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: CA-SCR-238, CA-SCR-239, and P-44-402. These resources are briefly described below:
CA-SCR-238
Originally recorded in 1981 by R. Cartier and C. Detlefs, this prehistoric site is described as a lithic scatter. This site is located approximately 1200 feet southwest of the proposed project area.
CA-SCR-239
This site was first recorded by Archaeological Resource Management in 1981. It was first identified during a survey for the Scotts Valley Redevelopment Area (Cartier, 1981). The site was described as a possible midden site located just south of the Scott/Errington House at Santa's Village. The soil visibility was limited during the 1981 survey due to dense vegetation; however a dark, rich midden soil and a chipped lithic were noted. It was concluded at the time that the area was sensitive as a potential prehistoric site (Cartier, 1981).
A second survey of SCR-239 was conducted by Holman & Associates in 1988 for Harding Lawson & Associates (Clark, 1988). Holman & Associates report included recommendations for the testing of site SCR-239 in order to evaluate the significance of this archaeological resource.
In November of 1990, Archaeological Resource Management conducted a survey of 32 acres of the Santa's Village property for Borland International (now Inprise Corporation).
These 32 acres of land are located directly adjacent to the east of the Polo Ranch Project.
Several historic resources and SCR-239 were located during the survey. A radiocarbon sample from SCR-239 was recovered. It placed the site at approximately 5,000 years in age, a point in time locally referred to as the Sand Hill Bluff phase. In order to better understand the chronology of SCR-239 and other sites of the same time, it was recommended that a testing program be developed to determine the temporal range of SCR-239.
A relatively small archaeological excavation at SCR-239 conducted in 1992 served to produce significant data that provided an understanding of the basic characteristics of the deposit and also shed light on more regional archaeological questions (Cartier 1992). A portion of the deposit was buried beneath more than 200 cm of natural alluvial overburden. Five hand-excavated units were used to test the deposit. The data from the excavations in 1991 and 1992 included radiocarbon samples, large amounts of cooking debris (fire-cracked rock), and lithic artifacts.
The chronological analyses of radiocarbon and obsidian samples carried out at this time were designed to determine the age of the deposit. Two radiocarbon samples of charcoal established the deposit to be between 4500 +/- 80 and 4900 +/- 120 B.P. Obsidian studies included the sourcing and hydration measurements of eight obsidian specimens. Almost all of the obsidian was traded from Napa (a geological source in Napa County), and a cluster (mean curve) in the hydration rims averaged 3.9 microns (Cartier 1992). Artifacts from the 1991 and 1992 excavations included both Monterey-banded and Franciscan chert scrapers, burins, cores, and bifaces. Of the bifaces, one was a well formed serrated 3
point. This point type is not common in sites of this antiquity, and it was concluded that this point may constitute a new point type for this period in the prehistoric past (Cartier 1992). In addition, the point was not made of native lithic material, which indicates that it was traded in from outside of Scotts Valley. This site is located approximately 800 feet south of the proposed project area.
P-44-402
This historic resource, originally recorded by L. Leach-Palm and S. Mikesell in 1999 is the historic designation of the portion of Highway 17 that runs through Santa Cruz County. This resource is located immediately south of the proposed project area.
One previous study has been carried out which included the current proposed project area within its scope: S-3913. This study is briefly described below:
S-3913
This study was carried out by W. Roop in 1977 and entitled “Cultural Resource Inventory of the Scotts Valley Wastewater Project Service Area.” The entirety of the proposed project area was included within the scope of this report.
Three additional studies have been carried out which included adjacent parcels within their scope: S-4127, S-8313, and S-10369.
SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE
A "general surface reconnaissance" was conducted by a qualified archaeologist on all visible open land surfaces in the project area. A "controlled intuitive reconnaissance" was performed in places where burrowing animals, exposed banks and inclines, and other activities had revealed subsurface stratigraphy and soil contents. The boundaries of the subject area were well established in the field by project maps and existing streets.
Accessibility to the property was good; all areas were available for a walking survey.
Soil visibility was fair to poor; the majority of the surface area was obscured by the existing structures, hardtop surfaces, and landscaping materials including bark and gravel. Where native soils were exposed, a medium brown silty loam was observed.
Rock types noted included imported gravel as well as native metamorphic gravel. No traces of significant cultural material, prehistoric or historic, were noted during surface reconnaissance.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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: CA-SCR-238, CA-SCR239, 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.
4
LITERATURE CITED AND CONSULTED
California Historical Resources Information System
2021 Archival search number NWIC #20-2280 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Cartier, R.
1990 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Borland Property on Santa’s Village Road in the City of Scotts Valley, County of Santa Cruz Report prepared for Borland International by Archaeological Resource Management, San Jose, CA.
1991 Phase II Testing Report of the Borland Property on Santa’s Village Road in the City of Scotts Valley, County of Santa Cruz. Report prepared for Borland International by Archaeological Resource Management, San Jose, CA.
Cartier, R., and C. Detlefs
1981 Site record for CA-SCR-238. Report on file at Archaeological Resource Management.
Clark, M. R.
1988 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Santa’s Village Project Area, Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, CA. Report prepared for Harding Lawson Associates by Holman and Associates.
Fazio and Gibbs
1981 Archaeological site record for CA-SCR-239. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.
Jackson, T.
1991a Report of X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis and Hydration Measurement of Artifact Obsidian from CA-SCL-200 and CA-SCR-239. Report prepared by Biosystems Analysis Inc., Santa Cruz, CA for Archaeological Resource Management.
1991b Report of Obsidian Sourcing for CA-SCR-239. Report prepared by Biosystems Analysis Inc., Santa Cruz, CA for Archaeological Resource Management.
Laffey, G. and M. Pokriots
1991 Historical Background of the Santa’s Village Property in the City of Scotts Valley. Report prepared for Borland International by Archaeological Resource Management, San Jose, CA.
Leach-Palm, L. and S. Mikesell
1999 Site record for P-44-402. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 5
Roop, W.
1977 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Scotts Valley Wastewater Project Service Area. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 6
7
8 ~-, ! ~l ~1; igf ii; ;g ~-"H u55fi;j ~ ~8 ~u~t:.. ~~~ h~g§~g e~;=;~;a:a~
WHH
@)
125 BETHANY DRIVE PROJECT AREA MAP
@
·;:,-,.....
__
BETHANY PARK TR. 77
28MB7 1 1112/1948
33PM17
1118/1979
.,,. !'""~
I I "--r--~ .,...___ I I I ,.,.,._ 16 .,. I I I I 15 ./,. / / I I 14 1' 13 /
'
__ j I I I I I I ' 12
----;.. ___ J__ I I
7----, / r- --- ------l
/ ,-- / I -,--- / I I -,_ ' 8 , (2)e , -
-- I I 9 '-1 I r-
-- I I / I I -
-1--- I / 9 I I I -t--- I / I 10 /
I -1-- / I I J. I --<..... I I 11
I I 0 --1._ I I s j. 1 i --- I I I I -.....J
I I • I ,--- / 1' I -
I I 3 /
@
I 1'
I I I
Note - Assessor's Parcel & Block
Numbers Shown in Circles.
,<,.<v
c,"--'?-
12PM54
11 /9/1973 @)
58PM6
6/6/2003
·I·
23-10
Assessor's Map No. 23-10
City of Scotts Valley
County of Santa Cruz
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Mixed Use Building
125 Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, California
APN: 023-102-15
For:
Heritage Real Estate Ventures LLC
455 Brooktree Ranch Road
Aptos, California 95003
Project No. 20044
February 9, 2021
1100 Main Street, Suite A, Watsonville, California 95076 • (831) 724-5868 • Email: [email protected]
Project No. 20044
February 9, 2021
Heritage Real Estate Ventures LLC
455 Brooktree Ranch Road
Aptos, California 95003
ATTN: Rob Marani
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Mixed Use Building
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California
APN: 023-102-15
Dear Mr. Marani:
In accordance with your authorization, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed use building at 125 Bethany Drive in Scotts Valley, California. This report summarizes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The conclusions and recommendations included herein are based upon applicable standards at the time this report was prepared.
It is a pleasure being associated with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
ROCK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Signed: February 9, 2021
Yvette M. Wilson, P.E. John D. Buringa, E.I.T.
Principal Engineer Staff Engineer
R.C.E. 60245
Distribution: (4) Addressee and via email
(1) Hugh Zike, Architect, via email
(1) Todd Creamer, C2G, via email
1100 Main Street, Suite A, Watsonville, California 95076 • (831) 724-5868 • Email: [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.4 Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5 Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . 2
3. INFILTRATION TESTING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. SITE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2 Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.2 Site Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.3 Excavating Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2.4 Fill Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2.5 Fill Placement and Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.6 Preparation of On-Site Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.7 Cut and Fill Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.8 Groundwater Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.9 Expansive Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.10 Sulfate Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.11 Surface Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.12 Utility Trenches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3 Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4 Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5 Retaining Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5.3 Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.5.4 Backfill Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.6 Slabs-on-Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM APPENDIX B: INFILTRATION TESTING PROGRAM
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of our investigation is to provide preliminary geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for development of the site. Conclusions and recommendations related to site grading, foundations, slabs-on-grade, infiltration rates, retaining structures and preliminary pavement design are presented herein.
1.2 Proposed Development
a. Based on our conversations with you, it is our understanding that the project consists of the construction of a three story, mixed use building, parking areas, retaining walls, and bio-retention facilities.
b. Anticipated construction consists of standard light gauge steel framing with slab-on-grade floors. Exact wall, column, and foundation loads are unavailable, but are expected to be typical of such construction. c. Final grading and foundation plans were unavailable at the time of this report.
It is our understanding that the information obtained during our investigation will be used in the development of a finalized plan set.
1.3 Scope of Services
The scope of services provided during the course of our investigation included:
a. Review of the referenced geotechnical, geologic, and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the development of the site (available in our files). b. Field exploration consisting of 8 borings, drilled to depths between 5.5 feet and 20.5 feet below existing grade in the area of the proposed development.
Borings B-4 and B-6 were used for the infiltration testing as they were in the area of the proposed bio-retention facilities.
c. Logging and sampling of the borings by our Field Engineer, including the collection of soil samples for laboratory testing.
d. Laboratory testing of soil samples considered representative of subsurface conditions.
e. On site infiltration testing for storm water design. f. Geotechnical analyses of field and laboratory data.
g. Preparation of a report (4 copies) presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 2
1.4 Authorization
This investigation, as outlined in our Proposal dated November 16, 2020, was performed in accordance with your written authorization on November 17, 2020.
1.5 Exclusions
Our services on this project are limited to the proposed mixed used building and associated improvements. Our services specifically exclude all existing structures, foundations and associated improvements to the site.
2. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A.
3. INFILTRATION TESTING PROGRAM
It is our understanding that bio-retention facilities will be designed for storm water runoff for the new development. We have performed infiltration testing in the area of two of the proposed bio-retention facilities. Details of the infiltration testing, including the test results, are presented in Appendix B.
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1 Location
The subject project is located at 125 BethanyDrive, in Scotts Valley, California. The location is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1.
4.2 Surface Conditions
The parcel is approximately 1.3 acres in size and irregular in shape. The overall site slopes gently to the south with an average gradient of 15:1 (H:V). The parcel is currently occupied by two commercial buildings. The building pad appears to have been created by cutting into the north slope and filling the southern portion of the pad. There is a courtyard between the two buildings that has site walls surrounding it. There are four parking lots, generally located on the north, south, east, and west sides of the four buildings. The north parking lot has a small retaining wall supporting part of the parking area. The southern property line has a block wall retaining a cut for the adjacent sidewalk. The parcel is currently vegetated with grass, trees, and other landscape improvements.
REFERENCE 6: Santa Cruz County GIS.
FIGURE
1 LOCATION MAP
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
N
SITE
If?gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
E8s t G lenwood
pen Space
P r eserve
~ N avarra
,/· ~ -
0/' 0~
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 3
4.3 Subsurface Conditions
a. Based on our 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 our field exploration indicate that the subsurface soils present are consistent with the Purisima Formation.
b. During the course of our field exploration, perched groundwater was only encountered in Boring B-8 at 17 feet below existing grade. c. The soil profile generally consists of native soils over Purisima Formation bedrock. Approximately 2.5 feet of fill was encountered in Boring B-2. This fill is likely associated with backfill of the adjacent retaining wall. d. Native silty sands and clayey sands generally overly a thin sandy clay layer.
Beneath these sand and clay layers, Purisima Formation bedrock was encountered.
e. Purisima Formation bedrock was encountered in each boring at depths near the surface and approximately 6 feet below grade. The bedrock continued to the extent of our borings.
f. Complete soil profiles are presented on the Logs of ExploratoryBorings and the boring locations are shown on the Boring and Infiltration Location Plan in Appendix A.
5. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
a. Potential geotechnical hazards to man made structures include ground shaking, surface rupture, landsliding, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction. The potential for each of these to impact the site is discussed below. b. Ground shaking caused byearthquakes is a complex phenomenon. Structural damage can result from the transmission of earthquake vibrations from the ground into the structure. The intensity of an earthquake at any given site depends on many variables including, the proximity of the site to the hypocenter, and the characteristics of the underlying soil and/or rock. The subject site is situated at the approximate latitude of 37E4' 3.2" and longitude -121E59' 51.1". The project location (latitude and longitude) were used in conjunction with the American Society of Civil Engineers website (Reference 2) to obtain the seismic design parameters presented in Table 1.
All proposed structures at the subject site shall be designed with the corresponding seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (Reference 5).
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 4
Table 1: 2019 CBC Seismic Design Criteria
Site
Class
Seismic
Design
Category
Spectral Response Accelerations
SS S1
FA FV SMS SM1 SDS SD1
C E 2.244 0.895 1.2 1.4 2.693 1.252 1.796 0.835
c. Surface rupture usually occurs along lines of previous faulting. Based on our review of the Faults and Their Potential Hazards in Santa Cruz County map (Reference 10), no faults are shown to cross the property. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture should be considered low.
d. Landslides are generally mass movements of loose rock and soil, both dry and water saturated, and usually gravity driven. Based on our review of the Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits in Santa Cruz County (Reference 6), no landslides are mapped on the subject parcel. In addition, the subject site slopes only gently, therefore, the potential for landsliding to occur across the site and cause damage to structures should be considered low.
e. Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction tend to occur in loose, unconsolidated, noncohesive soils with shallow groundwater. Based on our review of Geologyand Liquefaction Potential of QuaternaryDeposits in Santa CruzCounty, California (Reference 8) the site is mot mapped in an area of potential liquefaction.
Our field observations confirm that the potential for these hazards to occur should be considered low, due to the presence of relatively dense soils and the lack of a continuous shallow groundwater table.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
a. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that from the geotechnical standpoint, the subject site will be suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented during grading and construction.
b. The primary geotechnical design consideration for this project is the varying depth to bedrock across the site. The soil profile generally consists of native soils over bedrock. However, the depth to bedrock varies across the site from near the surface to as much as 6 feet below existing grade. c. We have provided preliminary design recommendations herein for this phase of the development. It may be necessary to revise the recommendations and/or do additional investigation to further refine the design as the project progresses to the design phase.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 5
d. It is our opinion that the subject site will be suitable for the support of the proposed structure on a foundation system composed of conventional, shallow, continuous and pad footings. Recommendations for this foundation system are provided in Section 6.3, Foundations. e. Based on our review of the proposed finished floor elevations and building sections (References 4 and 11), the depth to bedrock ranges from 2 to 6.5 feet below the proposed finished floor. Therefore, portions of the building would be founded on bedrock and portions would be founded on native soil and/or fill. The finished floor elevations and bedrock elevations are shown on Figure A-1.2.
f. We recommend that subgrade be reworked to provide a uniform bearing material beneath all footings. This option may require over-excavation of some of the existing bedrock. See Section 6.2.6.
g. As an alternative to the subgrade preparation, the earthwork may be limited to compacting the subgrade beneath only the slab floor provided that all footings are embedded into bedrock. This may necessitate footing depth up to 7 feet from finished floor or 6 feet from rough pad grade for the currently proposed design. See Section 6.2.6 for further discussion. h. Other mitigation for the varying bedrock depth may be considered by the design team. Such mitigation may include lowering the finished floor elevations, founding the building on drilled piers or using a structural mat slab.
i. The results of our laboratory testing indicate that the soluble sulfate content of the on-site soils likely to come into contact with concrete is as high as 180 ppm. According to Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19 (Reference 1), this is considered moderate sulfate exposure, Class S1. See Section 6.2.10 for recommendations for concrete mix design to resist this moderate sulfate condition.
j. At the time we prepared this report, grading and foundation plans had not been finalized. We request an opportunity to review these plans during the design stages to determine if supplemental recommendations will be necessary.
k. The design recommendations of this report must be reviewed during the grading phase when subsurface conditions in the excavations become exposed.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 6
l. Field observation and testing must be provided by a representative of Rock Solid Engineering, Inc., to enable them to form an opinion regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, and the extent to which the earthwork is performed in accordance with the geotechnical conditions present, the requirements of the regulating agencies, the project specifications and the recommendations presented in this report. Any earthwork performed in connection with the subject project without the full knowledge of, and not under the direct observation of Rock Solid Engineering, Inc., the Geotechnical Consultant, will render the recommendations of this report invalid.
m. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least five (5) working days prior to any site clearing or other earthwork operations on the subject project in order to observe the stripping and disposal of unsuitable materials and to ensure coordination with the grading contractor. During this period, a preconstruction conference should be held on the site to discuss project specifications, observation/testing requirements and responsibilities, and scheduling. This conference should include at least the Grading Contractor, the Architect, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
6.2 Grading
6.2.1 General
All grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein and the requirements of the regulating agencies.
