultants Group, Engineers.

Four “protected” trees will have moderate construction impacts and are suitable for incorporation into the project.

Demolition & Construction Phases Affecting Subject Trees –

1. Demolition of existing curb and parking lot.

2. Installation of curb and parking lot.

3. Installation of storm drain line.

4. Installation of sanitary sewer line.

5. Installation of fire service line.

6. Installation of pervious paver patio.

7. Installation of the new mini storage building.

During the demolition phase, the existing curb and parking lot near trees T11 and T12, will be sawcut and the asphalt removed, (Image #9). Several surface roots currently causing damage to the lot will be pruned and removed. The parking lot will be realigned and will require new excavation within 5 feet of tree T11 and 2 feet of tree T12. Both the demolition and new curb installation will result in root loss that can be tolerated by the trees if mitigation methods are used.

Image #9 – Trees T11 & T12, liquidambar. Note new curb installed adjacent to trees. Some of the new curb will be installed in the same footprint as the existing parking lot (red line is existing curb location). Existing roots will be cut behind new curb (blue line).
.\ ~ ·_ .

S[ •
\
n • • ••• TYPI
U RIM
• -------:, INV=
\

Page 133 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 15 Impacts to Subject Trees, Continued
New utility lines will be installed near trees T17 and T18, London plane tree (Image #10). A storm drain line will be installed within 6 feet of tree T17 and will result in root loss. A sanitary sewer line will be installed within 5 feet of tree T18, and a fire service line will be installed within 6 feet. The installation of these lines will result in root loss.

A pervious paver patio will be installed 2 feet from both London plane trees (Image #10). The installation will require a grade raise of about one foot. Subgrade material for the pavers will be compacted and some loss of smaller absorbing roots is anticipated.

The new mini storage building will be installed within 15 feet of the two London plane trees (Image #10). Depending on the height of the new building, minor canopy clearance pruning, on one or both trees may be necessary to allow for construction of the new building and to achieve clearance from it once construction is completed.

Image #10 – Trees T17 & T18, London plane tree.

The two London plane trees will be able to tolerate the amount of anticipated root loss from installation of the utility lines and pervious paver patio if mitigation methods are used. However, it is recommended that the new patio edge come no closer than five feet from the two trees, instead of the two feet currently shown on plan sheet C2.1, Site Improvements. This will prevent the grade from being too high close to the trunk, and soil being mounded against it which can create an environment for soil fungal pathogens to proliferate and potentially infect the tree. .
.

T17 LONDON PLANE TREE
DBH 23"
T18 LONDON PLANE TREE
DBH 24"

Page 134 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 16 Impacts to Subject Trees, Continued
If site constraints allow, moving any of the utility lines even a few feet further from the two trees will reduce the amount of root loss and corresponding negative impact, and is recommended if feasible.

Since all four trees are suffering drought stress, and all will have reduced ability to uptake water due to root loss, one of the mitigation specifications will be to supply supplemental irrigation to them during the construction period.

Thirteen of the fourteen remaining “protected” trees will be highly impacted by the project and removal will be necessary.

Four trees that are not protected and can be incorporated into the project including trees T27, T28, T29, T34 and T2-A will be moderately impacted, and mitigation methods to reduce root loss impacts are recommended and shown on Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2.

Impact Level
Impact level rates the degree a tree may be impacted by construction activity and is primarily determined by how close the construction procedures occur to the tree. Construction impacts are rated as low, moderate, high. The quantity of trees assigned for each category (low, moderate, high), is indicated below:

Impact Rating to Trees - Protected
 Low - 1
 Moderate – 4
 High - 13

Page 135 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 17 Mitigation Measures for Retained Trees
The trees retained on this project will require some or all the following methods to protect them from the impacts described above and to minimize root loss during the construction phases.  Tree Protection Fencing
 Hand trenching.
 Supervised root pruning.

Tree protection specifications are included on the Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2 and on Tree Location & Removal Plan sheet T1. These plan sheets shall become an element of the final plan set.

Trees Recommended for Removal Due to Anticipated Construction Impacts – Protected Trees
Thirteen
- 10 Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua)
- 3 Olive (Olea europaea)

Page 136 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 18 Tree Protection Specifications & Recommended Sequence
(These specifications are included on the Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2) Demolition Phase:

1. Tree Removal – Remove trees marked for removal.

2. Tree Pruning – Lay out edge of proposed building closest to trees T17 and T18. Perform clearance pruning if necessary, to achieve a minimum of 5 feet clearance from new building.

3. Tree Protection Fencing - Install Tree Protection Fencing, in location indicated on Tree Location & Removal Plan, sheet T1, and copied on Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2, prior to beginning of demolition.

4. Supplemental Irrigation – A temporary hose bib shall be installed withing the vicinity of trees T11 & T2 and T17 & T18.

A. A battery-operated hose end irrigation timer shall be installed on the hose bib.

B. Soaker hoses shall be laid out within the canopy drip line of the four trees to provide supplemental irrigation for the duration of the project.

C. If it is necessary to temporarily move the hoses during construction phases adjacent to the trees, the hoses shall be reinstalled once the design element is completed.

5. Demolition of existing curb and parking lot – On existing asphalt, mark new curb layout adjacent to trees T11 & T12. Sawcut asphalt at new curb marking. Remove existing asphalt between new curb and trees T11 & T12, using a jack hammer and hand loading pieces Construction Phase:

1. Installation of curb and parking lot - Excavation for new curb closest to trees T11 & T12, shall be accomplished by hand methods (see tree protection plan Sheet T2, for location).

An electric spade may be used for excavation. The depth of the trench for curb form shall equal the depth required for excavation of the new curb. Any roots found less than 2” in diameter, shall be cleanly pruned with loppers, hand saw or Sawzall, 1-2 feet behind the form boards, between the forms and trees T11 & T12. If roots are encountered 2” in diameter or greater, they shall be pruned under supervision of the Project Arborist. Roots shall be pruned by methods indicated on Tree Protection Plan sheet T1, Pre-Construction Root Pruning.