6.2.2 Site Clearing
a. Prior to grading, the areas to be developed for structures, pavements and other improvements, should be stripped of any vegetation and cleared of any surface or subsurface obstructions, including any existing foundations, utilitylines, basements,septic tanks, pavements, stockpiled fills, and miscellaneous debris.
b. All pipelines encountered during grading should be relocated as necessary to be completely removed from construction areas or be capped and plugged according to applicable code requirements. c. Any wells encountered shall be capped in accordance with the local health department requirements. The strength of the cap shall be at least equal to the adjacent soil and shall not be located within 5 feet of any structural element.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 7
d. Surface vegetation and organically contaminated topsoil should be removed from areas to be graded. The required depth of stripping will vary with the time of year the work is done and must be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. It is generally anticipated that the required depth of stripping will be 6 to 12 inches.
e. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions that extend below finished site grades should be backfilled with compacted engineered fill per Section 6.2.5.
6.2.3 Excavating Conditions
a. We anticipate that excavation of the on-site soils may be accomplished with standard earthmoving and trenching equipment.
Bedrock was encountered near the surface particularly at the north side of the site. Excavation of the bedrock may require increased effort.
b. During the course of our field exploration, perched groundwater was encountered only in Boring B-8 at a depth of 17 feet. Due to the water depth below existing grade and the shallow grading depths anticipated, it is not expected to present a problem during construction.
c. Although not anticipated, any excavations adjacent to existing structures should be reviewed, and recommendations obtained to prevent undermining or distress to these structures.
6.2.4 Fill Material
a. The on-site soils may be used as compacted fill. The sandstone bedrock may be difficult to process for use as engineered fill and may be replaced with imported soil as needed.
b. All soils, both on-site and imported, to be used as fill, should contain less than 3% organics and be free of debris and cobbles over 6 inches in maximum dimension.
c. Any imported soil to be used as engineered fill shall meet the following requirements:
(i) free of organics, debris and other deleterious materials (ii) be granular (sandy) in nature and have sufficient fines to allow for excavation of the foundation trenches.
(iii) free of rock and cobbles in excess of 3 inches
(iv) have an expansion potential not greater than low (EI<20) (v) have a soluble sulfate content less than 150 ppm
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 8
d. Imported fill material should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to importing. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified not less than 5 working days in advance of placing any fill or base course material proposed for import. Each proposed source of import material should be sampled, tested and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to delivery of any soils imported for use on the site.
6.2.5 Fill Placement and Compaction
a. Any fill or backfill required should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented below.
b. Material to be compacted or reworked should be moistureconditioned or dried to achieve near-optimum conditions, and compacted to achieve the following minimum relative compaction:
(a) All fill and compacted building subgrade: 90%
(b) Upper 6 inches of subgrade in pavement/drive areas: 95% (c) Baserock and subbase: 95%.
c. The placement moisture content of imported material should be evaluated prior to grading.
d. The relative compaction and required moisture content shall be based on the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content obtained in accordance with ASTM D1557.
e. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the compacted fill shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D8167/D8167M-18 or ASTM D6938.
f. The number and frequency of field tests required will be based on applicable county standards and at the discretion of the Geotechnical Consultant. As a minimum standard every 1 vertical foot of engineered fill placed within a building pad area, and every 2 vertical feet in all other areas shall be tested, unless specified otherwise by a Rock Solid Engineering, Inc. representative.
g. Fill should be compacted bymechanical means in uniform horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
h. All fill should be placed and all grading performed in accordance with applicable codes and the requirements of the regulating agency.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 9
6.2.6 Preparation of On-Site Soils
a. The soil profile generally consists of native soils over bedrock.
However, the depth to bedrock varies across the site from near the surface to as much as 6 feet below existing grade.
b. We have provided to alternatives for preparation of on-site soils herein. Should additional foundation designs be considered, the subgrade preparation can be modified accordingly.
c. Based on our review of the proposed finished floor elevations and building sections (References 4 and 11), the depth to bedrock ranges from 2 to 6.5 feet below the proposed finished floor. Therefore, portions of the building would be founded on bedrock and portions would be founded on native soil and/or fill. The finished floor elevations and bedrock elevations are shown on Figure A-1.2. d. The native subgrade beneath shallow foundations should be reworked to a depth sufficient to provide a zone of compacted fill extending at least 2 feet below the bottom of all footings to provide a uniform bearing surface. This option may required over-excavation of some of the existing bedrock. The sandstone bedrock may be difficult to process as engineered fill and maybe replaced with import soil as needed.
e. As an alternative to the subgrade preparation, the compaction may be limited to compacting the subgrade beneath slab floors provided that all footings are embedded into bedrock per Section 6.3. This may necessitate footing depths up to 7 feet from finished floor or 6 feet from rough pad grade as currently designed.
f. Should the proposed structure be founded on a cut/fill transition pad, it is important that all foundation elements be founded on a consistent bearing surface. Therefore the subgrade on the cut portion of the pad shall be overexcavated and recompacted to provide a minimum of 24 inches of compacted subgrade beneath all foundation elements.
Please refer to Figure 2 for Cut/Fill Transition Pad construction. g. The zone of compacted fill must extend a minimum of 3 feet laterally beyond all shallow foundations. If all footings are founded on bedrock, the compaction may be limited to the slab floor with no overbuild required.
h. The native subgrade beneath slabs-on-grade floors should be reworked to a depth sufficient to provide a zone of compacted fill extending at least 12 inches below the bottom of the capillary break.
/EXISTING GRADE
PER CBC 1808.7.2
3•--1---------FOOTPRINT--------i----.- 1/3 OF THE FILL
SLOPE HEIGHT
-
MINIMUM 24 INCHES OF
COMPACTED SUBGRADE BENEATH
ALL FOUNDATION ELEMENTS
5' MAX
FILL DIFFERENTIAL
- - - -
FILL SLOPE
PER DETAIL 3
~CK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC. CUT/FILL TRANSITION IIFIG~RE I
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 10
i. The native subgrade beneath pavements should be reworked to a depth sufficient to provide a zone of compacted fill extending at least 12 inches below the bottom of aggregate base coarse. If bedrock is encountered, the subgrade preparation may be limited to the soil above the bedrock.
j. A representative of our firm shall observe the bottom of the excavation once the required depth of overexcavation has been achieved to verifysuitability. Prior to replacing the excavated soil, the exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
k. The depths of reworking required are subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading when subsurface conditions become exposed.
6.2.7 Cut and Fill Slopes
a. While not anticipated, any unretained cuts or fills should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations below. b. All fill slopes should be constructed with engineered fill meeting the minimum density requirements of this report and have a gradient no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill slopes should not exceed 15 feet in vertical height unless specifically reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Where the vertical height exceeds 15 feet, intermediate benches must be provided. These benches should be at least 6 feet wide and sloped to control surface drainage. A lined ditch should be used on each bench.
c. Fill slopes shall be benched and keyed into the native slopes by providing a base keyway whose minimum width is 10 feet and which is sloped negatively at least 2% back into the slope. The depth of keyways will vary, depending on the materials encountered, but at all locations shall be at least 2 feet into firm material. This keyway should be combined with intermediate benching as required. Refer to Figure 3 for Typical Key and Bench Detail.
d. Cut slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient and a 15 foot vertical height unless specifically reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Where the vertical height exceeds l5 feet, intermediate benches must be provided. These benches should be at least 6 feet wide and sloped to control surface drainage. A lined ditch should be used on each bench.
FILL SLOPE
OVER NATIVE SOIL
/ {ill'-' / '7/ "( 1
/ L- --I'- ..-; ,I 71
,,,,,-- --- 7 7_ // '/ /
// y ~ ; / ,I
/ - ,t-~~ /-7n-- -- - / ~ --- >-- t-~~,0 ,,, I . TOE OF SLOPE\ / ./ ~ J>-13'--<i, , / / ''/ 0 ; i / _;;L-, 0~su' _ ~ / / / / ~ I
~ - /elO' TYP. BENCH
--------- I_ --- ---/ -- - ,,, / I ( 6' MIN)
. / / I
--- --- ---- DOWNSLOPE KEY
DEPTH MINIMUM
2 FT INTO FIRM
MATERIAL PER
SOIL ENGINEER
/ / '-. ~ / PROVIDE KEYWAY DRAIN
/ , _zz;.., _/_ L_ / AS REQUIRED BY SOIL REPORT
'-+---- , _ OR SOIL ENGINEER
10, MIN SUBJECT TO REVIEW ,___ · DURING GRADING
SEE DETAIL BELOW
FILTER FABRIC
TYPE PER SOIL REPORT
OR PER SOIL ENGINEER
NOTES:
TYPICAL
KEYWAY /BENCH DRAIN
2'
ALL GRADING SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS AND THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.
ALL GRADING SHOULD BE INSPECTED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE THE BASE KEYWAY, BENCHING AND COMPACTION.
WHEN NATURAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5: 1 AND THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF THE FILL IS LESS THAN 5 FEET, BENCHING IS NOT REQUIRED. HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
ALL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING.
~ CK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC. 1----------------------t
TYPICAL KEY AND BENCH DETAIL
FILL SLOPE OVER NATIVE
FIGURE
3
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 11
e. If a fill slope is to be placed above a cut slope, the toe of the fill slope should be set back at least 8 feet horizontally from the top of the cut slope. A lateral surface drain should be placed in the area between the cut and fill slopes.
f. The surfaces of all cut and fill slopes should be worked to reduce erosion. This work, as a minimum, should include track rolling of the fill slopes and effective planting of all slopes.
g. Periodic maintenance of slopes may be necessary, as minor sloughing and erosion may take place.
6.2.8 Groundwater Table
Groundwater was encountered during the course of our exploration at 17 feet below the existing grade only in Boring B-8. The depth of the groundwater table is at least 5 feet below the lowest depth of the foundation of the proposed construction, therefore, it is not expected to interfere with the construction.
6.2.9 Expansive Soils
Our laboratory testing shows that the expansion index of the near surface soils are equal to 27, this indicates that the expansion potential of the near surface soils should be considered low.
The California Building Code (Section 1803.5.3) defines soils with an Expansion Index greater than 20 to be expansive. The foundation and grading recommendations presented herein are intended to be in accordance with CBC Section 1808.6.
6.2.10 Sulfate Content
The results of our laboratory testing indicate that the soluble sulfate content of the on-site soils likely to come into contact with concrete is as high as 180 ppm (parts per million). According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI), this is considered moderate sulfate exposure, Class S1. Concrete that will be in contact with soil should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the current ACI 318 Code.
6.2.11 Surface Drainage
a. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures to approved drainage facilities.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 12
b. Where soil is adjacent to foundations, a minimum gradient of 5 percent for a distance of no less than 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the wall face, should be maintained and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities. If 10 horizontal feet can not be satisfied due to lot lines or physical constraints, the drainage shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of Section 1804.4 of the 2019 California Building Code.
c. Swales and impervious surfaces shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent towards an approved drainage inlet or discharge point or as specified by the Project Civil Engineer.
d. All roof eaves should be guttered with downspouts provided. The downspouts shall discharge to either splash blocks or solid pipe to carrythe storm water awayfrom the structure to reduce the possibility of soil saturation and erosion. It may be necessary to use swales or pipes to direct the runoff to an appropriate drainage system or discharge location.
e. Drainage patterns approved at the time of construction should be maintained throughout the life of the structures. The building and surface drainage facilities must not be altered nor any grading, filling, or excavation conducted in the area without prior review by the Geotechnical Consultant.
f. Irrigation activities at the site should be controlled and reasonable.
Planter areas should not be sited adjacent to walls without implementing approved measures to contain irrigation water and prevent it from seeping into walls and under foundations and slabson-grade. Large trees should be planted a minimum distance of ½ their mature height away from the foundation.
6.2.12 Utility Trenches
a. Bedding material may consist of sand with SE not less than 20 which may then be jetted, unless local jurisdictional requirements govern. b. With exception of the clays, existing on-site soils may be utilized for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic material and rocks over 6 inches in diameter.
c. If sand is used, a 3 foot concrete plug should be placed in each trench where it passes under the exterior footings.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 13
d. Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches should be placed in thin lifts and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 95% in paved areas and 90% in other areas per ASTM D-1557. Care should be taken not to damage utility lines. e. Utility trenches that are parallel to the sides of a building should be placed so that they do not extend below a line sloping down and away at an inclination of 2:1 (H:V) from the bottom outside edge of all footings.
f. Trenches should be capped with 1.5+ feet of impermeable material.
Import material must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to its use.
g. Trenches must be shored as required by the local regulatory agency, the State Of California Division of Industrial Safety Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements.
6.3 Foundations
6.3.1 General
a. It is our opinion that the subject site will be suitable for the support of the proposed structure on a foundation system composed of conventional, shallow, continuous and pad footings.
b. The foundation depthswill be dependent on the subgrade preparation.
Please refer to Section 6.2.6.
c. The results of our laboratory testing indicate that the soluble sulfate content of the on-site soils likely to into contact with concrete is as high as 180 ppm (parts per million). All concrete for foundation elements shall be designed in accordance with Section 6.2.10. d. Other mitigation for the varying bedrock depth may be considered by the design team. Such mitigation may include lowering the finished floor elevations, founding the building on drilled piers or using a structural mat slab. Recommendations for these types of mitigation can be addressed at the design phase of the project.
e. At the time we prepared this report, grading and foundation plans had not been finalized. We request an opportunity to review these plans during the design stages to determine if supplemental
recommendations will be necessary.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 14
6.3.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations
a. Footing widths should be based on the allowable bearing values but not less than 15 inches for 2 story structures and 18 inches for 3 story structures or as specified by the Structural Engineer.
b. The minimum recommended depth of embedment will be dependent on the subgrade preparation as specified in Section 6.2.6 and as follows:
• Provided the subgrade is compacted beneath all footings, the minimum depth of embedment is 24 inches for all
footings.
• As an alternative to the required compaction, all footings shall extend a minimum of 6 inches into the very dense
Purisima Formation bedrock. This may necessitate footing depths up to 7 feet below finished floor or 6 feet below rough pad grade. The architect may also consider lowering the finished floor elevations, if possible.
c. Should local building codes require deeper embedment of the footings or wider footings the codes must apply.
d. Footing excavations must be checked bytheGeotechnical Consultant before steel is placed and concrete is poured to insure bedding into proper material. Excavations should be thoroughly wetted down just prior to pouring concrete.
e. The allowable bearing capacity shall not exceed 2,000 psf. f. The allowable bearing capacity values above may be increased by one-third in the case of short duration loads, such as those induced by wind or seismic forces.
g. Footings should meet the setback requirements for clearance from ascending slopes (CBC 1808.7.1) and for descending slopes surface (CBC 1808.7.2).
h. In the event that footings are founded in structural fill consisting of imported soil, the recommended allowable bearing capacitymayneed to be re-evaluated.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 15
6.4 Settlements
Total and differential settlements beneath foundation elements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Vertical movements are not expected to exceed 1 inch.
Differential movements are expected to be within the normal range (½ inch) for the anticipated loads and spacings. These preliminary estimates should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant when foundation plans for the proposed structures become available.
6.5 Retaining Structures
6.5.1 General
a. Retaining walls may be founded on conventional shallow foundations. Recommendations for this foundation system are provided in Section 6.3, Foundations.
b. The minimum depth of embedment for site retaining walls that are not part of the structure is 12 inches minimum.
c. The subgrade shall be compacted beneath retaining wall footings in accordance with Section 6.2.6. Compaction may be limited to the width of the cut required for the wall and backdrain construction. d. For site walls that are not part of the structure, the compaction may be omitted provided that the entire wall footing is founded on bedrock.
6.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
a. The lateral earth pressures presented in Table 2 are recommended for the design of retaining structures with a gravel backdrain and backfill soils of expansivity not higher than medium. Should the slope behind the retaining walls be other than level or 3:1 (H:V), supplemental design criteria will be provided for the active earth or at-rest pressures for the particular slope angle.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 16
Table 2: Lateral Earth Pressures
Type Soil
Profile
Soil Pressure (psf/ft)
Unrestrained
Wall
Rigidly
Supported Wall
Active Pressure Level
3:1
35 55
-
-
At-Rest Pressure Level
3:1
-
-
65 95
Passive Pressure*
*Neglect upper 12"
Level
3:1
330
240
165
120
b. The friction factor between rough concrete and the native, nearsurface silty sand is 0.35. c. Where both friction and the passive resistance are utilized for sliding resistance, either of the values indicated should be reduced by onethird. d. When required by the code, lateral load due to earthquakes may be calculated as 20xH
2 acting at 0.6H above the base of the wall.
e. These are ultimate values, no factor of safety has been applied. f. Pressure due to any surcharge loads from adjacent footings, traffic, etc., should be analyzed separately. Pressures due to these loading configurations can be supplied upon receipt of the appropriate plans and loads.