Page 137 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 19 Tree Protection Specifications & Recommended Sequence, continued:

2. Installation of storm drain line, sanitary sewer line & fire service line, adjacent to trees T17 & T18 -
A. Stake trenching location for drain line, sewer line or fire service line.

B. Hand dig or machine trenching to a depth of 24” shall be performed in area indicated on plan sheet T2. This procedure will pre-cut any roots from adjacent trees T17 & T18.

C. Use of any of the following equipment to machine trench is permissible:
a. Ditch Witch RT45 Trencher, or equivalent.

D. Any torn roots found in trench , shall be cleanly pruned with loppers, hand saw or Sawzall. Roots shall be pruned by methods indicated on Tree Protection Plan sheet, Pre-Construction Root Pruning.

E. Once roots have been cleanly pruned, final trenching to desired depth and width required for pipe installation may be completed with other machinery (backhoe, excavator), as necessary

3. Installation of pervious paver patio – The patio perimeter shall be laid out so that no patio edge is closer than 5 feet to trunks of trees T17 & T18. Any subgrade material added to achieve desired subgrade for pavers shall be by hand methods, no machinery within patio footprint.

A. The grade shall not be raised at the tree trunk or within 1 – 2 feet of the trunk. No new soil shall be placed against the tree trunks under any circumstances.

Page 138 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 20 Tree Appraisal & Valuation– Protected Trees
The City of Scotts Valley requires valuation of all retained protected trees potentially affected by a construction project. The value of four trees has been appraised. References included, 1) Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition, 2) Species Classification and Group Assignment, (Wester Chapter Edition).

The total appraised value is $ 23,400 The criteria for appraisal are included in the attached spreadsheet, Appendix D, Appraised Value of “Protected” Trees – Trunk Formula Method.

The owner/applicant will be required to obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, a Tree Protection security deposit prior to obtaining Building Division permits. The total value of the security deposit will be $23,400.

Summary Table - Total number of trees inventoried: 45
Number of protected trees: 18
Total appraised value of protected trees to be retained:
$23,400
Recommended security deposit: $23,400
Number of protected trees requested for removal: 14
Tree Replacement
The final number of trees could vary slightly depending on the final design. At present, fourteen (14) “protected” trees are recommended for removal, thirteen due to construction impacts and one due to poor condition.

Compensation for tree removal necessary to construct the project include:
 Preservation and protection of the retained trees during construction.  Pre-construction treatments for specific trees.
 Tree planting specified in the landscape design for this project.

The City of Scotts Valley recommends a minimum ratio of two trees are to be replanted (15 gallon or 24-inch box size), for every “protected” tree removed. Currently, fourteen trees are recommended for removal Therefore, a total of twenty-eight replacement trees is required. The Landscape Plan, sheet L1, dated 2/20/2019 has twenty -five trees plotted. There are locations for replanting an additional three trees within the new site plan, to reach the required replanting total of twenty – eight trees. The tree replanting locations are indicated on the Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2.

Page 139 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 21

CONCLUSION
 The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
 A commercial parcel with existing buildings will be demolished and site improvements including a mini storage complex will be constructed.
 Forty-five trees within or near the parcel boundaries were inventoried. Eighteen are “protected”.
 Four “protected” trees including T11 & T12, liquidambar and T17 & T18, London plane tree, are suitable for preservation and can be incorporated in the proposed project.  Thirteen “protected” trees are recommended for removal due to anticipated high construction impacts. The highly impacted trees include trees T2, T3, T9, T10, T13, T14, T19, T20, T42 & T43, liquidambar, and T30, T36 & T38, olive.  One “protected” tree, T1, European white birch, is in poor condition and is not suitable for retention in the project.
 If removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.  The City of Scotts Valley recommends a minimum ratio of two trees are to be replanted (15 gallon or 24-inch box size), for every “protected” tree removed. Currently, fourteen trees are recommended for removal. Therefore, a total of twenty-eight replacement trees is required.  The Landscape Plan, sheet L1, dated 2/20/2019 has twenty -five trees plotted. There are locations for replanting an additional three trees within the new site plan, to reach the required replanting total of twenty – eight trees. The tree replanting locations are indicated on the Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2.
 The City of Scotts Valley requires valuation of all retained protected trees potentially affected by a construction project. The value of four trees has been appraised. The total appraised value is $ 23,400 The criteria for appraisal are included in the attached spreadsheet, Appendix D, Appraised Value of “Protected” Trees – Trunk Formula Method.

Page 140 of 541 ends

Tree Survey & Protection Plan 5/28/2021
125 Bethany Drive, APN: 023-102-15, Scotts Valley Page 22

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Obtain all necessary permits prior to removing or significantly altering any trees on site.

2. Remove trees recommended for removal.

3. Prune trees T17 and T18 London plane trees to allow a minimum of five feet clearance from the new building.

4. Follow tree protection specifications as indicated on page 18 of this report and repeated on Tree Protection Plan, sheet T2.

Respectfully submitted,

Kurt Fouts ISA Certified Arborist WE0681A
Kurt Fouts
urt Fouts
bor e~ Cone • u
826 Monterey Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
831-359-3607
[email protected]

Page 141 of 541 ends

Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 54
inches
a.g.

Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts
(Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T1
European white
birch (Betula
pendula )
15" Yes 45'X15' Poor Fair Poor 10' N/A R.C. In significant decline. Minimal live canopy.

T2
liquidambar
(Liquidambar
styraciflua )
11" Yes 60'X20' Fair Fair Fair 10'
High (root
loss,
excavation)
R.I. Protected, within 5' of R.O.W. < 1' from new sidewalk.

Minor canopy dieback.

T3 liquidambar 11" Yes 50'X20' Fair Fair Fair 10'
High (root
loss,
excavation)
R.I.