6.5.3 Backfill
a. Backfill should be placed under engineering control. b. It is recommended that granular, or relatively low expansivity, backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately 1/3 x wall height, and not less than 2 feet, subject to review during construction. c. The granular backfill should be capped with at least 12 inches of relatively impermeable material.
d. Backfill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, the compaction standard being obtained in accordance with ASTM D-1557.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 17
e. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used immediately adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressures against, and movement of, the walls.
f. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers and appropriate waterproofing should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls which retain earth.
6.5.4 Backfill Drainage
a. Backdrains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter, perforated, SDR 35 pipe or equivalent, embedded in permeable material meeting the State of California Standard Specification Section 68-2.02F(3), Class 2, or equivalent. A layer of Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric, or equivalent, shall be placed over the permeable material and the remaining 12 inches shall be capped with compacted native soil. The pipe should be approximately 4 inches above the trench bottom with a gradient of at least 1% being provided to the pipe and trench bottom, discharging to an approved location. See Figure 4 for Retaining Wall Backdrain Configuration.
b. Should the proposed wall construction consist of steal I-beams with wood or concrete lagging and spacers are utilized between lagging courses, the filter fabric shall also be placed between the wall and permeable material.
c. Perforations in backdrains are recommended as follows: 3/8-inch diameter, in 2 rows at the ends of a 120 degree arc, at 3-inch centers in each row, staggered between rows, placed downward.
d. Backdrains placed behind retaining walls should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of backfill. e. An unobstructed outlet should be provided at the lower end of each segment of backdrain. The outlet should consist of an unperforated pipe of the same diameter, connected to the perforated pipe and extended to a protected outlet at a lower elevation on a continuous gradient of at least 1%.
f. When terrace retaining walls are proposed, the upper retaining wall should have a backdrain which extends below the elevation of the top of the lower retaining wall backdrain. This will prevent spring effects and seepage between the terraced walls.
g. We recommend vertical cleanouts be provided for the backdrain.
Cleanout locations should be shown on the drainage plan.
FINISHED GRADE
3: 1 MAX SLOPE
PROVIDE SWALE
CAP OF COMPACTED SOIL
(12 IN) OR CONCRETE.
SLOPE TO SUITABLE
OUTLET.
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MA TERI AL
< : . . • ·
1-------1 .· _. ~~ · . .. ~ - ·. : ·.
WITH SPECIFIED FILTER FABRIC COVERING
TOP OF PERMEABLE MATERIAL.
;~-- --- --<: _ _____,,,.!.lTIT~ FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN WALL AND 1-------1 - _ -< , ,._ -__ __ ,. - -- PERMEABLE MATERIAL, IF WOOD LAGGING IS L-- <_L. ::__ -,. ~-,. -~-, ~- ~~-- -JJ_ ~~~~v-- 1 s u SEO. 1-------1 - -L.., ill I~ I FOR WALLS ENCLOSING INTERIOR SPACES, THE L _J-.:...-~ ~~-Effl~ElT~ WALL SHALL BE DAMPPROOFED OR WATERPROOFED - - - - - - :!.!.!.TTT.I.J......, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC. WATERPROOFING IS '_ -,.~ -- :_~-,-L. -,_ - BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT. · .· . "" · . ,----~------1
. : . · .. . . . . :~ _.. ~ ·. .
., _ -
12 INCHES
~ CK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
4 INCH RIGID PERFORATED SOR 35 PIPE
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
PERFORATIONS DOWN
SLOPE PIPE MIN 1 % TO OUTLET
4 INCHES
BOTTOM OF PIPE TO BE LOCATED
BELOW FINISHED SLAB ELEVATION.
RETAINING WALL
BACKDRAIN CONFIGURATION IFIG~RE I
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 18
6.6 Slabs-on-Grade
a. Concrete floor slabs may be founded on compacted engineered fill per the recommendations in Section 6.2.6. The subgrade should be proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic.
b. It is important that the subgrade soils be thoroughly saturated for 24 to 48 hours prior to the time the concrete is poured. For compacted engineered fill with a low expansion potential, the subgrade should be presoaked 4 percentage points above optimum to a depth of 1.0 feet. c. The slab-on-grade section should incorporate a minimum 4 inch capillary break consisting of 3/4 inch, clean, crushed rock, or approved equivalent.
Class II baserock is not recommended. Structural considerations may govern the thickness of the capillary break.
d. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated or vapor transmission may be a problem, a 15 mil waterproof membrane should be placed between the floor slab and the capillary break in order to reduce moisture condensation under the floor coverings. Refer to ACI 302.2R-06 for additional criteria.
e. We have provided generalized recommendations associated with standard construction practices for the reduction of moisture transmission through concrete slab-on-grade floors. We are not moisture-proofing specialist. A waterproofing or moisture proofing expert should be consulted for project specific moisture protection recommendations
f. Slab thickness, reinforcement, and doweling should be determined by the Project Structural Engineer, based on the design live and dead loads, including vehicles.
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design
a. For the pavement design and planning, an R-value test was completed for a sample of the near surface soils. The results of the R-value tests at equilibrium is 12. See Figure A-15.
b. The subgrade material beneath pavements may differ from that sampled during our investigation. Therefore, these preliminary pavement sections are subject to verification after rough grading and revision if necessary based on additional R-value tests and revised traffic indices.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 19
c. We have calculated several pavement sections options based on the tested Rvalues and Traffic Indices ranging from 4 to 6. We have also provided the baserock thickness without geofabric reinforcement and with Mirafi RS380i geofabric.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS
R-Value
Traffic
Index
A/C
(inches)
Class II Baserock (inches)
Without
Geofabric
With Mirafi
RS380i
12 4
2 8 N/A
3 5.5 N/A
5 3 9 6
4 8 6
6 3 12 7
4 10 6
d. Use only quality materials of the type and minimum thickness specified. All baserock must meet Caltrans Standard Specification 26-1.02B for Class II Aggregate Base.
e. Compact the base and subgrade uniformly to a minimum relative dry density of 95%.
f. Asphalt concrete should be placed only during periods of fair weather when the ambient air temperature is within prescribed limits. g. Provide sufficient gradient to prevent ponding of water. h. Maintenance should be undertaken on a routine basis.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 20
7. LIMITATIONS
a. Our investigation was performed in accordance with the usual and current standards of the profession, as they relate to this and similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided as to the conclusions and professional advice presented in this report.
b. The samples taken and tested, and the observations made, are considered to be representative of the site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between sample locations.
c. As in most projects, conditions revealed during construction excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, and revised recommendations be provided as required.
d. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Owner, or of his Representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that it is ensured that the Contractor and Subcontractors implement such recommendations in the field. e. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we are not responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
f. The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. g. Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page 21
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19), Published June 2019.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 Hazards Report, Site Utilized January7, 2021. https://www.asce7hazardtool.online/
3. Brabb, E.E., 1989, Geologic Map of Santa Cruz County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1905, Scale: 1:62,500.
4. C2G/Civil Consultants Group, Inc., Store More Scott’s Valley, 125 Bethany Drive, Scott’s Valley, California, 12 Sheets: C0.1 to C6.3, Dated 11.13.20.
5. California Building Standards Commission, July 2019, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Effective January 1, 2020.
6. Cooper-Clark and Associates, 1975, Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits in Santa Cruz County, California, Santa Cruz County Planning Dept., Scale: 1:62,500.
7. County of Santa Cruz, PublicGISWeb, Site Utilized January 7, 2021. http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/PublicGISWeb.
8. Dupré, W.R., 1975, Geology and Liquefaction Potential of Quaternary Deposits in Santa Cruz County, California, U.S. Geological SurveyMiscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-648, Scale: 1:62,500.
9. Earth Systems Pacific, Native Soil Assessment for Small Infiltration-Based Stormwater Control Measures, December 2013.
10. Hall, N.T., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., and Dupré, W.R., 1974, Faults and their Potential Hazards in Santa Cruz County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-626, Scale: 1:62,500.
11. Zike, Hugh, Redevelopment, For 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, CA, 10 Sheets: A1.1 through A5.1, Dated 11-13-20.
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
• Field Exploration Procedures Page A-1
• Laboratory Testing Procedures Page A-2
• Boring Location and Infiltration Plan (Existing) Figure A-1.1 • Boring Location and Infiltration Plan (Proposed) Figure A-1.2 • Key to Logs Figure A-2
• Logs of Exploratory Borings Figures A-3 thru A-10
• Summary of Laboratory Test Results Figures A-11.1 thru A-11.3 • Direct Shear Test Results Figures A-12 and A-13
• Consolidation Test Results Figure A-14
• R-Value Test Results Figure A-15
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page A-1
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
A-1. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 8 borings to depths between 5.5 and 20.5 feet below existing grade. The borings were advanced with a truck mounted drill rig equipped with 6 inch solid stem augers. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Boring and Infiltration Test Location Plan, Figure A-1. The Key to Logs, Figure A-2, gives definitions of the terms used in the Logs of Exploratory Borings. The Logs of Exploratory Borings are presented in Figures A-3 through A-10.
A-2. Drilling of the borings was observed by our Field Engineer who logged the soils and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed samples for classification and laboratory testing. The soils were classified, based on field observations and laboratory testing, in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System.
A-3. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained bymeans of a drive sampler. The hammer weight and drop being 140 pounds and 30 inches, respectively. The number of “Blows/Foot”required to drive samplers are indicated on the logs.
A-4. Exploratory borings were located in the field by measuring from known landmarks. The locations, as shown, are therefore within the accuracy of such a measurement.
A-5. Perched groundwater was encountered at depth of 17 feet below existing grade in BoringB-8 during the course of our field exploration.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page A-2
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
A-6. Classification
Soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Moisture content and in-situ density determinations were made from relatively undisturbed soil samples. The results are presented in the Logs of Exploratory Borings and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Figures A-11.1 through A-11.3.
A-7. Direct Shear
Direct shear strength tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils in accordance with laboratory test standard ASTM D 3080-98. Samples were relatively undisturbed, or remolded as specified. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to testing unless otherwise noted. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. The direct shear test results are presented in Figures A-12 and A-13.
A-8. Consolidation
Consolidation tests were performed on representative, relatively undisturbed samples of the underlying soils to determine compressibility characteristics. The samples were saturated during the tests to simulate possible adverse field conditions. The test results are presented in Figure A-14.
A-9. Expansion Index
Expansion tests were performed on representative, remolded samples of the on-site soils in accordance with laboratory test standard ASTM D 4829-11. The test results are presented in Figures A-11.1 through A-11.3.
A-10. Soluble Sulfates
The soluble sulfate content was determined for samples considered representative of the onsite soils likely to come in contact with concrete in accordance with test method California 417. The test results are presented in Figures A-11.1 through A-11.3.
A-11. R-Value
The resistance (R) value was determined for a sample considered representative of the near native soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade in accordance with ASTM D-2844.
The test result in presented in Figure A-15.
.=r ~=====s~~~~ ~- - ,- ~
--------------
~~tD
~
1-1 B10tco "' .,. ... ...
~
~
.1» ~ ,...
(E) AC
-~ a \~" ~ \ ~ -,
.,a,->
:!~~
~~
TABOR DRIVE
+
.g~~
0 ...Jtx, ~ ----=1=--
-- --+~ -- -- ~~ =--w -+----- w ----- w ----'- -- w ----- w -----,g, ;.-;,.--;_-=-=-------=-
• , n"!~ ---4 --~--- I ~ ~~. ~ .....i O -------~--------------- -------------------~-~~~~~- .'.!::---, -------- o ___________ + ----------------------------------;r ~--- it~ "1$~ ct )f- ~ t"' l " l,l ... "' ..
~ I ,,, " B-7~· \ !2~8. :::~::::::::'•~--==.·4':7· .. s-, "'£
B-5
EXISTING BUILDING B-2
REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.
(E) AC
NORTH
SCALE:
l "=30'
0 +"' a,"' ~ --
\s
-2 B-4
~ CK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
0 @
S 08'02'43·~~- -------------- 65.57
·•,·
l7A5fMAP fR0M c2a / CIVll C0N5Ul -rAN-r5
aR0UP INC,, f ebruar4 20, 2019,
L----------~
BORING AND INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN (EXISTING) § 1 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
.g-.1& ~- -=--------------- TABOR DRIVE ~ "----- FC=68 . ----------------------------------------~ _l_____________________________ :;!~~;-;_ ~ FC=692. J 5 BFC= 702.50(M F.F. = 691' FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
B.R. = 690.5' BEDROCK ELEVATION
0-;\;;-.1
" g:!!l
is
· F.F. = NIA
B.R. = 68 '
: In
.. t .... ~~
"'&
85.75'
685.25'
=685.42'
~ .. 1-1
® APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF INFILTRATION HOLE 1-1, TYPICAL @ B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING Bl, TYPICAL
r--- .
B 5 F.F. = 687'/690\< ...._.,.,..,._,_ - B.R. = 684.5' ·., j 'l·,
86.90°
86.40'
L---
F.F. = 690'
a-l:::1 O.ffl,...
'ill ,----
' I
I
FC=689.~o~-
TC=689 '8YBFC=689.o.33'
LIP=689.~0: _ ,.-
1 TC=68Sl .8
BFC=689-.3
LIP=68!f.
i
i
I
' B- 8'
_J
-, I
I _J
\ -7
I _J
r---
' TC=699.9J.•
BFC=699.44-'-- LIP=699.6 f __ _
I
I
L---
,----
i
i it~
I $
TC=700.04'
BFC=699.54'•
~~:.....------1•- LIP=699.71 "---- + ,.---
i
i
i
i
i
.u .,....:~~:'sr. i
.. = 691' - B.R. = 687'
!
I
C=690 9~'
690. 0'
90.5T'
i
. = 690.5'
TC=692.10'
FC=691.60'
NORTH
SCALE:
l "=30'
BA5fMAP FROM c2a I CIVI~ CON5U~fANf5
aROUP INC., f ebruar4 20, 2019,
~ CK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC. ,,__ ___________________________
BORING AND INFILTRATION
12_5_B-et-h-an_y_D_n
TEST
__ v_e_,
LOCATION
S-c-o-tt_s_V_a_ll_e_y __________________________
PLAN (PROPOSED)
____.~
~
* Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1 3/8 inch I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D-1586).
SANDS
More than half of
the coarse fraction
is smaller than the
No. 4 sieve
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
More than half of
the material is
smaller than the
No. 200 sieve
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
MH
CH
OH
Pt
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit less than 50
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit greater than 50
A-2
SC
ML
CL
OL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
SILT AND CLAY
US STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
GRAIN SIZE LIMITS
Peat and other highly organic soils
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More than half of
the material is
larger than the
No. 200 sieve
GRAVELS
More than half of
the coarse fraction
is larger than the
No. 4 sieve
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines FIGURE
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomacaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts
MOISTURE CONDITION
KEY TO LOGS
SW
SP
SM
CLEAN GRAVELS
(Less than 5% fines)
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
CLEAN SANDS
(Less than 5% fines)
SAND
WITH FINES
GW
GP
GM
GC
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS
SAND
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT DAMP
SAND AND GRAVEL DRY
COBBLES BOULDERS
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE
BLOWS/FT* SILT AND CLAY BLOWS/FT*
MOIST
MEDIUM DENSE WET
DENSE
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
VERY DENSE
LOOSE
HARD
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 16
16 - 32
OVER 32
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF
OVER 50 VERY STIFF
0 - 4
No. 200 No. 40 No. 10 No. 4 3/4 in. 3 in. 12 in.
I I
~ CK SOLID ENGINEERING1 INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
R-Value = 12
SM #200 Wash
22 107.2 16.0 124.3 43% Passing
Consolidation
SC E.I. = 27
15 21.0
CL
18 23.5
(SM) 85.4 27.7 109.0
20 27.1 Sulfate
20 85.8 19.6 102.6
28 20.4
FIGURE
A-3
696'
Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Material Consistent. Bluish Gray. Moderately to Strongly Dark Grayish Brown Clayey SAND. Moist, Medium Dense,
Medium Plastic. Fine Grained Sand.
Brown Sandy CLAY. Moist, Stiff, Plastic. Fine Grained
December 21, 2020
Boring Terminated @ 16 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Material Consistent
Cemented.
Bedrock: (Elev. = 690.5') Yellowish Brown and Light
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Blows
Dry Density (pcf)
B1
Center of (E) North Parking Lot
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
Description
3" Asphalt Concrete Over 4" Aggregate Base
Sand. Gravel - up to 2.5".
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Native:
Dark Grayish Brown Silty SAND. Moist, Medium Dense,
Slightly Plastic. Fine Grained Sand.
20044
125 Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, California
Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Dense Grading to Very Dense,
Weakly to Moderately Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 506"
506"
503"
504"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
rx -
- \ X -
- ~ -
/ X - IX - [X -
-
-
-
\ [X -
-
-
-
-
T rx
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SC
11 106.5 18.9 126.6 #200 Wash
39% Passing
SC
5 18.0
CL
51 28.6
(SM) 82.9 38.5 114.8
20 26.7
20 20.8 #200 Wash
43% Passing
18 21.8
FIGURE
A-4
Boring Terminated @ 16 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Material Consistent.
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, Moderately
Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Moist, Very Dense, Moderately Cemented. Fine Grained
Sand.
Plastic. Fine Grained Sand.
Bedrock: (Elev. = 687') Light Gray SANDSTONE.
Fill:
Dark Brown Clayey SAND with Gravels. Moist, Loose,
Slightly Plastic. Fine to Coarse Grained Sand. Gravel - up to 1/2".
Native: Dark Brown Clayey SAND. Moist to Wet, Loose,
Slightly Plastic. Fine Grained Sand,
2.5" Asphalt Concrete Over 3" Aggregate Base
December 21, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Yellowish Brown Sandy CLAY. Moist, Hard, Medium
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B2
125 Bethany Drive (E) North Parking Lot Near East Stairs Scotts Valley, California 693'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
503"
503"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
- \ ~ -
- ~ -
\ ~ IX
- ~ -
-
-
- ~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
(SM) 24 #200 Wash
86.5 23.2 106.6 37% Passing
23.9 27 25.7
21.7 #200 Wash
23.2 35% Passing
FIGURE
A-5
Material Consistent.
Boring Terminated @ 10.5 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Weakly Cemented. Fine Grained.
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist,Very Dense, Non-Plastic.
Bedrock: (Elev. = 689')
Yellowish Brown SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense.
Non-Plastic. Strongly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Material Consistent.
2.5" Asphalt Concrete Over 4" Aggregate Base
December 21, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Material Consistent. Orangish Brown and Yellowish Brown.
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B3
125 Bethany Drive (E) East Parking Lot
Scotts Valley, California 689'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
504"
505"
503"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
~ IX - I IX
-
-
-
- I ~ - -
-
-
- T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SM
25 11.9
CL
38 14.1
(SM) 20.8
FIGURE
A-6
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With 4 inch Perforated Pipe and Gravel For Infiltration Test
Boring Terminated @ 5.5 Feet
Brown Silty SAND. Moist, Medium Dense, Slightly Plastic.
Fine Grained Sand.
Brown Sandy CLAY. Moist, Hard, Medium Plastic. Fine
Grained Sand.
Native:
December 21, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Bedrock: (Elev. = 683.5') Yellowish Brown SANDSTONE.
Moist, Dense, Non-Plastic. Strongly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
No Recovery. Very Dense.
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B4
125 Bethany Drive East Corner of Property
Scotts Valley, California 687'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 504"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
- \ ~ -
- ~ IX -
- X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SM
41 80.5 15.4 92.9 Sulfate
29 8.0
(SM) 18.5
21.1 15 20.0
9 22.6
FIGURE
A-7
Boring Terminated @ 16 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Material Consistent. Weakly to Moderately Cemented.
Material Consistent. Weakly Cemented.
Plastic. Strongly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Native:
Light Grayish Brown Silty SAND. Moist, Medium Dense,
Slightly Plastic. Fine to Coarse Grained Sand. Gravel - up to
1.5".
Material Consistent.
2.5" Asphalt Concrete Over 4" Aggregate Base
December 21, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Bedrock: (Elev. = 684.5') Gray SANDSTONE. Moist,
Medium Dense, Non-Plastic. Moderately Cemented. Fine
Grained Sand.
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, NonDepth (ft.) Soil Type Undisturbed Bulk Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B5
125 Bethany Drive North Corner of (E) South Parking Lot Scotts Valley, California 688'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
505"
505"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
- \ ~ -
- ~ IX -
- X
-
-
-
-
- [X -
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SM
19 84.6 9.7 92.7
#200 Wash
SC 21.8 49% Passing
(SM) 39 30.0
27 82.5 31.7 108.7
24.9 FIGURE
A-8
For Infiltration Test
Boring Terminated @ 8 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Non-Plastic. Weakly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Material Consistent. Moderately Cemented.
Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty SAND. Moist, Loose,
Slightly Plastic. Fine Grained Sand.
Brown & Gray Clayey SAND. Moist, Dense, Medium Plastic.
Bedrock: (Elev. = 681') Gray and Yellowish Brown
Boring Backfilled With 4 inch Perforated Pipe and Gravel Native:
December 21, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
SANDSTONE. Moist, Dense, Non-Plastic.
Yellowish Brown SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense,
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B6
125 Bethany Drive Grass South of (E) South Parking Lot
Scotts Valley, California 684'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
506"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
- \ ~ X
[X -
-
~ IX - IX
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SC 22.1
29 25.7
Bedrock: (Elev. = 688') Yellowish Brown, Brown, and Gray 26.3 170 43 (SM) 26.5 Sulfate
22.3 37 20.7
28 19.6
23.0 FIGURE
A-9
Material Consistent. Moderately Cemented.
Boring Terminated @ 19.5 Feet
Groundwater Not Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Material Consistent.
Plastic. Weakly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Plastic. Weakly Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Native:
Yellowish Brown and Brown Clayey SAND. Moist, Dense,
Non-Plastic to Medium Plastic. Fine to Coarse Grained Sand.
SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, Non-Plastic. Moderately
to Strongly Cemented. Fine to Medium Grained Sand.
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, Non3" Asphalt Concrete Over 2" Aggregate Base December 17, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, NonDepth (ft.) Soil Type Undisturbed Bulk Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B7
125 Bethany Drive (E) West Parking Lot
Scotts Valley, California 690'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
504"
506"
506"
505"
505"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
-
\ A ><
><
I >< -
-
- ""' X
-
-
-
-
-
I X -
-
-
-
-
I X -
-
-
- I X
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: Boring:
Project: Location:
Elevation:
Date: Method of Drilling:
Logged By:
c (psf)
f °
SM
61 21.4
(SM) 93.7 22.5 114.8
16 22.2
24 82.1 20.5 99.0 310 37
30 22.9
20.9 23 21.9
21.8 FIGURE
A-10
Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 17 Feet
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings and Asphalt Cold Patch
Material Consistent. Moist to Wet.
Boring Terminated @ 20.5 Feet
Material Consistent.
Perched Groundwater
Bluish Gray and Orangish Brown SANDSTONE. Moist,
Very Dense, Moderately Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Cemented. Fine Grained Sand.
Material Consistent.
Native: Dark Bluish Gray Silty SAND. Moist, Dense,
Plastic. Fine to Coarse Grained Sand. Gravel - up to 2".
Bedrock: (Elev. = 689.5') Yellowish Brown SANDSTONE.
Moist, Very Dense, Weakly to Moderately Cemented. Fine
Grained Sand.
4" Asphalt Concrete Over 2" Aggregate Base
December 17, 2020 Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JDB 6 in. Solid Stem Auger, 140 lb. Hammer
Bluish Gray SANDSTONE. Moist, Very Dense, Moderately
Depth (ft.)
Soil Type
Undisturbed
Bulk
Description
Blows
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
20044 B8
125 Bethany Drive (E) West Parking Lot
Scotts Valley, California 691'Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Direct
Shear
Miscellaneous
Laboratory
Testing
2" DIA
Sample
2.5" DIA
Sample
Bulk
Sample
Terzaghi Split
Spoon Sample
Static Water
Table
5 10
15 20
25 505"
505"
504"
505"
505"
505"
0 [SJ ~
[I] ~
- \ IX - \ IX - ~ -
-
~ IX - [X -
-
-
- IX
-
-
-
-
-
- ~ - ~
-
-
- IX
-
-
-
-
-
Jl!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
B1 1.0 SM 107.2 16.0 124.3
B1 2.5 SC 21.0 27
B1 5T CL 23.5
B1 5B (SM) 85.4 27.7 109.0
B1 6.0 (SM) 27.1 180
B1 10.0 (SM) 85.8 19.6 102.6
B1 15.0 (SM) 20.4
B2 1.0 SC 106.5 18.9 126.6
B2 2.5 SC 18.0
B2 5T CL 28.6
B2 5B (SM) 82.9 38.5 114.8
B2 6.5 (SM) 26.7
B2 10.0 (SM) 20.8
B2 15.0 (SM) 21.8
B3 1.0 (SM) 86.5 23.2 106.6
B3 2.0 (SM) 23.9
B3 5T (SM) 25.7
B3 5B (SM) 21.7
B3 10.0 (SM) 23.2
B4 1.0 SM 11.9
B4 2.5T CL 14.1
FIGURE
A-11.1 SOLUBLE SULFATES (ppm)
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
EXPANSION INDEX
DIRECT SHEAR COHESION (psf) (PEAK) FRICTION ANGLE (PEAK)GRAIN SIZE (%) GRAVEL
SAND
IN-SITU
BORING
DEPTH
SOIL TYPE
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
SILT
CLAY
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
WET DENSITY (pcf)
43 39
43 37
35 ff!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
B4 2.5B (SM) 20.8
B5 1.0 SM 80.5 15.4 92.9 12
B5 2.5T SM 8.0
B5 2.5B (SM) 18.5
B5 5.0 (SM) 21.1
B5 10.0 (SM) 20.0
B5 15.0 (SM) 22.6
B6 1.0 SM 84.6 9.7 92.7
B6 2.5T SC 21.8
B6 2.5B (SM) 30.0
B6 5.0 (SM) 82.5 31.7 108.7
B6 6.0 (SM) 24.9
B7 0.5T SC 22.1
B7 0.5 SC 25.7
B7 0.5B (SM) 26.3 170 43
B7 2.0 (SM) 26.5 52
B7 5.0 (SM) 22.3
B7 10.0 (SM) 20.7
B7 15.0 (SM) 19.6
B7 19.0 (SM) 23.0
B8 1T SM 21.4
FIGURE
A-11.2
FRICTION ANGLE
(PEAK)
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
BORING
DEPTH
SOIL TYPE
IN-SITU DIRECT SHEAR GRAIN SIZE (%)
EXPANSION INDEX
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
SOLUBLE SULFATES (ppm)
SAND
SILT
CLAY
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
WET DENSITY (pcf)
COHESION (psf)
(PEAK)
GRAVEL
49 Jff!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
B8 1.0 (SM) 93.7 22.5 114.8
B8 1B (SM) 22.2
B8 2.5 (SM) 21.8
B8 5.0 (SM) 82.1 20.5 99.0 310 37
B8 6.0 (SM) 22.9
B8 10.0 (SM) 20.9
B8 15.0 (SM) 21.9
B8 20.0 (SM) 21.8
FIGURE
A-11.3
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
BORING
DEPTH
SOIL TYPE
IN-SITU DIRECT SHEAR GRAIN SIZE (%)
EXPANSION INDEX
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
SOLUBLE SULFATES (ppm)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
WET DENSITY (pcf)
COHESION (psf)
(PEAK)
FRICTION ANGLE
(PEAK)
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT
CLAY
I.f'?gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
B7 COHESION FRICTION
0.5B (psf) ANGLE
(SM) PEAK 170 43
RESIDUAL 90 40
FIGURE
A-12
BORING:
TEST SAMPLE TYPE: FIELD MOISTURE: 26.3%
DEPTH (ft):
SOIL TYPE (USCS):
IN-SITU (SATURATED) SATURATED MOIST: 44.0%
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL LOAD (psf)
-------
/
/ , /
/
~ . / .,,,,
~
~ /
/ /
'
/ /
~/
V
/ /
W'
~
If!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
B8 COHESION FRICTION
5.0 (psf) ANGLE
(SM) PEAK 310 37
RESIDUAL 270 34
FIGURE
A-13
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
IN-SITU (SATURATED) SATURATED MOIST: 33.1%
BORING:
TEST SAMPLE TYPE: FIELD MOISTURE: 20.5%
DEPTH (ft):
SOIL TYPE (USCS):
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL LOAD (psf)
-------
/ ~ ~""'
/
/ / _,.
t" /
.W v,,,,,,
V
~ .,
#"' ~ - ~
If!gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
220 psf
FIGURE
A-14
SATURATED MOIST: 18.6%
16.0%
SM
1.0 REBOUND
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
SATURATED
SOIL TYPE (USCS):
FIELD MOISTURE
DEPTH (ft):
BORING: B1
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
SEATING WEIGHT: FIELD MOISTURE:
-12%
-11%
-10%
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
100 1000 10000
CONSOLIDATION
NORMAL LOAD (psf)
-------
......................
-...... ~ -I'-, -- ----..._, 4!t ________ ~ .... -
' ----- ------- ---- -· ·- __________ ,
~---- ---"""~
IflEcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC. I ID
FIGURE
A-15
R-VALUE
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley
C Earth Systems
500 Park Center Drive, Suite 1 I Hollister, CA 95023 I Ph : 831.637.2133 I www.earthsyst ems.com Rock Solid Engineering - OTF 301321-001
RSE 20044, 125 Bethany 2101-010.LAB
RESISTANCE 'R' VALUE AND EXPANSION PRESSURE ASTM D 2844/D2844M-18 January 11, 2021
Boring #1 @ 0.0 - 1.5' Dry Density@ 300 psi Exudation Pressure: 123.3-pcf Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) %Moisture @ 300 psi Exudation Pressure: 18.5% R-Value - Exudation Pressure: 12
R-Value - Expansion Pressure: N/ A
R-Value @ Equilibrium: 12
EXUDATION PRESSURE
CHART EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART
2.0 90 ~
J
1.8 80 ¢:: ~
~
s J
1.6 J
;;;i
70 en
en
~ I
/l,, 1.-1
z ~
60 0 J
~
< 1.2
§ I
l:ol 50 ~ ~
I ;:) ~
~ > 1.0 ~ J >- en a: 40 en
f-l
~ 0.8 I
u J
= I
30 ~
E- 0.6 I
~
~ 20 0
u 0.-1
~ ~
J
~
10 0.2
~
I
0 0.0
ROO 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi COVER THICKNESS BY EXP ANSI ON PRESSURE, ft Jl?gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC. I ID
APPENDIX B
INFILTRATION TESTING PROGRAM
• Infiltration Testing Procedures Page B-1
• Infiltration Test Results Figures B-1 and B-2
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 20044 Proposed Mixed Use Building February 9, 2021
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley, California Page B-1
INFILTRATION TESTING PROCEDURES
B-1. Based on our discussions with the project Civil Engineer, we decided to perform infiltration tests at two of the proposed bio-retention facilities. The depths of the tests were chosen based on the proposed depth of the infiltration. The location of the infiltration holes are shown on the Boring and Infiltration Test Location Plan, Figure A-1.
B-2. The infiltration testing program was performed in accordance with the procedures recommended in the Native SoilAssessmentforSmallInfiltration-Based Stormwater Control Measures (Reference 9). The infiltration tests were performed in accordance with the Shallow Quick Infiltration Methodology.
B-3. The infiltration tests were performed by filling the holes with water to existing grade to presaturate the holes. The water level was continuously maintained for a period of 30 minutes.
At the end of the initial 30 minute pre-saturation period, readings were taken at regular time intervals as the water level fell. The final infiltration rates are presented in Table B-1.
Table B-1: Infiltration Test Results
Infiltration
Hole #
Depth
(Feet)
Material Type
(bottom of hole)
Final Infiltration
Rate
(inches/hour)
I-1 7.3 SANDSTONE (SM) 0.06
I-2 5.5 SANDSTONE (SM) 0.10
B-4. The calculations of the Final Infiltration rate are based on the methods presented in the Native Soil Assessment for Small Infiltration-Based Stormwater Control Measures (Reference 9) and include a Factor of Safety of 2. The test results and calculations are presented in Figures B-1 and B-2.
Project #: 20044
Address: 125 Bethany Dive, Scotts Valley
Hole #: I-1 Date of Test: 1/6/2021
Depth: 88 Inches Pipe Above Ground: 14 Inches
Hole Diameter: 6 Inches Hole Radius (r): 3 Inches
Time Initial Depth
to Water
Final Depth
to Water Change Average Head
(Mins) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) It Final
Presat 30 14.00 15.50 1.50
1 30 15.50 21.00 5.50 5.5 11 83.8 0.19 0.10
2 30 21.00 27.00 6.00 5.0 12 78.0 0.23 0.11
3 30 27.00 30.25 3.25 9.2 7 73.4 0.13 0.07
4 30 30.25 32.50 2.25 13.3 5 70.6 0.09 0.05
5 30 32.50 36.50 4.00 7.5 8 67.5 0.17 0.09
6 30 36.50 38.25 1.75 17.1 4 64.6 0.08 0.04
7 30 38.25 40.00 1.75 17.1 4 62.9 0.08 0.04
8 30 40.00 41.50 1.50 20.0 3 61.3 0.07 0.04
9 30 41.50 43.00 1.50 20.0 3 59.8 0.07 0.04
Average: 12.8 6 69.1 0.12 0.06
Infiltration Rate, It= DH(60r)/(Dt(r+2Havg))
Final= Measured Infiltration Rate (Infiltration Rate / FS=2) FIGURE
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley B-1
Reading
#
Min/in In/hr
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Hole
Diameter
Length of Pipe
Above Ground
Depth
--- !