Protected, within 5' of R.O.W. < 1' from new sidewalk
Appears drought stressed. Has limited rooting area and leaf is off color.

Page 1 of 8 ends

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment
Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Suitability for Preservation Ratings: Retention or Removal Code:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site
RT: Retain Tree
RI: Remove Due to Construction Impacts
I.M. Impacts Can Be Mitigated With Pre-Construction Treatments R.C. Remove Due to Condition
Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures
Protected Tree City of Scotts Valley Any tree 13 inches or greater in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Any multi-trunk with one trunk 8" in diameter or greater. Any oak 8 inches or greater. Any tree 8 inches or greater, if located within 20 feet of a slope > 20%. Certain undesirable species exempt. ~ 1_ ~ ~Ku.rt -- Fout.a -.cc ,. ".%--< -~ Arbor,>\ Con l~ V 826 Mo,nte,ey Avenue
Cap i t ola. CA 95 01 O
831-359- 3607
k u rll outs 1@ou I look. com

Page 142 of 541 ends

Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.

Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts
(Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T4 shiny xylosma
(Xylosma congesta )
11" (at 2'
above
grade)
No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 6' High (within
grading limits) R.I. Less than 1' from concrete block retainer.

T5 shiny xylosma 9" No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 6' High (within grading limits) R.I. Less than 1' from concrete block retainer.

T6 shiny xylosma 10" No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 6' High (within grading limits) R.I. Less than 1' from concrete block retainer.

T7 shiny xylosma 10" No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 6' High (within grading limits) R.I. Less than 1' from concrete block retainer.

T8 liquidambar 12" No 35'X10' Fair Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I.

Appears drought stressed. Has limited rooting area and
leaf is off color. Curb and asphalt damage from surface roots.

T9 liquidambar 13" Yes 40'X10' Fair Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I.

Appears drought stressed. Has limited rooting area and
leaf is off color. Curb and asphalt damage from surface roots.

Page 2 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
~ i_ -- ~-Ku.rt. Fout.a
'~- r< ..,..___ Arbor e~ Oon 'l e.n
V 826 Mio,nlerey Avenue
Capitola. CA 95010
831 -3-59- 3607
ku1rUoutsl@ou I look. com

Page 143 of 541 ends

Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @

4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention or
Removal
Code
Comments
T10 liquidambar 14" Yes 40'X15' Fair Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I.

Appears drought stressed. Has limited rooting area and
leaf is off color. Curb and asphalt damage from surface roots.

T11 liquidambar 16" Yes 55'X15' Good Fair Fair 10'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M. Overextended limbs need crown reduction pruning.

Significant asphalt damage from surface roots.

T12 liquidambar 16" Yes 45'X15' Good Fair Fair 10'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M. Overextended limbs need crown reduction pruning.

Significant asphalt damage from surface roots.

T13 liquidambar 14" Yes 45'X15' Good Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I. Overextended limbs need crown reduction pruning. Significant asphalt damage from surface roots.

T14 liquidambar 13" Yes 50'X10' Good Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I. Overextended limbs need crown reduction pruning. Significant asphalt damage from surface roots.

T15 purple-leaf plum
(Prunus cerasifera ) 12" No 25'X15' Good Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. IN 5'X5' walkway cutout. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
A 1. - ~ ~Ku.rt -- Fouts '\.,ti "'~ Arbor ui Cona"'l
V 826 Mlonlerey A.venue
C,ap itol a . CA 95D 1 0
831-3,59-3607
k,uirH outs1 @ou I look. com

Page 144 of 541 ends

Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T16 purple-leaf plum 10" No 15'X10' Good Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. IN 5'X5' walkway cutout. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth.

T17 London plane tree
(Platnus x hispanica ) 23" Yes 65'X40' Fair Good Fair 18' Moderate -High
(root loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M. 12' from sidewalk. In turf area on moderate slope with many surface roots.

Minor drought stress as evidenced by thinning canopy.

T18 London plane tree 24" Yes 65'X40' Fair Good Fair 18' Moderate -High
(root loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M. 13' from sidewalk. In turf area on moderate slope with many surface roots.

Minor drought stress as evidenced by thinning canopy.

T19 liquidambar 20" Yes 70'X20' Good Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I. Overextended limbs need crown reduction pruning.

T20 liquidambar 15" Yes 60'X15' Good Fair Fair 10' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T21 evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii ) 10" No 15'X10' Fair Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth. Fungal leaf disease.

Page 4 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley ~l -- --- .,.._,_ Kurt Fouts ArborleL OonaulL&D"-
P' 8 26 M onle rey Ave n ue
C ap i t ol a , CA 95 01 0
8 3 1 -359 - 3607 kurl'fou [email protected]

Page 145 of 541 ends

Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention or
Removal
Code
Comments
T22 evergreen pear 10" No 15'X10' Fair Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth. Fungal leaf disease.

T23 evergreen pear 10" No 15'X10' Fair Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth. Fungal leaf disease.

T24 evergreen pear 9" No 20'x10' Fair Poor Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth. Fungal leaf disease.

T25 Japanese maple
(Acer palmatum )
5",4",4",4
" No 15'X15' Good Good Good 8' High (within
grading limits) R.I. 3' from property line.

T26 purple-leaf plum 7" No 15'X15' Good Poor Fair 8' High (root loss, excavation) R.I. 2' from new retainer. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth.

T27 purple-leaf plum 8" No 15'X15' Good Poor Fair 8' Moderate (root loss, excavation) R.T., I.M 2' from corner of new retainer. Topped at 10' above grade., with poorly attached regrowth.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley ~1 ~ ~Kurt - Fou~s 'OcC' ~- Arborla\. Cone l an
V 826 Mo,nte,ey Avenue
C ,ap it o,I a . CA 95U 10
831 - 359- 3607
k uirUouts1@ou 11,ook. co•m

Page 146 of 541 ends

Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (radius
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T28 purple-leaf plum 6" No 15'X10' Good Poor Fair 8'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M
3' from type-c curb. Topped at 10' above grade., with
poorly attached regrowth. Missing bark with deadwood
along trunk.

T29 Japanese maple
9"
(at 6"
above
grade)
No 10'X10' Good Good Good 8'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M 6' from type-c curb.

T30 olive
(Olea europaea )
8",8",5",
4" Yes 10'X10' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T31 olive 6",6" No 10'X10' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T32 olive 6",6" No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T33 olive 6",5",5",
4" No 15'X10' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I.

Page 6 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley ~ i_ ~ ~Kurt -- Fouts ..,, ~
Arbo.r1a1. Oona1...lL&nt.

V 826 M onle rey Avenue
Cap i t o l a , C A 9501 0
831 - 359- 3 607
k u rltouts 1 @ou 11 ook . com

Page 147 of 541 ends

Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T34 olive 6",6",5" No 10'X10' Good Fair Fair 8'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation)
R.T., I.M 5' from type-c curb
T35
flowering ornamental
pear
(Pyrus calleryana )
8" (at 4'
above
grade)
No 30'X15' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within
grading limits) R.I. 6' from concrete block retainer.

T36 olive 9",5",4" Yes 10'X10' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. 9' from concrete block retainer.

T37 flowering ornamental
pear
9" No 30'X15' Good Fair Fair 8' High (within
grading limits) R.I. 7' from concrete block retainer.

T38 olive 9",9",7",7" Yes 20'X15' Good Good Fair 8' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T39 crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica ) 10" No 20'X10' Good Good Good 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Curb and asphalt damage from surface roots.

Page 7 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley ~ ~
~ ~Kurt --- Fout.a '-'Cl ,..11 ~ .UII.. Arbo.rteL Oona l &n1' V 826 Monterey Avenue
Cap itola. CA 95010
831 - 359- 3607
k ur-lloulls1 @ou 11 ook. co-m

Page 148 of 541 ends

Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T40 Japanese maple 6",4" No 10'X10' Poor Poor Poor 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Trunk and limb dieback symptomatic of Verticillium wilt a fungal disease.

T41 Japanese maple 5" No 10'X10' Poor Poor Poor 8' High (within grading limits) R.I. Trunk and limb dieback symptomatic of Verticillium wilt a fungal disease.

T42 liquidambar 23" Yes 60'X20' Good Fair Fair 12' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T43 liquidambar 20" Yes 60'X20' Good Fair Fair 12' High (within grading limits) R.I.

T1-A Japanese maple 6",5",5",4" No 20'X15' Good Good Good 8' Low (root loss, excavation) R.T.
10' from new trash enclosure pad. On adjacent property. 5' from property line. Canopy overhangs to subject property by 5 feet.

T2-A purple-leaf plum 8" No 25'X15' Good Good Good 8'
Moderate (root
loss,
excavation,
canopy loss,
clearance
pruning)
R.T., I.M
On adjacent property. 1.5' from property line. 3' from new trash enclosure pad. Canopy overhangs to subject property by 5 feet, and will need minor to moderate canopy
clearance pruning to accomdate covered trash enclosure.

Page 8 of 8 ends

Store More Scott's Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley i~
~ ~Kurt --- Foute
'"- 'l ~--- Arborle\. Oona, H.an
' V 826 Monterey Avenue
Cap itol a. CA 95 10
831 - 359- 3607 kuirUouts1@oul look .co-m

Page 149 of 541 ends

APPENDIX B – CRITERIA FOR TREE ASSESSMENT CHART
Following is an explanation of the data used in the tree evaluations. The data is incorporated in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A.

Trunk Diameter and Number of Trunks:

Trunk diameter as measured at 4.5 feet above grade. The number of trunks refers to a single or multiple trunked tree. Multiple trunks are measured at 4.5 feet above grade.

Health Ratings:

Good: A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease Fair: Moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, crown may be thinning and leaf color may be poor
Poor: Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk, most of foliage from epicormics
Structure Ratings:

Good: No significant structural defects. Growth habit and form typical of the species Fair: Moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care Poor: Extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

Suitability for Preservation Ratings:

Rating factors:

Tree Health: Healthy vigorous trees are more tolerant of construction impacts such as root loss, grading and soil compaction, then are less vigorous specimens.

Structural integrity: Preserved trees should be structurally sound and absent of defects or have defects that can be effectively reduced, especially near structures or high use areas.

Tree Age: Over mature trees have a reduced ability to tolerate construction impacts, generate new tissue and adjust to an altered environment. Young to maturing specimens are better able to respond to change.

Page 150 of 541 ends

Species response: There is a wide variation in the tolerance of individual tree species to construction impacts.

Rating Scale:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures.

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment. Trees can be expected to decline or fail regardless of construction impacts or management . The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site.

Construction Impacts:

Rating Scale:

High: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that would severely impact the health and /or stability of the tree. The tree impacts cannot be mitigated without design changes. The tree may be located within the building footprint.

Moderate: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that will impact the health and/or stability of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

Low: Development elements proposed that are located within or near the Tree Protection Zone that will have a minor impact on the health of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

None: Development elements will have no impact on the health and stability of the Tree.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):

Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, particularly during construction or development.

Page 151 of 541 ends

1 REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.

REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.

Tree Location & Removal Plan
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California
Sheet T1
of 2 sheets
K.F.
5/27/2021
APN: 023-
102-15
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

T1 WHITE BIRCHDBH 15"
.

T2 LIQUIDAMBAR11"
T3 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 11"
T8 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 12"
.
.

T4-T7 XYLOSMADBH 9",10",10",10"
T9 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 13"
T10 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 14"
T11-T13 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 16",16", 14"
.