A
• ~ ~
If]gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Project #: 20044
Address: 125 Bethany Dive, Scotts Valley
Hole #: I-2 Date of Test: 1/6/2021
Depth: 53 Inches Pipe Above Ground: 18 Inches
Hole Diameter: 6 Inches Hole Radius (r): 3 Inches
Time Initial Depth
to Water
Final Depth
to Water Change Average Head
(Mins) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) It Final
1 30 18.00 18.75 0.75
2 30 18.75 26.75 8.00 3.8 16 48.3 0.48 0.24
3 30 26.75 30.50 3.75 8.0 8 42.4 0.26 0.13
4 30 30.50 33.00 2.50 12.0 5 39.3 0.18 0.09
5 30 33.00 37.00 4.00 7.5 8 36.0 0.32 0.16
6 30 37.00 38.50 1.50 20.0 3 33.3 0.13 0.06
7 30 38.50 39.50 1.00 30.0 2 32.0 0.09 0.04
8 30 39.50 41.00 1.50 20.0 3 30.8 0.14 0.07
9 30 41.00 42.00 1.00 30.0 2 29.5 0.10 0.05
10 30 42.00 42.75 0.75 40.0 2 28.6 0.07 0.04
Average: 19.0 5 35.6 0.20 0.10
Infiltration Rate, It= DH(60r)/(Dt(r+2Havg))
Final= Measured Infiltration Rate (Infiltration Rate / FS=2) FIGURE
125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley B-2
Reading
#
Min/in In/hr
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Hole
Diameter
Length of Pipe
Above Ground
Depth
!
~ ~
I
If]gcK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.
Stormwater Control Plan
for
125 Bethany Drive
October, 2020
Owner:
Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC
125 Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, California 95066
prepared by:
C2G/Civil Consultants Group
4444 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 6
Scotts Valley, California 95066
(831) 438-4420
Table of Contents
I. Project Data .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Setting ........................................................................................ 1 II.A. Project Location and Description 1
II.B. Existing Site Features and Conditions 2
II.C. Opportunities and Constraints for Stormwater Control 2 III. Low Impact Development Design Strategies ........................................................................................... 2 III.A. Optimization of Site Layout 2
III.A.1. Limitation of development envelope 2
III.A.2. Preservation of natural drainage features 2
III.A.3. Setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats 3 III.A.4. Minimization of imperviousness 3
III.A.5. Use of drainage as a design element 3
III.A.6. Use of Permeable Pavements 3
III.A.7. Dispersal of Runoff to Pervious Areas 3
III.A.8. Stormwater Control Measures 3
IV. Documentation of Drainage Design............................................................................................................ 3 IV.A. Descriptions of each Drainage Management Area 3
IV.A.1. Table of Drainage Management Areas 3
IV.A.2. Drainage Management Area Descriptions 3
IV.B. Tabulation and Sizing Calculations 4
IV.B.1. Information Summary for LID Facility Design 4
IV.B.2. Self-Treating Areas 4
IV.B.3. Self-Retaining Areas 4
IV.B.4. Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas 4
IV.B.5. Areas Draining to Bioretention Facilities (Tier 2 Projects) 4 V. Source Control Measures ................................................................................................................................ 5 V.A. Site activities and potential sources of pollutants 5 V.B. Source Control Table 6
V.C. Features, Materials, and Methods of Construction of Source Control BMPs 6 VI. Stormwater Facility Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 6 VI.A. Ownership and Responsibility for Maintenance in Perpetuity 6 VI.B. Summary of Maintenance Requirements for Each Stormwater Facility 7 VII. Construction Checklist ..................................................................................................................................... 7 VIII. Certifications ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Project Data 1
Table IV.A.1. Table of Drainage Management Areas 3
Table IV.B. Tabulation and Sizing Calculations 3
Table IV.B.5. Areas Draining to Bioretention Facilities (Tier 2 Projects) 4 Table V.B. Sources and Source Control Measures 4
Table VII.1 Construction Plan C.3 Checklist 5
Figures
Vicinity Map 2
Attachments
Attachment A: Soil Data
Attachment B: Grading and Drainage Plan
Attachment C: DMA Exhibit
This Stormwater Control Plan was prepared using the template dated 18 February 2014 by the City of Scotts Valley.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 1 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
I. Project Data
Table 1. Project Data
Project Name/Number 125 Bethany Drive
Application Submittal Date October 2020
Project Location APN 023-102-15
Project Phase No. NA
Project Type and Description Professional Commercial
Total Project Site Area (acres) 1.32 ac
Total New Impervious Surface Area 43,945 sf
Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area 4,200 sf
Total Pre-Project Impervious Surface Area 36,910 sf
Total Post-Project Impervious Surface Area 43,945 sf
Net Impervious Area 7,035 sf
Watershed Management Zone(s) 1
Design Storm Frequency and Depth 10 Year
Urban Sustainability Area NA
II. Setting
II.A. Project Location and Description
The site consists of an existing lot at the north end of Scotts Valley Drive at the intersection of Vine Hill School Road, Tabor and Bethany Drive. The existing profession commercial lot consists of two existing buildings and parking lot. The New project will remove the existing two buildings and replace the professional buildings with one new three-story building. The project is a complete replacement with some minor parking lot areas to be removed and replaced in-kind. See Vicinity Map on page 2.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 2 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
II.B. Existing Site Features and Conditions
The site know 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 converted to the 1440 Multi-Versity Campus. The site soils consist of Bonny Doon loam, and provide infiltration rates ranging from 0.03 in/hr to 0.28 in/hr. Depth to water table exceeds 80 inches.
Municipal storm drain structures include 2 inlets at the intersection of Tabor, Vin Hill School Road and Scotts Valley Drive.
II.C. Opportunities and Constraints for Stormwater Control Opportunities for stormwater control include the steep slopes, and location of existing inlets and associated conduits at the low end of the parcel.
Constraints to stormwater control include limited location of City storm conduit (only south-west corner of propert) and limited permeable surfaces.
III. Low Impact Development Design Strategies
III.A. Optimization of Site Layout
III.A.1. Limitation of development envelope
The project is trying to minimize disturbance to existing trees while maximizing the building envelope.
III.A.2. Preservation of natural drainage features
No changes to natural drainage are proposed.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 3 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
III.A.3. Setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats NA – no such setbacks exist at this location. The existing stream is on the other side of Bethany Drive
III.A.4. Minimization of imperviousness
NA – all new and replaced impervious surfaces are AC.
III.A.5. Use of drainage as a design element
Drainage is tiered and brought down to the existing flat area at the corner of Tabor and Scotts Valley Drive.
III.A.6. Use of Permeable Pavements
No permeable pavements are proposed.
III.A.7. Dispersal of Runoff to Pervious Areas
Drainage along Tabor is directed to landscape areas (Pervious areas) between building and new sidewalk.
III.A.8. Stormwater Control Measures
Impervious areas are directed to storm water treatment areas first. Over flow structures at the storm water treatment areas collect and convey the water to underground chambers to allow retention and detention for Tier 3 & Tier 4 requirements.
IV. Documentation of Drainage Design
IV.A.Descriptions of each Drainage Management Area
IV.A.1. Table of Drainage Management Areas
DMA Name Surface Type Area (square feet)
1 AC, vegetated areas, Building 26,635
2 AC, vegetated areas, Building 9,406
3 AC, vegetated area, Building 18,423
4 Vegetate Area 2,895
IV.A.2. Drainage Management Area Descriptions
DMA 1 totaling 26,635 square feet, the building and parking lot impervious areas is directed to treatment soil for filtration. The water is stored below ground for retention and detention after filtration.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 4 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
DMA 2, totaling 9,406 square feet, drains from the AC and building are directed to a storm drain system that conveys the water to a treatment areas that relies upon filtration. Higher storm events are collected and conveyed to DMA 1 for retention and detention purposes.
DMA 3, totaling 18,423 square feet, drains from the AC and building are directed to a storm drain system that conveys the water to a treatment areas that relies upon filtration. Higher storm events are collected and conveyed to DMA 2 then to DMA 1 for retention and detention purposes.
DMA 4, totaling 2,895 is a self-treating vegetated area.
IV.B. Tabulation and Sizing Calculations
IV.B.1. Information Summary for LID Facility Design
Total Project Area (Square Feet) 57,499
Design Storm Depth 2.0 inches
Applicable Requirements Tier 4
IV.B.2. Self-Treating Areas
DMA 4 is all vegetation and is a self-treating area. Landscape areas is 2,895 square feet.
IV.B.3. Self-Retaining Areas
None
IV.B.4. Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas
None
IV.B.5. Areas Draining to Bioretention Facilities (Tier 2 Projects) DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-project
surface type
DMA
Runoff
factor
DMA
Area ×
runoff
factor
SCM Name
1 21,915 AC/Conc .95 20,819
SCM Sizing
factor
Minimum
SCM
Size
Proposed
SCM
Size
1 4720 Vegetated .25 1,100
Total> 21,919 0.04 877 1,200
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 5 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-project
surface type
DMA
Runoff
factor
DMA
Area ×
runoff
factor
SCM Name
2 9,375 AC/Conc .95 8,906
SCM Sizing
factor
Minimum
SCM
Size
Proposed
SCM
Size
2 33 Vegetated .25 8
Total> 8,914 0.04 357 375
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-project
surface type
DMA
Runoff
factor
DMA
Area ×
runoff
factor
SCM Name
3 12,655 AC/Conc .95 12,022
SCM Sizing
factor
Minimum
SCM
Size
Proposed
SCM
Size
3 5,768 Vegetated .25 1,442
Total> 13,464 0.04 538 202
V. Source Control Measures
V.A. Site activities and potential sources of pollutants The trash enclosure and oil from cars is the main pollutant source for this project.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 6 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
V.B. Source Control Table
Potential source of
runoff pollutants
Permanent
source control BMPs
Operational
source control BMPs
On-site storm drain inlets Mark inlets “No Dumping” Inspect and maintain Interior Elevator Shaft Connect to sanitary sewer Inspect and maintain Exterior Landscaping Re-use of existing trees. Minimize use of pesticides Trash Enclosure
Covered and inlet connected to
sanitary sewer Inspect and Maintain
Fire Sprinkler Test Water Drain to sanitary sewer Inspect and Maintain Condensate Drain Line Drain to landscaping
Parking Lot and Sidewalks Drains to BMPS Inspect and Maintain V.C. Features, Materials, and Methods of Construction of Source Control BMPs The BMP biofiltration areas have been optimized for high volume/high flow treatment applications. Pollutants are captured by the drainage media, which then attacks the pollutants by decomposing or volatilizing them, then capturing the remaining components in the drain rock media. The filtration media is then replaced as needed based on semi-annual inspections of the unit and the media.
VI. Stormwater Facility Maintenance
VI.A.Ownership and Responsibility for Maintenance in Perpetuity Maintenance of all stormwater control facilities will be performed under the Road Maintenance Agreement, to be finalized as part of the Use Permit.
The current site owner will be responsible for maintenance and repair of all stormwater control facilities until the Road Maintenance Agreement goes into effect.
[PROJECT NAME] PAGE 7 OF 7 (TEMPLATE) 18 FEBRUARY 2014
VI.B. Summary of Maintenance Requirements for Each Stormwater Facility The BMP’s and chambers be maintained per the manufacturer’s guidance, see Attachment D VII. Construction Checklist
Table VII.1
Stormwater
Control Plan
Page # BMP Description See Plan Sheet #s
4 Bio-retention areas C3.1 & C3.2
VIII. Certifications
The preliminary design of stormwater treatment facilities and other stormwater pollution control measures in this plan are in accordance with the current edition of the City of Scotts Valley’s Stormwater Technical Guidance.
C3.11" = 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.
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
C
D
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 Call Two Working Days Before You Dig! 1. SURFACE VEGETATION PRESENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE STRIPPED TOGETHER WITH ORGANIC LADEN TOPSOIL. THE ACTUAL DEPTH SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR PLANNIG PURPOSES THE 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 THE GEOTECHNICAL 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 FEDERAL MINIMUM 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. 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. NET IMPERVIOUS AREA = 45,600 (REFER TO IMPERVIOUS AREA TABLE ON C2.1) 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 Scale: 1" = 3' ACCESS DRIVE DRAINAGE TO BIO-RETENTION AREA 1 Scale: NTS WALL X-SECTION
2 C> C> C> C> C> C> s V C A
\
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I
7 I f
I I
D
-
R1 ·, I
(V
, ( f :> coU'I
/ 1/ \
I I \
-- I I
I/
\
\
\
\
I •
.
I
I
I
I gNORTH
---
' I
I
' X
I
I
I
'
+
/
o"'"' n~g
<JI
"'
/
/
/
f \ ' ,__
-
-
,.. ,,,.
/
/
---
- / 0
g / /
/
/
/
/
/
5.J]
---
-
SCALE: I "=20'
0 --
20 40
-
60 80
{NJ HODlFIB} TYl'f WA"
CVRBAND GUTTER. {CATCII
WI lf'W.l'DEOPENINGS)
I
(
I
I
\
,.
\
I I
/
=
I
j
I
l
/
------;:.-
/ /
--, 344.
SW=692.75'
\
r---
,
' I
L---
r---
I I
'
--
L--- ••
r--- . ,
,
I
I I,_ __ _
r---
,
I
'
fC=689
?.Q
-
-
I
FL=6eyJ:Q' · .
' ' l
I
' .
. ,;;>-~~ \ ;:{ :
"' ''
TC=698.
BFC=697.
LIP=697.
TC=690.72'
BFC=690.22'
LIP=690.39'Lr-_ 1--1'.
.5
p.04
' ' ' '
. .
JC= 704.40' ,
BFC=703.90 (ME)'
'
TC=692.10'
u _ __.~-,,FC=691.60'
' ' ...... ,_ ...... ------,171
'
' ...... ___ _
' ' TC=690.80' BFC=690.30'
GENERAL GRADING NOTES
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
STORM WATER POST-CONSTRUCTION
REQUIREMENTS
TW=696.50
BW=691.50
TW=701.00
BW=696.00
0----
I\
<] <]
l'l'!lf£SSI0"'4
\l. CRC1i
kj 1\~ &
"' No. C 64561
* Exp. 6/30/23 *
"<;, ,> C IV I\. r.."1-~
( OF Cl,\.l<Q
<] • • • • • ® <] ®
!l
<] <]
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.
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
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 375DMA 3 12,655 3,267 506 202DMA 4 --- self treating area --- ____ ______ Total: 1,758 1,777
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
[> [>
"> I
s C
V A
D-R' I
I
I
I
I
--
I
o'
I
I
l
I
I
-
-
I
I
I
I
I 7
' f I
(V (
I
I I \
I I I
I \
/
I
I
---
I
I
I
'
•
I
I
' K
f \
.._
-
/
/
/
/
'
0 \ /
V
I
\
I
I
1 I
I
I
I I
\
I
\
\
I
r I
/ i I \ j.,.I
\ ,, I
/ / .,. --
I //
/
\
I
/ \,
---
' L
r---
'
r--
,
'
I
,,
/ \
c______'.
I
I
,-----
/\
- -
-
-
I
/
r
/ -
-~
,
I
' \
.._" ' \ \, ,---°"'--,,_- "11[ 'lll
' " '
"' ' ' '
\
..,
I
I
I
I
I
I
___ ,
'
I
\
,
'"~""==~~I ll
' \ '-
_/._,--.-2-~~-F="' ', \
-'
NORTH
•
I
I
\
---
--
')'1
-
-
LC•
,/\ / \
4 n \•
8n \•
C
f-----------1
-- t
f-----------11 -
c,
1-------------1~
'
1-------------1'. 1-------------1',
.;; '
~------------'¢:
ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS June 25, 2021
Project No. 53-025
Mr. Eli May
Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC
P.O. Box 379
Ames, IA 50010
Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “Store More” Commercial Office and Storage Development, 125 Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Dear Mr. May:
This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned “Store More” commercial office and storage development at 125 Bethany Drive in Scotts Valley, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a). The noise exposures and noise levels presented herein were evaluated against the standards of the City of Scotts Valley General Plan Noise Element, Ref. (b), the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Ref. (c), and the State of California CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, Ref. (d). 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. Traffic noise impacts to the project will be within the limits of the standards. The project-generated noise levels and noise increases in the ambient conditions will be within the standards of the Municipal Code and the allowed noise increases established in the Noise Element.
Noise mitigation measures will not be required.
Noise and vibration from demolition of the existing building and construction of the new building may produce annoyance to the neighbors in close proximity to the site.
Therefore, general noise and vibration reduction measures are included in this study to help control construction noise and vibration.
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196
SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com
- 2 -
Section I of this report contains descriptions of the noise standards applicable to the project. Section II contains site and project descriptions. Subsequent sections contain analysis of the noise levels, the noise impacts to the project, the project-generated noise impacts and construction noise and vibration reduction measures. Appendices A, B and C contain the list of references, descriptions of the noise standards and terminology and the on-site noise measurement data and calculation tables. .