T14 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 13"
T16 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 10"T15 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 12"
T17 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 23"T18 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 24" T19 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20"
T20 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 15"
T21-T24 EVERGREEN PEARDBH 10",10",10",9"
T25 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 5",4",4",4"
T1-A JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 6",5",5",4"
T2-A PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T26 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 7"
T27 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T28 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 6"
T29 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 9"
T30 OLIVEDBH 8",8",5",4"
T31 OLIVEDBH 6",6"
T32 OLIVEDBH 6",6"
T33 OLIVE6",5",5",4"
T34 OLIVEDBH 6",6",5"
T35 CALLERY PEARDBH 8"
T37 CALLERY PEARDBH 9"
T36 OLIVEDBH 9",5",4"
T38 OLIVEDBH 9",9",7",7"
T39 CRAPE MYRTLEDBH 10"
T42 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 23"
T40 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 6",4"
T43 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20"
T41 JAPANESE MAPLEDBH 5"
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-------
-------- ---
--
---
----
-- --------------
----
---
Base map provided by C2G Civil Consultants, Scotts Valley, CA C ·,,,
0 '
TS s
aE y ~:i,&'21 u ,:n C' :,,
V E
\
(/)
(/)
(/)
(/)
'
" 0
5,37
·"
c.;_,
..
,-
D
)

VINE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
_ _.\-
-~:-5"~-------,
' f68•(~ ... -~v)Y
_,
<.C· (... --1 ss:; ,
<='·
(l;<O
.,
TABOR
w w
-rw
RIVE
-
• a
.'-'fJ ) :;; .\ -~ D
._..~: >:.:;;_
t.DN~ > :
. :~ ... ; .. ·
'
1 w
or, O'S '.C".,cJ-"'• "'- {.,.,:s C
m·J'
~:
0-?i~
--- 1· '
7 ' ,_
(lJ __ ' , .\'> ,:_) f!,?:
w
.....
·~ t ·· -~-.... ·-:"'-~""E~ ...
,•• .. •• • • -

EXISTING BUILDING
.... · .... .
. . ..... ; .•
. . ...
~-
.. · .t·
' -.
. • :·_ 't '·
•·~ •: .
,' .. : :
,,.,,Jt:'::':':':':':':':'::...'~;'~~':':.J,;: i ~~·:· ::~· 15 ;-<D
';j__'' ':'>::-;, c C _. Q,,-._)
"(J:.D --'
' ,, 4
'
s.o
'c.tt
o:,
s o ·02•43" w_ i\~ - 5.57 -~.o=••J ... . . . r. .- . ...-- C,
,.,
,;v;cc
~
~ ,....------;··w
t-
~ ~,,
..I'-
' .,,.r' -
;,._ .· . i: ·· ...•. •.-.. ~·-.. . ~~O) 'tJ
~D•':' f o • -1 .. • :~,•, w f) R--1
,,L••0 : 7; > - - ¥- ss
-
-
!1,.\.---·t w C - B
fssr __1:!-A
-
---
s
:s-> --~
:~ ,__;;;a== "~W\l
(:i);<
• G> (T: u,o,
0 ·-~
() --,
NORTH
~)G_":.' •,) u. -,"" c:c:...-'
---
--
-
-
(E) AC
_,_
r, tri:

S 11"32'00" W
- 57.05 -
... .. ... ' .• _ ....

I
a
I
CJl
"'
Jt
.
::,:,·,~
• 3 -(··
,, -'.'·
'
-~,,:;-.)
;;~:_;_,·:~' o::n
0 ') ("; '::p
Legend
Tree Location Tree Protection Fencing Tree Canopy Extents Hand Trenching & Root Pruning Remove Tree
TEI-JSIO tJ BAR
(OPT}
PIPE 2" 0 .C.

CHA I N
LINK

SEE SIGNAGE
DETAIL
•
----
0 >>>>>>>>>>>>
X
V
DRIP I
~I
I
10 '-0" MA X

TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETA L

ELEVATION VIEW
Warning
Tree Protection Zone
Keep Out
z
H
,:
0 I
ill
NOTICE: PROTECTIVE FENCING IS REQUIRED ON THIS JOB SITE.

REMOVAL OR DAMAGE OF THIS FENCING MAY RESULT IN A FINE
This sign must be prominently displayed. Fencing may not be moved or removed without permission of the Project Arbarist.

During demolition and construction, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent damage, or the destruction of protected trees is required. Failure to comply with all precautions may result in a STOP WORK order being issue by the regulating agency.

No Entry without Project Arborist Authorization
Kurt Fauts-Arborist Consultant- 831- 359 -3607
•

Page 152 of 541 ends

TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SSMH #4
48 700.2688.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #5
2 x 3
700.1698.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #4
2 x 3
690.5687.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2 x 2
685.5682.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #3
2x3
685.9683.2
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #2
2 x 2
684.5681.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #3
48 685.5680.5
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
DI #1
2 x 2
684.0679.0
TYPE:

RIM=
INV=
SDMH #2
48 683.75675.5
Tree Protection Plan
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California
Sheet T2
of 2 sheets
K.F
5/27/2021
APN:023-
102-15
---
----- -----
--------
------- >>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>
------
---
---------
---
>>>
>>>>>>
.
.
.
.

T11 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 16"
T12 LIQUIDAMBARDBH16"
T17 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 23"
T18 LONDON PLANE TREEDBH 24"
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Use Ditch Witch first 24" depth or hand dig.

Base map provided by C2G Civil Consultants, Scotts Valley, CA Additional tree protectioin information can be found in Appendix G of Arborist Report dated 5/28/2021. .
.
.
.
.

T34 OLIVEDBH 6",6",5" T29 JAPANESE MAPLE
DBH 9"
T28 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 6"
T27 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
T2-A PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 8"
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
.
.
.

Replacement Tree
.

S C 0
V A L
D-R
- ,l
T T
E
V

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ROOT PRUNING
s
y
E
Excavation shall only occur within the TPZ (Tree Protection Zone), of retained trees, when designated by the Project Arborist. Excavations within (or outside of the TPZ, as designated), the Tree Protection Zone, will be executed by hand, in order to preserve roots two (2") inches in diameter or greater during the excavation process. All root pruning will be conducted under supervision of the Project Arborist. These activities will be documented, and a monitoring report will be provided to the City Arborist. Under direction of the Project Arborist, it may be necessary to temporarily remove the Tree Protection Fencing to allow access for root pruning activities.

Trenches for root pruning will be hand dug according to locations of the Tree Protection Plan sheet:
• Trenches will be dug one foot behind staking on tree side of stakes.
• The depth of the trench will equal the depth required for installation of the adjacent element.
• Cleanly prune any roots encountered 2 inches in diameter or smaller. Use loppers, hand saw or Sawzall. A sharp
spade may be used for palm roots. The pruned roots should be covered with burlap layers or carpeting and kept moist until the trench is backfilled.
• If roots are encountered 2" in diameter or greater, the Project Arborist shall be notified, and a determination shall be made to prune the root or retain the root depending on site specific conditions.
• Reinstall the Tree Protection Fencing to its original location.
•
I
•
I w w w
•
•
TABOR
w
r---
,
' ' L---
r---
' '
L--- '
r---
' ' ' L---
r---
' ' ' L---
r---
' L. - - -
-------wi
.------,r"-"'-'='-,r l1f----+,
' ' ' L - - -
r---
,
' ' L---
r---
' ' ' L---
r---
' ' ' L - - -
r---
,
'
,--------,:' L---
F
INV=683.0
' L---
·_- · I '.

RIVE
:

7. w
-
---,
' ' ' ___ .J
- - - -,
' '
___ _J '
----,
' ' '
- - - .J
- - - -,
' ' ' ___ _J
----,
' '
___ .J '
w w
'
I
1$.'f, I I
' 1 1' I I "
1 ,
r--- I
' I ' ' I L---
I
I
I
I
._ ___ _,a _ :. /
----, ;--- I .i
.st' .. _----~--.---ve:---'.il==------.....J.;WL...,!-·' ----,
' '
___ _J '
----,
' '
___ _J '
----,
---~
' '!,
INV=i6B4.0
INV=685.0
'
s 11•32'60"
,Ul
•
. . .
•
__. _: - ' \:,:,_ :--. _;_ \;,>,-=,,-j===
--
-
_e----;: - I
• 65.
=
--
-----< ---- 1
------
---
-
--
~ a
-- -.-----, . w -- """'
\ ' • . , •-~-· -------. . .->-- --- - --
- ---
1~v----·~ $S
- " •__a•---~1· . - ~ ~ ~~---
f.-Ll.
~(.. '-OJ ·~
---
-
--
-
- \l- ss
g-Rw
s
NORTH
---
--
-
-
Legend
Tree Location • Tree Protection Fencing ----Tree Canopy Extents CJ Hand Trenching & Root Pruning Remove Tree X
0 Tree Protection Specifications & Recommended Sequence Demolition Phase:

1. Tree Removal - Remove trees marked for removal.

2. Tree Pruning - Lay out edge of proposed building closest to trees T17 and T18.

Perform clearance pruning if necessary, to achieve a minimum of 5 feet clearance from new building.

4. Supplemental Irrigation -A temporary hose bib shall be installed withing the vicinity of trees T11 & T2 and T17 & T18.

A. A battery-operated hose end irrigation timer shall be installed on the hose bib.

B. Soaker hoses shall be laid out within the canopy drip line of the four trees to provide supplemental irrigation for the duration of the project.

C. If it is necessary to temporarily move the hoses during construction phases adjacent to the trees, the hoses shall be reinstalled once the design element is completed.

5. Demolition of existing curb and parking lot - On existing asphalt, mark new curb layout adjacent to trees T11 & T12. Sawcut asphalt at new curb marking. Remove existing asphalt between new curb and trees T11 & T12, using a jack hammer and hand loading pieces,
Construction Phase:

1. Installation of curb and parking lot - Excavation for new curb closest to trees T11 & T12, shall be accomplished by hand methods (see tree protection plan Sheet T2, for location). An electric spade may be used for excavation. The depth of the trench for curb form shall equal the depth required for excavation of the new curb.

Any roots found less than 2" in diameter, shall be cleanly pruned with loppers, hand saw or Sawzall, 1-2 feet behind the form boards, between the forms and trees T11 & T12. If roots are encountered 2" in diameter or greater, they shall be pruned under supervision of the Project Arborist. Roots shall be pruned by methods indicated on Tree Protection Plan sheet T1, Pre-Construction Root Pruning.

2. Installation of storm drain line. sanitary sewer line & fire service line. adjacent to trees T17 & T18 •
A. Stake trenching location for drain line, sewer line or fire service line.

B. Hand dig or machine trenching to a depth of 24" shall be performed in area indicated on plan sheet T2. This procedure will pre-cut any roots from adjacent trees T17 & T18.

C. Use of any of the following equipment to machine trench is permissible:
a. Ditch Witch RT45 Trencher, or equivalent.

D. Any torn roots found in trench, shall be cleanly pruned with loppers, hand saw or Sawzall. Roots shall be pruned by methods indicated on Tree Protection Plan sheet, Pre-Construction Root Pruning.

E. Once roots have been cleanly pruned, final trenching to desired depth and width required for pipe installation may be completed with other machinery (backhoe, excavator), as necessary

3. Installation of pervious paver patio - The patio perimeter shall be laid out so that no patio edge is closer than 5 feet to trunks of trees T17 & T18. Any subgrade material added to achieve desired subgrade for pavers shall be by hand methods, no machinery within patio footprint.

4. The grade shall not be raised at the tree trunk or within 1 - 2 feet of the trunk. No new soi/ shall be placed against the tree trunks under any circumstances.