I. Noise Standards
A. City of Scotts Valley General Plan
The noise assessment results presented in the findings are shown in reference to the City of Scotts Valley Noise Element, which utilizes the Day-Night Level (DNL) 24- hour noise exposure descriptor to define community noise impacts.
Policy NP-451 states, “New developments shall include noise attenuation measures to reduce the effects of existing noise to an acceptable level”.
Action NA-452 then states, “In areas where the annual day-night noise level exceeds 60 dBA, the City shall require an acoustical engineering study for proposed new construction or renovation of structure(s). Each acoustical analysis should recommend methods to reduce the interior day-night annual average noise levels to below 45 dBA for private dwellings, motels, hotels, offices and noise sensitive uses.” Thus, the noise exposure (DNL) limit for the project offices is 45 dB DNL.
Table 3 in the Noise Element provides acceptable increases in the ambient noise environment for various types of projects affecting various types of land uses.
For commercial projects impacting residential land uses, the project is allowed to add up to 5 decibels to the existing ambient noise environment, regardless of the ambient noise environment. Decibels are added using the following formula:
Sum = 10log10(10(SL1/10))+10(SL2/10)) where, SL = Sound Level
- 3 -
This study applies the noise increase limits to the residential property line to the north.
B. City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code
Section 17.44.020 of the Municipal Code regulates noise from mechanical equipment impacting residences associated with commercial or industrial use. The noise level limit for project mechanical equipment at the residential property to the north is 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Note that this noise level limit applies to the operational noise level of the equipment at any given time and is neither time-averaged nor timeweighted.
Section 17.46.160 limits construction to the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday. There are no specific noise or sound level limits applied to construction activity.
C. CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures
The CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures, which are part of Title 24, are applied to the retail space in Building 2 facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. Section
5.507 “Environmental Comfort, contains two methods for determining the interior noise levels. These methods impose different interior noise level requirements. When on-site noise level data are available, the “Performance Method” is used. The standards are outlined below.
5.507.4 Acoustical control. Employ building assemblies and components with Sound Transmission Class (STC) values determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413 or Outdoor-Indoor Sound Transmission Class (OITC) determined in accordance with ASTM E1332, using either the prescriptive or performance method in Section
5.507.4.1 or 5.507.4.2.
- 4 -
5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 in the following locations:
Within the 65 DNL noise contour of an airport
Exceptions:
1. Ldn or DNL for military airports shall be determined by the facility Air Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (AICUZ) plan.
2. Ldn or DNL for other airports and heliports for which a land use plan that has not been developed shall be determined by the local general plan noise Element.
3. Within the 65 DNL or Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway notice source as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan.
5.507.4.1.1 Noise exposure where noise contours are not readily available.
Buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq-1-hr during any hour of operation shall have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 (or OITC 30).
- 5 -
5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located as defined in Section 5.507.4.1 or 5.507.4.1.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hours of operation.
5.507.4.2.1 Site features. Exterior features such as sound walls or earth berms may be utilized as appropriate to the building, addition or alteration project to mitigate sound migration to the interior.
5.507.4.2.2 Documentation of compliance. An acoustical analysis documenting complying interior sound levels shall be prepared by personnel approved by the architect or engineer of record.
5.507.4.3 Interior sound transmission. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating tenant spaces and tenant spaces and public places shall have an STC of at least 40.
As noise level data for the site are available from the noise measurements performed at the site, the Performance Method of the CalGreen standards is used in this study. Thus, the retail space interior noise limit is 50 dBA Leq(h).
- 6 -
II. Site and Project Descriptions
The planned project site is located at the intersection of Scotts Valley Drive, Bethany Drive and Tabor Drive in Scotts Valley. The site slopes up to the north. The adjacent roadways also slope up to the north and east. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential adjacent to the north, single-family residential across Bethany Drive to the east, multi-family residential across Highway 17 and Scotts Valley Drive to the south and the Vine Hill Elementary School across Tabor Drive to the west.
The planned project includes the demolition of the existing buildings on the site, clearing and grading as necessary, and the construction of a new three-story commercial office/storage building. 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. Parking lots will be located along the north and south sides of the site.
The Site Plan is shown on Figure 1 on the following page.
- 7 -
FIGURE 1 – Site Plan
<..,.;
1,/
-:::J
l=<1 ){;\ ' ·:,{~ ,•' ,
-· __ , .... -- · ...... , . i ... ,.-~ .. -" ._, _... ~, ~ 'l ~r ~ f ,.· "'F' . ' .,.~.~~-7l '_./!·: ':::i - f , =-.-'T-'--"-----"-'--r-"',-'"~~=-'--''~ ' -=·-,,., ' ,.
- 8 -
III. Analysis of the Noise Levels
A. Existing Noise Levels
To determine the existing noise environment at the site and nearby noise sensitive receivers, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at two locations.
Location 1 was near the existing front lawn/parking lot border, 150 ft. from the centerline of Highway 17. The sound meter was placed on a pole 15 ft. above the ground. Location 2 was along the north property line of the site, 36 ft. from the centerline of Bethany Drive.
These locations were chosen for security of the sound measuring instruments. The measurement locations are shown Figure 2 on page 9. The measurements were made on May 13-14, 2021 using Larson-Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters.
The meter yields, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, as described in Appendix B. The measured descriptors include the L1, L10, L50, and L90, i.e., those levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time. Also measured were are the maximum and minimum levels, and the continuous equivalent-energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL and for the CalGreen noise impact analysis.
The measurements were made for a total period of 24 hours and included recordings of the noise levels during representative hours of the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index. The results of the measurements are shown on the data tables in Appendix C.
As shown in the data tables, the Leq's at the measurement Location 1, 150 ft. from the centerline of Highway 17 and at a 15 ft. elevation, 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, 36 ft. from the Bethany Drive centerline, the Leq’s ranged from 48.6 to 57.8 dBA during the daytime and from 43.6 to 53.1 dBA at night.
Traffic noise diminishes at a rate of 3-6 dB per doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver. At the planning minimum building setback of 102 ft. from the centerline of Highway 17, the traffic noise levels measured at Location 1 reduce by 2.5 dB.
- 9 -
FIGURE 2 – Noise Measurement Locations
For standard commercial construction, the building shell provides 25 decibels of noise reduction from the exterior at the building façade to the interior spaces, assuming that windows and glass doors are constructed of standard dual-pane, thermal insulating glass that are kept closed for noise control as mechanical ventilation for the occupied spaces will be provided. .
The measured hourly average noise levels (Leq(h)), the noise levels calculated for the most noise impacted building setback and the calculated interior noise levels are shown in Table I on page 12 of this report.
- 10 -
B. Existing Noise Exposures
The DNL’s for the 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 formula used to calculate the DNL is described in Appendix B. The noise exposure calculations for existing conditions are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. Adjustments were made to the measured noise levels to account for variations in setback distances from the roadways to the receptor locations using methods established by the Highway Research Board, Ref. (e).
The results of the calculations reveal that the noise exposure at measurement Location 1 was 67 dB DNL. The noise exposure at measurement Location 2 was 56 dB DNL.
At the minimum setback of 102 ft. from the centerline of Highway 17, the noise exposure increases to 70 dB DNL. The interior noise exposure was calculated to be 45 dB DNL.
- 11 -
IV. Noise Impacts to the Project
The noise impacts to the project evaluated against the standards of the City of Scotts Valley Noise Element and the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures which apply to all non-residential developments in California that contain occupiable spaces.
The exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback for Highway 17, 102 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 70 dB DNL.
The interior noise exposure in the most impacted offices spaces of the project will be up to 45 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Scotts Valley Noise Element standards (NA-458).
- 12 -
Table I, below, provides the measured hourly average noise levels (Leq(h)), the hourly average noise levels at the proposed building setback and the calculated interior noise levels.
TIME Exterior Meas. Exterior Setback Interior
7:00 AM 65.3 67.8 42.8
8:00 AM 65.7 68.2 43.2
9:00 AM 65.3 67.8 42.8
10:00 AM 65.3 67.8 42.8
11:00 AM 65.5 68.0 43.0
12:00 PM 68.4 70.9 45.9
1:00 PM 65.7 68.2 43.2
2:00 PM 65.4 67.9 42.9
3:00 PM 65.5 68.0 43.0
4:00 PM 66.2 68.7 43.7
5:00 PM 65.8 68.3 43.3
6:00 PM 64.7 67.2 42.2
7:00 PM 63.7 66.2 41.2
8:00 PM 62.8 65.3 40.3
9:00 PM 60.7 63.2 38.2
10:00 PM 58.5 61.0 36.0
11:00 PM 56.3 58.8 33.8
12:00 AM 55.2 57.7 32.7
1:00 AM 53.0 55.5 30.5
2:00 AM 53.0 55.5 30.5
3:00 AM 54.6 57.1 32.1
4:00 AM 58.7 61.2 36.2
5:00 AM 63.9 66.4 41.4
6:00 AM 64.7 67.2 42.2
TABLE I
CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures
Leq(h)
As shown in the Table, the interior noise levels will range from 30.5 to 45.9 dBA Leq(h), and will be within the 50 dBA Leq(h) limit of the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures. The interior noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Scotts Valley Noise Element. Noise mitigation measures for the interior spaces will not be required.
- 13 -
V. Project–Generated Noise Impacts
A. Project Traffic
Project traffic volume data are not available. However, as the project is planned for small offices with mostly private storage, the daily traffic volumes on Scotts Valley Drive, Bethany Drive, Tabor Drive and Vine Hill School Road are likely to be relatively low.
In order for a project’s traffic to add one decibel to the existing ambient noise environment created by a particular roadway’s traffic, the project must add at least 12% of the existing traffic volume to that roadway’s volume. Given that the existing noise environment in the area is created mostly by Highway 17 traffic, the project would need to add several thousand vehicles per day to the local roadway network. As this does not appear to be plausible, we expect no significant change in the ambient noise environment in the area due to project traffic.
- 14 -
B. Project Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical plans not available. Therefore, a reasonable hypothetical scenario was developed to determine if noise from project mechanical equipment could be an issue.
A general rule-of-thumb is to apply a cooling capacity of 1 ton of cooling per 500 sq. ft. of office (occupied) floor area. The floor surface area of each office space was calculated. A theoretical condensing unit was applied to each office and located on the roof of the building as close to its office as possible. Typical (not exceptionally quiet nor exceptionally loud) sound power levels were given to each condensing unit and the sound level from each unit was calculated to the nearest and most impacted residential property plane. The acoustic shielding provided by the roof parapet was also included in the calculations.
Table II on page 15 provides the office number on each floor, the floor area, the air-conditioner capacity in tons, the A-weighted Sound Power level, the roof elevation, the receiver elevation (person standing on the second floor of the home along Tabor Drive to the north), the distance from the AC unit to the parapet, the distance from the parapet to the receiver, the distance from the source (AC unit) to the receiver, the noise reduction provided by the parapet and the final sound level at the receiver in dBA. All elevations and distances are in feet.
As shown in Table II, none of the common air-conditioning condensing unit will exceed the 50 dBA limit of the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code noise level limits.
With all of the air-conditioners on simultaneously, the total combined sound level would be 43 dBA at the second floor above the property line and would remain within the 60 dBA limit.
It is unlikely that mechanical equipment associated with the project would exceed the limit of the Municipal Code.
- 15-
1st Floor Noise SL @
Office Floor Area AC Capacity Sound Level roof el. Rec. el. d' to Parapet d' Parapet to Rec. d' source to Rec Reduction Rec. 1 2260 5.0 72 721.75 719 124 72 196 5 29 2 275 1.5 68 721.75 719 38 72 110 5 30 3 198 1.5 68 719.37 719 14 72 86 5 32 2nd Floor 1 2875 6.0 74 721.75 719 124 72 196 5 31 4 375 1.5 68 719.37 719 92 72 164 5 27 5 420 1.5 68 719.37 719 7 72 79 5 33 6 300 1.5 68 719.37 719 6 72 78 5 33 7 694 1.5 68 719.37 719 41 72 113 5 30 13 450 1.5 68 719.37 719 56 72 128 5 29
3rd Floor 1 1600 4.0 72 721.75 719 124 72 196 5 29 8 220 1.5 68 719.37 719 92 72 164 5 27 9 596 1.5 68 719.37 719 7 72 79 5 33 10 200 1.5 68 719.37 719 6 72 78 5 33
11 555 1.5 68 719.37 719 41 72 113 5 30
12 540 1.5 68 719.37 719 56 72 128 5 29
TABLE II
Theoretical Roof-Top Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels, dBA
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
- 16 -
C. Construction Noise Analysis
Short-term noise impacts may be created during demolition of the site and the construction of the project. Demolition equipment will consist primarily of excavators, backhoes and haul trucks. Construction equipment will consist of small bulldozers, loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, cranes, forklifts, generators and air compressors.
Demolition/construction equipment noise levels range from 76 to 88 dBA at a 50 ft. distance from the source, and has a potential to disturb residences adjacent to the north and east and the Vine Hill Elementary School to the west. Very high noise level equipment, such as pile drivers and rock drills are not expected to be used on this project.
A table of construction equipment (mostly earthwork equipment, which is usually the noisiest, taken from the Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is provided on page 17. The noise levels for each item of equipment, not all of which will be used on this project, are reported for a standard distance of 50 ft. None of the construction equipment used for this project will generate noise levels higher than 90 dBA at 50 ft. No extreme noise generators, such as pile driving, will be used on this project. Noise from construction equipment dissipates at the rate of 6 dB per doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver.
Since construction is carried out in several reasonably discrete phases, each will have its own mix of equipment and consequently, its own noise characteristics. Generally, the site preparation requires the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, graders, concrete trucks and diesel trucks. Construction of the building includes haul trucks, cranes, forklifts, pumps, air compressors and powered and manual hand tools (saws, nail guns, sprayers). Once the shell of the building is completed with the windows installed, much of the construction noise will be contained inside the buildings.
- 17 -
Table 7-1 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels * Equipment Typical Noise Level 50 ft.
from Source, dBA
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Ballast Equalizer 82
Ballast Tamper 83
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pile-driver (Impact) 101
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Rail Saw 90
Rock Drill 95
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Spike Driver 77
Tie Cutter 84
Tie Handler 80
Tie Inserter 85
Truck 84
**This Table is copied from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, pg. 176.
- 18 -
Tables IIIA and IIIB on page 19 provide a list of the demolition and construction equipment expected to be used on the project, their reference noise levels at a 50 ft. distance and the equipment sound levels at the nearest and the farthest distances from each receiver location. The noise levels presented in the table are typical noise levels produced by the pieces of equipment shown. However, equipment used in the field may vary slightly, depending on the sizes of engines, the contractor and their sub-contractors, age of equipment, the way tools, devices and items of equipment are utilized and many other factors that are unknown at this time and cannot be predicted with any level of accuracy. In addition, the sound levels at the property boundaries at any given time will change dramatically such that maximum noise levels may occur for very short periods of time or may occur for longer periods of time.
As shown in the Tables, the stationary equipment and mobile equipment will be fairly noisy when working close to the north property line. The noise levels at homes to the east and at Vine Hill Elementary School will be mostly moderate, but noticeable.
Therefore, noise reduction measures to reduce construction noise to the greatest extent feasible for mobile and stationary equipment are recommended. The recommended measures are described in Section VI.
- 19
-
Reference 40% usage Near Dist. = 10 ft. Far Dist. = 358 ft. Near Dist. = 106 ft. Far Dist. = 281 ft.
Mobile Equipment Level Dist., ft. Leq(h) @ 50 ft.
Paving Machine 89 50 85 93 62 72 64
Water Truck 84 50 80 88 57 67 59
Compactive Rollers 85 50 81 89 58 68 60
Scrapers 86 50 82 90 59 69 61
Graders 83 50 79 87 56 66 58 Wheel Loader 82 50 78 86 55 65 57 Track Loader 85 50 81 89 58 68 60
Backhoe 82 50 78 86 55 65 57
Bulldozer 85 50 81 89 58 68 60
Haul Trucks 84 50 80 88 57 67 59
Crane 82 50 78 86 55 65 57
Excavator 85 50 81 89 58 68 60
Skid Steer 78 50 74 82 51 61 53
Reference 40% usage
Stationary Equipment Level Dist., ft. Leq(h) @ 50 ft.
Air Compressor 90 50 86 100 63 73 65
Generator 81 50 77 91 54 64 56
TABLE IIIA
Construction Noise Analysis
School PL West
Construction
Residence PL North Residential PL East
Sound Level Range Sound Level Range
Sound Level Range Sound Level Range
Residence PL North
Reference 40% usage Near Dist. = 50 ft. Far Dist. = 237 ft.
Mobile Equipment Level Dist., ft. Leq(h) @ 50 ft.
Paving Machine 89 50 85 79 65
Water Truck 84 50 80 74 60
Compactive Rollers 85 50 81 75 61
Scrapers 86 50 82 76 62
Graders 83 50 79 73 59
Wheel Loader 82 50 78 72 58
Track Loader 85 50 81 75 61
Backhoe 82 50 78 72 58
Bulldozer 85 50 81 75 61
Haul Trucks 84 50 80 74 60
Crane 82 50 78 72 58
Excavator 85 50 81 75 61
Skid Steer 78 50 74 68 54
Reference 40% usage
Stationary Equipment Level Dist., ft. Leq(h) @ 50 ft.
Air Compressor 90 50 86 80 66
Generator 81 50 77 71 57
TABLE IIIB
Construction Noise Analysis
Residence PL East
Construction
School PL West
Sound Level Range
Sound Level Range
- 20 -
D. Construction Vibration Analysis
Construction activities can produce varying amounts of ground-borne vibration, which depend on the type of equipment used and various methods. Vibration is produced by the equipment operation and the vibrational waves travel through the ground/soil that diminish over distance. It is rare that construction vibration is intense enough to cause damage to existing structures. However, due to the close proximity of the light framed buildings to the north, a qualitative analysis of vibration is warranted. Ground-borne vibration at buildings beyond 50 ft. from the equipment operation location will not be an issue.
Ground-borne vibration is typically reported in terms of “peak particle velocity” or PPV, and sometimes reported in terms of decibels of vibration, notated as VdB, which is a level of vibration (Lv). The use of PPV is more common for construction equipment and methods. Table IV, below, provides building damage criteria from construction vibration established by the Federal Transit Administration, Ref. (f).
TABLE IV
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approx. Lv (VdB)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 ** RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re: 1 micro-inch/second The adjacent residential buildings to the north are standard wood-framed, stuccosided structures. The types of foundations are unknown, but are likely concrete. These structures fall into Building Category III where the vibration limit is 0.20 in/sec PPV.
- 21 -
The contractors used for the demolition of the site and construction of the project have not yet been selected, nor has a construction schedule and list of equipment been developed. Table V, below, provides a list of typical construction equipment, their vibration levels at 25 ft. reference distances, the vibration levels at the building setbacks of the very near residential buildings to the north. Also shown are the distances each item of equipment must stay away from the respective adjacent structures to limit the vibration levels to no more than 0.20 in/sec PPV at the residential buildings to the north. As shown in Table V, nearly all of the equipment will generate ground-borne vibration levels in excess of the 0.20 in/sec PPV. The vibration excesses are shown in Bold.
Dist. to Res. To North, ft. 14
Reference Vibration
EQUIPMENT Vibration at d, ft. Level Dist for
d = 25 @ Res. To North 0.2 PPV limit
Excavator 0.089 0.2 15
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.5 26
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.2 15
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.2 15
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.2 13
Jackhammer 0.035 0.1 8
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0 2
Backhoe 0.088 0.2 14
Compactor 0.240 0.6 28
Concrete Mixer 0.080 0.2 14
Concrete Pump 0.080 0.2 14
Crane 0.008 0.0 3
Dump Truck 0.080 0.2 14
Front End Loader 0.088 0.2 14
Grader 0.088 0.2 14
Hydra Break Ram* 0.040 0.1 9
Soil Sampling Rig 0.088 0.2 14
Paver 0.080 0.2 14
Pickup Truck 0.080 0.2 14
Slurry Trenching 0.016 0.0 5
Tractor 0.080 0.2 14
Vibratory Roller (lge) 0.477 1.1 45
Vibratory Roller (sm) 0.176 0.4 23
Clam Shovel* 0.208 0.5 26
Rock Drill 0.088 0.2 14
* Transient vibration levels
TABLE V
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, in/sec PPV
- 22 -
VI. Construction Noise and Vibration Reduction
Mitigation of the demolition/construction phase noise at the site can be accomplished by using quiet or "new technology" equipment. 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. In addition, all equipment should be in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive-train and other components. Demolition and construction noise can also be mitigated by the following measures.
As additional noise reduction benefits can be achieved by appropriate selection of equipment utilized for various operations, subject to equipment availability and cost considerations, the following recommendations for minimizing impacts on the surrounding area are offered:
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.
- 23 -
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 groundborne 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 WORK
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.
- 24 -
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.
- 25 -
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 COMPLAINT 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. A sample is shown below.
NOISE COMPLAINTS
FOR CONCERNS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION NOISE PLEASE CONTACT:
John Doe
[email protected]
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ENGINEER
CALL CENTER: (111) 111-1111
- 26 -
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 noise source, a description of the remediation attempt or the reason remediation could not be attempted.
” re Store Mo “ The above report presents a noise assessment study for the planned commercial office and storage development at 125 Bethany Drive in Scotts Valley. The study findings for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. However, significant deviations in the future operational scenario, changes in motor vehicle or mechanical equipment technology, noise regulations, or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates.
this report, please call me. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on Sincerely,
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC.
Jeffrey K. Pack
President
Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C
711;16#
APPENDIX A
References:
(a) Site Plan, Redevelopment for 125 Bethany Drive, by Hugh Zike AIA, November 30, 2020
(b) Noise Element of the General Plan, City of Scotts Valley, 1993 (c) City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Code of Ordinances, Supplement 31, Titles 5 and 17, Updated June 16, 2021
(d) California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Element 5, Section 5.507 “Environmental Comfort”, Subsection 5.507.4.2 (Exterior Noise Transmission, Performance Method), Revised 2019
(e) Highway Research Board, “Highway Noise – A Design Guide for Highway Engineers”, Report 117, 1971
(f) United States Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Report No. 0123, by John A.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, September 2018
B-1
APPENDIX B
Noise Standards, Terminology and Instrumentation
1. Noise Standards
A. City of Scotts Valley Noise Element Standards
The Noise Element of the Scotts Valley General Plan specifies the use of the DayNight Level (DNL) 24-hour noise descriptor to describe the noise environment for residential land use.
The noise standards specify a limit of 60 dB DNL for exterior areas at residential locations. For interior living spaces of residences, hotels, motels, office and other noise sensitive spaces, a limit of 45 dB DNL is specified.
Table 3 from the Noise Element regarding noise level increases in provided below.
TABLE 3
Noise Increase Standards
Proposed New Use/Location of
dBA Reading
Maximum Noise Increase in dBA adjacent to Existing:
Sensitive Residential Commercial Industrial
Sensitive @ Prop. Line 3 5 5 5
50’ from Prop. Line 3 3 -- --
Residential @ Prop. Line 3 5 5 5
50’ from Prop. Line 3 3 -- --
Commercial @ Prop. Line 3 5 5 5
50’ from Prop. Line 3 3 -- --
Industrial @ Prop. Line 3 5 5 7
50’ from Prop. Line 3 3 -- --
B-2
2. Terminology
A. Statistical Noise Levels
Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Sound Level Meters. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows:
L1 - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time.
L10 - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level.
L50 - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing the "mean" sound level.
L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level.
Leq - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL.
B-3
B. Day-Night Level (DNL)
Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day-Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24-hour day in terms of A-Weighted sound energy. The 24-hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A 10 dB weighting factor is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula:
DNL = [[(10log10(10ΣLeq(7-10))) x 15] +[((10log10(10ΣLeq(10-7)))+10) x 9]]/24 C. A-Weighted Sound Level
The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear.
B-4
3. Instrumentation
The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the sound analyzer listed below. The instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level (Leq). Input to the meters was provided by microphones extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The “A” weighting network and the “Fast” response setting of the meters were used in conformance with the applicable standards. The Larson-Davis meters were factory modified to conform to the performance standards of ANSI S1.4 and IEC 61672-1:2002 for Type 1 and Class 1 instruments, respectively. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy.
Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
Larson Davis 831 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
APPENDIX C
On-Site Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables
DNL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT: HERITAGE REAL ESTATE VENTURES
FILE: 53-025
PROJECT: STORE MORE COMMERCIAL
DATE: 5/13-14/2021
SOURCE: HIGHWAY 17, BETHANY DR.
LOCATION 1 Highway 17 LOCATION 2 Bethany Drive
150 ft. 36 ft.
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 TIME Leq 10^Leq/10
7:00 AM 65.3 3388441.6 7:00 AM 53.0 199526.2
8:00 AM 65.7 3715352.3 8:00 AM 52.6 181970.1
9:00 AM 65.3 3388441.6 9:00 AM 53.2 208929.6
10:00 AM 65.3 3388441.6 10:00 AM 52.5 177827.9
11:00 AM 65.5 3548133.9 11:00 AM 48.6 72443.6
12:00 PM 68.4 6918309.7 12:00 PM 49.4 87096.4
1:00 PM 65.7 3715352.3 1:00 PM 52.4 173780.1
2:00 PM 65.4 3467368.5 2:00 PM 57.4 549540.9
3:00 PM 65.5 3548133.9 3:00 PM 56.8 478630.1
4:00 PM 66.2 4168693.8 4:00 PM 57.8 602559.6
5:00 PM 65.8 3801894.0 5:00 PM 56.5 446683.6
6:00 PM 64.7 2951209.2 6:00 PM 55.3 338844.2
7:00 PM 63.7 2344228.8 7:00 PM 55.8 380189.4
8:00 PM 62.8 1905460.7 8:00 PM 54.0 251188.6
9:00 PM 60.7 1174897.6 SUM= 51424359 9:00 PM 51.6 144544.0 SUM= 4293754 10:00 PM 58.5 707945.8 Ld= 77.1 10:00 PM 49.4 87096.4 Ld= 66.3 11:00 PM 56.3 426579.5 11:00 PM 47.7 58884.4
12:00 AM 55.2 331131.1 12:00 AM 45.7 37153.5
1:00 AM 53.0 199526.2 1:00 AM 44.1 25704.0
2:00 AM 53.0 199526.2 2:00 AM 43.6 22908.7
3:00 AM 54.6 288403.2 3:00 AM 44.2 26302.7
4:00 AM 58.7 741310.2 4:00 AM 46.9 48977.9
5:00 AM 63.9 2454708.9 5:00 AM 51.1 128825.0
6:00 AM 64.7 2951209.2 SUM= 8300340 6:00 AM 53.1 204173.8 SUM= 640026 Ln= 69.2 Ln= 58.1
Daytime Level= 77.1 Daytime Level= 66.3
Nighttime Level= 79.2 Nighttime Level= 68.1
DNL= 67 DNL= 56
24-Hour Leq= 64.0 24-Hour Leq= 53.1 Page 269 of 541 Page 349 of 500 2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020
T 408.201.2752 [email protected]
125 BETHANY DRIVE REDEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC.
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Prepared by
Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer
Gilroy, CA 95020
December 12, 2021
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Field Visit ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Existing Traffic Conditions................................................................................... 1
1.1.3 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................... 1
1.1.4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................... 2
1.1.5 Project Access and Internal Circulation............................................................... 2
1.1.6 Pedestrian, Bike and Transit ............................................................................... 2
1.1.7 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis .............................................................. 2
1.1.8 Recommendations.............................................................................................. 2
1.2 Traffic Operation Evaluation Methodologies........................................................ 2
1.3 Level of Service Standards - Study Network ....................................................... 2 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 3
2.1 Existing Traffic Network ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 Existing Transit Service....................................................................................... 4
2.3 Existing Conditions Traffic Circulation................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Intersection Operations....................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Pedestrian Circulation......................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Bicycle Circulation............................................................................................... 5 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS.................................................................... 5
3.1 Project Description.............................................................................................. 5
3.2 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................... 6
3.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................ 6
3.4 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation............................................... 6
3.4.1 Intersection Operations....................................................................................... 6
3.4.2 Pedestrian Circulation......................................................................................... 6
3.4.3 Bicycle Circulation............................................................................................... 6
3.4.4 Transit Circulation............................................................................................... 7
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis Page ii
4 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION............................................................ 7
4.1 Vehicle Circulation .............................................................................................. 7
4.2 Pedestrian Circulation......................................................................................... 7
4.3 Bicycle Circulation............................................................................................... 8 5 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED......................................................................................... 8
5.1 VMT Policy Background...................................................................................... 8
5.2 VMT Analysis...................................................................................................... 8 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................. 8 7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 9
7.1 List of References............................................................................................... 9
7.2 List of Contacts ................................................................................................... 9
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis Page iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Project Location Map
2. Existing Site Plan
3. Proposed Project
4 Existing and Proposed Project Components with Floor Areas
5. Existing and Proposed Project Trip Generation
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
The 125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Project (Project) will remove existing office buildings and replace them with office buildings and adjacent storage on the north side of Scotts Valley Drive between Tabor Drive and Bethany. The project site covers approximately 1.32 acres (57,499.02 square feet). The locations of the Project site and study area are indicated in Exhibit 1. The existing project site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. The proposed project site plan is included as Exhibit
3. A tabular summary of the existing and proposed Project floor areas is included as Exhibit 4. The current development includes a total of 11,756 square feet of net rentable floor area in a total of 13,120 gross square feet of building with 1,364 square feet of total common area that includes hallways, stairwells and janitor storage and common restrooms. Currently, a private school with a total of 3,495 square feet of net floor area with a permit for 24 students is located at the site. This leaves a total of 8,261 other net office floor rentable floor area. Prorating the common area between the school and offices results in 9,219 gross square of office area and 3,901 square feet of school floor area.
The proposed buildings will include 11,444 square feet of net rentable office space and 39,095 net square feet of adjacent storage. In addition, there is a total of 15,665 square feet of common area that includes hallways, stairwells and janitor storage, common restrooms, and elevator.
This report summarizes the analysis of potential transportation effects associated with the proposed Project. Vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation are evaluated at the Project site and the immediate surrounding street network.
1.1 Scope of Work
1.1.1 Field Visit
A field visit was conducted on Monday, November 15, 2021, to observe traffic operations during the afternoon and evening (2-5 PM) peak periods at the following study intersections.
1. Bethany Drive / Scotts Valley Drive
2. Scotts Valley Drive – Tabor Drive / Vine Hill School Road – Scotts Valley Drive
3. Scotts Valley Drive / Glenwood Drive – State Route 17 Southbound Ramps; and
4. Scotts Valley Drive / Granite Creek Road.
1.1.2 Existing Traffic Conditions
A qualitative discussion is provided of existing traffic conditions. Recommendations are made for improvements based solely on visual operations of peak hour conditions.
1.1.3 Project Trip Generation
Project trip generation is based on standard trip rates provided by Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021. Trips generated by existing uses are subtracted from the estimated trip generation for the proposed Project to estimate the net Project trips.
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
1.1.4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
A qualitative discussion is provided of the Project’s anticipated effects on traffic operations at the study intersections.
1.1.5 Project Access and Internal Circulation
Project access and internal circulation is discussed, including operations of the project driveways on both Bethany Drive and Tabor Drive.
1.1.6 Pedestrian, Bike and Transit
Existing pedestrian, bike and transit facilities in the Project vicinity are described, and their adequacy discussed.
1.1.7 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis
Per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), state law requires a VMT analysis to assess environmental impacts of the Project. The City of Scotts Valley has not yet adopted a VMT standard. Hence, the Santa Cruz County VMT standards are used in this evaluation.
1.1.8 Recommendations
Improvements to provide acceptable traffic operations for each development scenario are recommended where warranted.
1.2 Traffic Operation Evaluation Methodologies
Intersection traffic operations are described based upon the level of service (LOS) concept. LOS is a qualitative description of an intersection’s operations, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. Level of Service “A” represents free flow uncongested traffic conditions. Level of Service “F” represents highly congested traffic conditions with unacceptable delay to vehicles at intersections. The intermediate levels of service represent incremental levels of congestion and delay between these two extremes. LOS descriptions for each type of existing traffic control at the study intersections (i.e., signal, all-way stop and one-/two-way stop) are included as Appendix A.
1.3 Level of Service Standards - Study Network
This study assesses operations at intersections under the jurisdiction of The City of Scotts Valley.
According to its “Guidelines for Preparing Traffic Impact Studies,” Updated February 2009, page 1, “The City endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” (see Appendix “B”) on street facilities. However, the City acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with the City to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing street facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained.”
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This chapter evaluates Existing traffic conditions and includes a description of the Project setting.
2.1 Existing Traffic Network
The Project is located adjacent to the north side of Scotts Valley Drive between Tabor Drive and Bethany Drive in the northern part of Scotts Valley.
The key roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project include Bethany Drive, Glenwood Drive, Granite Creek Road, Scotts Valley Drive, Tabor Drive and Vine Hill School Road. These facilities are described below, in alphabetical order:
Bethany Drive is a local street providing access to residential development along its frontage north of Scotts Valley Drive. It is the primary access for the 1440 Multiversity, which previously was the site of Bethany College. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph). It has a width of about 22 feet curb-to-curb. A sidewalk is only provided along its west side. Parking is not prohibited although it appears that generally no parking occurs along its length.
Glenwood Drive is a two-lane collector street with sidewalks and bike lanes between Scotts Valley Drive and SVHS. Four lanes are provided immediately north of Scotts Valley Drive to provide additional capacity at the signalized Scotts Valley Drive intersection. It provides access between Scotts Valley Drive and rural areas north of Scotts Valley. It is the primary access route to Scotts Valley High School (SVHS). It has a speed limit of 30 mph. It terminates as the southbound onand off-ramps at Highway 17 as a part of the Highway 17/Scotts Valley Drive-Granite Creek Road interchange.