Page 153 of 541 ends

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Trees & Development – A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 1998 Costello, L.R., Watson, G., Smiley E.T. Root Management – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2017 ANSI Board of Standards Review. A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape tree, shrubs, and vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. c.2004 Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Champaign, IL: Wadley Graphix Corp. c.1994
Smiley, E.T., Matheny, N., Lilly, S. Tree Risk Assessment – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2011 Costello, L., Perry, E., & Matheny,N, Abiotic Disorders of Landscape Plants: A Diagnostic Guide Oakland, CA:UC/ANR Publications (Publication 3420) c.2003.

Page 154 of 541 ends

Glossary of Terms
Basal rot: decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.

Canker: Localized diseased area on stems, roots and branches. Often sunken and discolored.

Critical Root Zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required.

Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark.

Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage.

Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength.

Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade.

Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects.

Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Branch/limb or limb /trunk, or codominant trunks originating at acute angles from each other. Bark remains between such crotches, preventing the development of axillary wood. The inherent weakness of such attachments increases with time, through the pressure of opposing growth and increasing weight of wood and foliage, often resulting in failure.

Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the the crown length (live foliage), to total tree height.

Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.

Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure.

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development.

Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots.

This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015)

Page 155 of 541 ends

Appendix G- TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS Protecting Trees During Construction:
1) Before the start of site work, equipment or materials move in, clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, every tree to be retained shall be securely fenced- off as delineated in approved plans. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of the work undertaken in connection with the development. 2) If the proposed development, including any site work, will encroach upon the tree protection zone, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the project arborist, to allow the roots to obtain necessary oxygen, water, and nutrients. 3) Underground trenching shall avoid the major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees. If avoidance is impractical, hand excavation undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist may be required. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Boring/tunneling under roots should be considered as an alternative to trenching.
4) Concrete or asphalt paving shall not be placed over the root zones of protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the project arborist.
5) Artificial irrigation shall not occur within the root zone of native oaks, unless deemed appropriate on a temporary basis by the project arborist to improve tree vigor or mitigate root loss.
6) Compaction of the soil within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. 7) Any excavation, cutting, or filling of the existing ground surface within the tree protection zone shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as the project arborist may impose. Retaining walls shall likewise be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize their impact on protected trees.
8) Burning or use of equipment with an open flame near or within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9) Oil, gas, chemicals, paints, cement, stucco or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the tree protection zone of any protected tree, or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
10) Construction materials shall not be stored within the tree protection zone of a protected tree.

Page 156 of 541 ends

Project Arborist Duties and Inspection Schedule:

The project arborist is the person(s) responsible for carrying out technical tree inspections, assessment of tree health, structure and risk, arborist report preparation, consultation with designers and municipal planners, specifying tree protection measures, monitoring, progress reports and final inspection.

A qualified project arborist (or firm) should be designated and assigned to facilitate and insure tree preservation practices. He/she/they should perform the following inspections:

Inspection of site: Prior to equipment and materials move in, site work, demolition, landscape construction and tree removal: The project arborist will meet with the general contractor, architect / engineer, and owner or their representative to review tree preservation measures, designate tree removals, delineate the location of tree protection fencing, specify equipment access routes and materials storage areas, review the existing condition of trees and provide any necessary recommendations.

Inspection of site: During excavation or any activities that could affect trees: Inspect site during any activity within the Tree Protection Zones of preserved trees and any recommendations implemented. Assess any changes in the health of trees since last inspection.

Final Inspection of Site: Inspection of site following completion of construction. Inspect for tree health and make any necessary recommendations.

Kurt Fouts shall be the Project Arborist for this project. All scheduled inspections shall include a brief Tree Monitoring report, documenting activities and provided to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection fencing shall be installed prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials. Fence shall be comprised of six -foot chain link fence mounted on eight - foot tall, 1 and 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced on a minimum of 10-foot centers. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.

A final inspection by the City Arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fencing.

Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited.

Page 157 of 541 ends

Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.

The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.

Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.

Tree Work Standards and Qualifications
All tree work, removal, pruning, planting, shall be performed using industry standards of workmanship as established in the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute series, Safety Requirements in Arboriculture Operations ANSI Z133-2017, Contractor licensing and insurance coverage shall be verified.

During tree removal and clearance, sections of the Tree Protection Fencing may need to be temporarily dismantled to complete removal and pruning specifications. After each section is completed, the fencing is to be re-installed.

Trees to be removed shall be cut into smaller manageable pieces consistent with safe arboricultural practices, and carefully removed so as not to damage any surrounding trees or structures. The trees shall be cut down as close to grade as possible. Tree removal is to be performed by a qualified contractor with valid City Business/ State Licenses and General Liability and Workman’s Compensation insurance.

Page 158 of 541 ends

Development Site Tree Health Care Measures

RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWING CONDITIONS, PHYSIOLOGICAL

INVIGORATION AND STAMINA, FOR PROTECTION AND RECOVERY FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACT.

Establish and maintain TPZ fencing, trunk and scaffold limb barriers for protection from mechanical damage, and other tree protection requirements as specified in the arborist report.

Project arborist to specify site-specific soil surface coverings (wood chip mulch or other) for prevention of soil compaction and loss of root aeration capacity.

Soil, water and drainage management is to follow the ISA BMP for "Managing Trees During Construction" and the ANSI Standard A300(Part 2)- 2011 Soil Management (a. Modification, b. 'Fertilization, c. Drainage.)
Fertilizer / soil amendment product(s) amounts and method of application to be specified by certified arborist.

Page 159 of 541 ends

City of Scotts Valley - Protected Tree List*
A. Any size tree located within five (5) feet of a public right-of-way or street.

B. Any single-trunk oak tree greater than or equal to eight (8) inch diameter (25 inch circumference).**
C. Any multi-trunk oak tree with any trunk greater than or equal to four (4) inches diameter (12 inch circumference).**
D. Any tree greater than or equal to eight (8) inch diameter (25 inch circumference)** if located within 20 feet of a moderate slope (greater than 20% slope).

E. Any single-trunk tree greater than or equal to 13-inch diameter (40 inch circumference).**
F. Any multi-trunk tree with any trunk greater than or equal to eight (8) inch diameter (25 inch circumference).**
G. Any tree, regardless of size, required as part of a permit approved by the Planning Department, Planning Commission or City Council, or required as a replacement tree for a removed tree.

H. Any Heritage Tree, as specified in Municipal Code Section 17.44.080 and Exhibit A. A list and map of Heritage Trees are available at the Planning Department. Fees for removal of Heritage Trees are higher than other protected tree removals and applications must be approved at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. * Note: No tree removal permit is required to remove:

C Monterey Pine trees that are infected with pitch canker; proof of infection is required; C Blue Gum Eucalyptus or Acacia trees;
C Bay Laurel trees if they are growing under the drip-line of an established oak tree; or, C Fruit trees.
** Tree measurement shall be taken 4½ feet (54 inches) above the ground.

Page 160 of 541 ends

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Any legal description provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality of any title.

2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.

3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.

4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.

5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.

6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.

7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.

8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.

9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.

10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.

CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. Knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees, Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.

Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 826 Monte my Avenue
Capitol ai. CA 950110
831-359-3607'
kiurtrouts1@ou nook .. cum

Page 161 of 541 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF

THE HERITAGE REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC
PROJECT AT 125 BETHANY DRIVE

IN THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FOR

HERITAGE REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC
125 BETHANY DRIVE
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066
NWIC# 20-2280
BY
Archaeological Resource Management
Dr. Robert Cartier, Principal Investigator
496 North Fifth Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: (408) 295-1373
FAX: (408) 286-2040
Email: [email protected]
June 15, 2021

Page 162 of 541 ends

ADMONITION
Certain information contained in this report is not intended for general public distribution. Portions of this report locate significant archaeological sites in the region of the project area, and indiscriminate distribution of these data could result in the desecration and destruction of invaluable cultural resources. In order to ensure the security of the critical data in this report, certain maps and passages may be deleted in copies not delivered directly into the hands of environmental personnel and qualified archaeologists.

THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Page 163 of 541 ends

ABSTRACT
This cultural resource evaluation was conducted for the proposed Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC project at 125 Bethany Drive in the City of Scotts Valley. Research included an archival search in the State records and a surface survey of the proposed project area. The archival research revealed that one informally recorded archaeological resource, P-2, is located within or adjacent to the proposed project area. This consisted of three chert flakes noted as part of a broad archaeological survey which included the proposed project area within its scope, S-3913. Three additional previously recorded resources are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed project area: CASCR-238, CA-SCR-239, and P-44-402. No significant cultural materials, prehistoric or historic, were noted during surface reconnaissance; however; surface visibility was somewhat limited due to existing structures, hardtop surfaces, and landscaping materials.

In addition, the proposed project area is located in close proximity to Carbonera Creek, a watercourse along which prehistoric sites have been encountered in the past. Thus it is recommended that archaeological monitoring be carried out during earth moving activities for the proposed project.

REQUEST FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
This cultural resource evaluation was carried out to determine the presence or absence of any significant cultural resources. Cultural resource services were requested in May of 2021 in order to provide an evaluation that would investigate the possible presence of cultural materials within the proposed project area. This study meets the requirements of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

QUALIFICATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Archaeological Resource Management has been specifically engaged in cultural resource management projects in central California since 1977. The firm is owned and supervised by Dr. Robert Cartier, the Principal Investigator. Dr. Cartier is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) for conducting cultural resource investigations as well as other specialized work in archaeology and history. He also fulfills the standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion as a historian and architectural historian and is certified as such on the State of California referral lists.

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT AREA
The subject area consists of the property at 125 Bethany Drive in the City of Scotts Valley. On the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle of Laurel, California, the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (UTMG) center point of the proposed project area is 10S 5 89 131mE/41 02 848mN. The elevation is approximately 600 feet MSL. The nearest source of fresh water is Carbonera Creek which runs approximately 100 feet east of the proposed project area.

The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of an office project. This project will involve the necessary excavation, grading, trenching, and other earth moving activities.
1

Page 164 of 541 ends

METHODOLOGY
This investigation consisted of an archival search, a surface reconnaissance, and a written report of the findings with appropriate recommendations. The archival research is conducted by transferring the study location to a state archaeological office which maintains all records of archaeological investigations. This is done in order to learn if any archaeological sites or surveys have been recorded within a half mile of the subject area. Each archival search with the state is given a file number for verification. The purpose of the surface reconnaissance is to determine whether there are traces of prehistoric or historic materials within the study area. The survey is conducted by an archaeologist, who examines exposed soils for early ceramics, Native American cooking debris, and artifacts made of stone, bone, and shell. Older structures, distinctive architecture, and subsurface historic trash deposits of potentially significant antiquity are also taken into consideration. A report is written containing the archival information, record search number, survey findings, and appropriate recommendations. A copy of this evaluation is sent to the state archaeological office in compliance with state procedure.

A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Most Native American prehistoric sites are eligible due to their age, scientific potential, and/or burial remains.

The CRHR interprets the integrity of a cultural resource as its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing in the CRHR.

ARCHIVAL BACKGROUND
Prior to surface reconnaissance of the project area, a study of the maps and records at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Site Inventory was conducted and given the file number NWIC #20-2280. This research into the records at the Information Center, along with in-house material at Archaeological Resource Management, was done to determine if any known archaeological resources were reported in or around the subject area. The archival research revealed that one informally 2

Page 165 of 541 ends

Scotts Valley City CouncilOctober 2, 2024

Scotts Valley City Council
October 2, 2024