Granite Creek Road is a two-lane collector street that extends from Scotts Valley Drive over Highway 17 to serve the residential area south and east of Highway 17. It terminates as the northbound on- and off-ramps at Highway 17 as a part of the Highway 17/Scotts Valley DriveGranite Creek Road interchange.
Scotts Valley Drive is a four-lane arterial with median left turn channelization from just northeast of its intersection with Glenwood Drive/Northbound Highway 17 ramps. It has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. It is the primary intercity route through the City of Scotts Valley, connecting the northeast part of the City with Mount Hermon Road on the southwestern part of the City. Scotts Valley Drive is designated as a collector street north of Glenwood Drive. Sidewalks are provided except along Highway 17 north of the Best Western Plus Inn immediately north of Granite Creek Road and on the rural section of Scotts Valley Drive north of Bethany Drive.
Tabor Drive is a local street providing access to residential development along its frontage north of Scotts Valley Drive. It is a cul-de-sac north of Tabor Way, which connects with Bethany Drive southwest of the 1440 Multiversity. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph). It has a width of about 32 feet curb-to-curb in the immediate vicinity of the Project, where a bike lane is provided in each direction. A sidewalk is only provided along its west side for about 900 feet.
Parking is not prohibited although it appears that generally no parking occurs along its length.
Vine Hill School Road is a local street that extends between Glenwood Drive and Scotts Valley Drive. It is the primary access to Vine Hill Elementary School and Siltanen Community Park. The
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph). It has a width of about 34 feet curb-to-curb in the immediate vicinity of the Project, with a bike lane provided in each direction. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street. Parking is prohibited, although vehicles stack along the westbound shoulder between Scotts Valley Drive and the Vine Hill School driveway, about 280 feet west of Scotts Valley Drive for about 15 to 20 minutes when school begins in the morning and when school ends in the afternoon. A mid-block crosswalk with rectangular rapid flashing beacon is located between the approximately 200-space satellite parking lot on the south side of Vine Hill School Road and Siltanen Park. A speed hump is located about This is used heavily by parents dropping off and picking up students before and after school. It is also heavily used during events at Siltanen Park. Vine Hill School Road only provides direct access to about 25 to 30 homes near Glenwood Drive. There is very little traffic on this street other than what is associated with Vine Hill School and Siltanen Park.
2.2 Existing Transit Service
Santa Cruz Metro provides fixed-route bus service in Santa Cruz County including Scotts Valley.
The following two Metro bus routes provide service to the study area. • Route 17 (Highway 17 Express). This line provides weekday and weekend service every hour between about 5 AM and 9 PM. The route extends from the Santa Cruz Metro Center in downtown Santa Cruz and the Diridon Transit Center in downtown San Jose. • Route 35 (Highway 9/Scotts Valley). This line provides weekday and weekend service every 30 minutes between roughly 6:30 AM and 11 PM.
The nearest bus stops to the Project (served by both routes) is located on Scotts Valley Drive immediately south of Granite Creek Road (both directions). These stops are located approximately
0.6 mile (about a 20-minute walk) from the project site.
2.3 Existing Conditions Traffic Circulation
2.3.1 Intersection Operations
Intersections in the study area include the following, including a brief description of traffic operations at each location.
1. Bethany Drive / Scotts Valley Drive – This intersection is controlled by a stop sign on the north (southbound) leg of Scotts Valley Drive. The Bethany Drive and south leg of Scotts Valley Drive have no control and function as its major street approaches. It carries low volumes and operates with very little delay even with traffic from 1440 Multiversity conferences and events in session. No improvements are warranted at this intersection.
2. Scotts Valley Drive–Tabor Drive/Vine Hill School Road–Scotts Valley Drive – This intersection has four-way stop control. The northbound Scotts Valley Drive approach has a left/through lane and separate right turn lane. It carries low traffic volumes and generally has little to no delay. The exception is immediately before and after school hours at the Vine Hill when the queue in the drop-off/pick-up lane in the school parking lot overflows onto Vine Hill School Road. Vehicles stack along the westbound shoulder in the bike lane. This queue extends from the school driveway and onto the northbound Scotts Valley Drive left/through lane where a total of as many as 8 cars were observed in the queue. This lasts
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
for 15 to 30 minutes before and after school, which is about 8 to 8:30 AM and about 2:30 to 3 PM. The queuing at this intersection is not related to traffic congestion.
3. Scotts Valley Drive / Glenwood Drive – State Route 17 Southbound Ramps – This intersection experiences severe delay and congestion during the AM peak hour when Scotts Valley High School traffic occurs during the street peak hour. Congestion is extensive on the Glenwood Drive approach during the mid-afternoon when High School vehicular and pedestrian traffic leaves the campus about one-half mile north on Glenwood Drive.
Congestion is also associated with the close spacing (150 feet clear) between this intersection and the Scotts Valley Drive/Granite Creek Road intersection. This limits the ability to provide efficient signal coordination between the two intersections. Vehicle storage in the left turn and through lanes between the two intersections are limited, resulting in queue spillover and/or limited ability for traffic proceeding through the upstream intersection to enter and pass through the downstream intersection. The Hacienda Drive intersection on Glenwood Drive, which is only 70 feet from Scotts Valley Drive, further complicates traffic operations at this intersection.
4. Scotts Valley Drive / Granite Creek Road – This intersection is integrally connected with the adjacent Scotts Valley Drive/Glenwood Drive-State Route 17 Southbound Ramps intersection with the same severely deficient traffic operations.
2.3.2 Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian volumes are heavy along Vine Hill School Road immediately adjacent to Vine Hill Elementary School for about 15 minutes before and after school, primarily between the school site and the satellite parking lot across from Siltanen Community Park. Pedestrians generally use the sidewalks or cross at the mid-block crosswalk at the Siltanen Community Park parking lot. Other streets including Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Drive and Tabor Drive carry light pedestrian volumes near the Project.
Adequate off-site pedestrian facilities are provided in the immediate Project vicinity. However, no sidewalk is provided along the project’s Tabor Drive frontage, which requires pedestrians to walk in the existing bike lane along the project frontage. The alternative is to cross Tabor Drive at the existing project driveways, which is a mid-block crossing. This is not a desirable condition.
2.3.3 Bicycle Circulation
Bicycle volumes are light on all streets in the study area, including near Vine Hill Elementary School.
Existing bike lanes on Scotts Valley Drive and Vine Hill School Road adequately accommodate bike volumes.
3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
3.1 Project Description
This section of the report focuses on Existing Plus Project conditions with the Project redeveloped with offices and adjacent storage replacing the existing offices and private school. The trip
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
generation estimate for the Project is based on rates from Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition,
published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers in 2021 (Trip Generation Manual).
3.2 Project Trip Generation
Exhibit 4 provides an estimate of the existing and proposed Project trip generation. The trip generation rates are referenced from the Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition, 2021. It assumes full occupancy of existing and proposed uses.
The existing private school is Brite Horizons, which has a use permit for 24 students. It serves children with special needs such as autism. Its trip generation estimate assumes full occupancy per the existing use permit. Its trip generation rates are based on the Private School K-12 category (ITE Lan Use Category 532), although trip rates per student are probably higher due to the much higher number of staff required for special needs students.
The proposed adjoining storage spaces are assumed to function similar to Mini-Warehouse in the Trip Generation Manual (ITE Land Use Category 151), which is the closest land use category in the Manual. The trip rate may be less because the storage areas will be ancillary to the office uses.
The existing project is estimated to generate about 193 daily trips with 34 during the AM peak hour and 24 during the PM peak hour. The proposed project is expected to generate about 275 weekday daily trips with 30 during the AM peak hour and 37 during the PM peak hour. The Project is estimated to generate a net increase of about 82 weekday daily trips, with a reduction of about 4 trips during the AM peak hour and an increase of about 13 trips during the PM peak hour.
3.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Proposed project trip distribution is expected to be similar to the trip distribution from the existing uses at the project site.
3.4 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation
3.4.1 Intersection Operations
The Project is expected to result in a slight reduction in AM peak hour traffic and an imperceptible increase in PM peak hour traffic. No change in traffic operations is expected at any of the study intersections.
No improvements are required above those warranted for existing conditions at the study intersections. No additional analysis is required.
3.4.2 Pedestrian Circulation
No qualitative change is expected in pedestrian traffic generation at the Project site. No additional pedestrian facilities are warranted.
3.4.3 Bicycle Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate a small amount of bicycle traffic. The existing bike lanes and shoulders on the study street network will be adequate to accommodate this additional bicycle traffic. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to bicycle circulation.
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
3.4.4 Transit Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate minimal transit demand. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to transit service.
4 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
This section summarizes the site access and internal circulation analysis, including Project driveway operations, based on the existing and proposed site plans included as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.
4.1 Vehicle Circulation
a. Existing Conditions
The existing project site plan includes three driveways on Tabor Drive and one driveway on Bethany Drive. The northerly driveway is an entrance only. The other two driveways serve entering and exiting traffic. The parking areas served by the southerly two driveways do not provide for through travel. Rather vehicles must make multiple maneuvers or travel backward longer distances than normally required to back out of some of the existing parking spaces to exit the parking lot.
The driveway on Bethany Drive is an exit only. In addition, about 12 perpendicular parking spaces have direct access to and from Bethany Drive. This results in parking maneuvers across the existing sidewalk and on Bethany Drive, which is an undesirable condition. b. Proposed Conditions
The proposed project will include three ingress/egress driveways along Tabor Drive at nearly identical locations as the existing driveways. The parking areas served by the north and south driveways will not have secondary driveways so vehicles will be required to exit at the entrance location. The south driveway will have 23 parking spaces and the north driveway will have 8 parking spaces. A single driveway is reasonable for small parking areas such as this. Standard backup areas are provided at the termination of the parking areas so that normal maneuvers can be made when vehicles exit the end spaces.
Two ingress/egress driveways are proposed on Bethany Drive. The north driveway will serve a parking area with 8 spaces that will only have one driveway which will require vehicles to exit at the entrance location. A single driveway is reasonable for this small parking lot.
The middle driveway on Tabor Drive will extend to Bethany Drive where it will be southerly project driveway. The parking aisle will be two-way with a total of 11 parallel parking spaces. This will have adequate aisle and parking space dimensions.
The proposed parking plan will eliminate existing undesirable parking lot features and improve parking at the Project site compared to existing conditions.
4.2 Pedestrian Circulation
The existing sidewalk is proposed to be reconstructed along the project’s Bethany Drive frontage.
A sidewalk is proposed to be constructed from Scotts Valley Drive to the north side of the Project’s north building and will connect with a proposed sidewalk from Tabor Drive to the internal sidewalk
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
along the north side of the building. Sidewalks are proposed to provide continuous pedestrian facility throughout the Project.
4.3 Bicycle Circulation
Existing bike lanes in the Project vicinity will be maintained. Bicycle racks will be provided to comply with Scotts Valley standards. No additional bicycle improvements are recommended. 5 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
5.1 VMT Policy Background
SB 743, which was signed into law in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code 21099, tasked the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse In addition to new exemptions for projects that are consistent with specific plans, SB 743 led to changes in California CEQA guidelines, released in December 2018 and described in new Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines that apply statewide as of July 1, 2020. The new CEQA guidelines replaces congestion-based metrics, such as auto delay and level of service, with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the basis for determining significant impacts, unless the guidelines provide specific exceptions.
Each local agency is responsible for adopting their own policies, procedures, and guidelines to implement SB 743. The “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,” State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018, (OPR Guidelines) was published to provide a suggested framework for local agencies to follow in establishing their individual programs. The OPR Guidelines can modified by each local agency, subject to providing substantial evidence for any variations. The City of Scotts Valley (City) has not yet established a VMT standard and significance criteria for VMT evaluations. There is apparently no schedule for its adoption. In the meantime, the City is using the OPR Guidelines for evaluating Project VMT impacts as a part of its CEQA review.
5.2 VMT Analysis
According to “Section 1 - Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects,” OPR Guidelines page 12, “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.” According to Section 3.2 of this report, the Project will result in an increase of about 82 trips per day. Thus, the Project would not have a significant VMT impact. No additional VMT analysis or mitigation is required. 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Project will not result in any traffic operational effect requiring improvements anywhere on the study street network. The proposed site plan will improve project access and egress. The Project will also have an insignificant transportation impact based on Vehicle Miles Traveled. No additional analysis or mitigation is required.
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
125 Bethany Drive Redevelopment Transportation Impact Analysis
7 REFERENCES
7.1 List of References
1. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
2. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.
3. Guidelines for Preparing Traffic Impact Studies, City of Scotts Valley Public Works Department, June 2002, Updated February 2009
4. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018
5. 1440 Multiversity Traffic Study
7.2 List of Contacts
1. Rob Marani, Project Representative, Heritage Ventures Real Estate LLC, Scotts Valley, CA
2. Eli May, Project Representative, Heritage Ventures Real Estate LLC, Scotts Valley, CA
3. Hugh Zike, AIA, Project Architect, Santa Cruz, CA
4. Todd Creamer, PE, Project Civil Engineer, C2G/Civil Consultants Group, Scotts Valley, CA
5. Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director, City of Scotts Valley, Scotts Valley, CA
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 1
Project Location Map
1 2
3 4
1. Bethany Drive / Scotts Valley Drive
2. Scotts Valley Drive–Tabor Drive / Vine Hill School Road–Scotts Valley Drive
3. Scotts Valley Drive / Glenwood Drive – State Route 17 Southbound Ramps
4. Scotts Valley Drive / Granite Creek Road.
Study Intersections
VICINITY MAP
SCALE· N. T. S.
a::
0 c:::
0 ID
~
NORTH
C1.1
1" = 20'
EXISTING
SITE/DEMOLITION
PLAN
Date:Scale:Drawn:
Job:
Of Sheets
Sheet:
REVISIONS BY
02.20.19 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 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 BETHANY PROFESSIONAL
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
125 BETHAN< DRIVE
SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
REMOVE EXISTING TREE
AB AGGREGATE BASEAC ASPHALT CONCRETE
BLDG BUILDING
CONC CONCRETE
EC EDGE OF CONCRETEEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTEL ELEVATION
FL FLOWLINE
GB GRADE BRAKEG GROUND
INV INVERT ELEVATION
LP LOW POINTNAP NOT A PARTNG NATURAL GROUNDPL PROPERTY LINE
TG TOP OF GRATE
UG UNDERGROUND
X
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 FLOW PREVENTER BACK TO THE MAIN AND ABANDON PER SVWD STANDARDS.
REMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLREMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNS AND RELOCATEREMOVE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINEREMOVE EXISTING GAS LINE 5 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.
1213
REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.
REMOVE EXISTING BLDG.
14 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.
1516
Z:\Shared\CAD\338-40 Storemore SV\CAD\Models\Sheets\338-40 - C1.1 - EX SITE-DEMO.dwg, 11/13/2020 2:43:45 PM, _AutoCAD PDF (Smallest File).pc3 Traffic Engineer
Keith Higgins Exhibit 2
Existing Site Plan
[> [>
[:>
C>
[:>
C>
\/ \/
"!k
t'' C ·,,, -o , "
s
El y V E
/\
LJ
'
OD o·cO
(' ClJ ::J u ,:n
C'
I
(/)
(/)
Ill
i5,J'7
\ /
V
G87
4b 'i!,
~ -
«:
\/ \/'
VINE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TABOR
\ /
V
~-_.
\;'
RIVE
-j:i",,----------, c ... <,1,,
:r/,
0.·?,0J
-+- = l ·-l
' ,_
{!) __ ' , .\'>
,:_,(JO'
\'-)-"
'7 \/
~-08
0.;:.~~)
·:~ --1 f'i
~- 4
~
-- I',, /
~$,, I I . ~.-7 · ii';' w------- . 0-Y~• cu.,_.. w w w w - w w w
"
''-
Wf~
C
C
C
C,
_,
(5)7 -<'. Q>.J .J-- 'c,J - I '" ; t;< ,, •• ,
~~if,,.,.=·==~~ 272
?, 3 - - "~:-,1:-
)
- • ,_
f" ·-D a,<S
0 I:: "'1, ~'., cc C,
D
$;t,
-q,';'~
"
AC
~·' lOi''
.,<:'_, =""'""'""'""'- -?(_,L "' CM
, o•
--'' :])c:i ,_r,0(,'
(J)•::0'
'- ~/ fo,'6.57
~ l:i;.
-,- <D c;:.0) cc-<'
J,-.JJ
,.,
;,J I J!_
r'a'V~
-•
n ff,-..!.
;, 0,u-, ff,-~
,
cve" c:;i,. • ' ,(!
t
?
r 1..88.
~ 1,J# 'I@
r
~""- I '" Mt' 8 ,_,,,.-{[ V ~
J
- (8 ..
< {,' f
C " 'D m~ \ J" ;,.,, ;_" ~c.-.,;, "~' -- '
,, , -· , ------ l ..,.. ::;;,." .. ,..::<~---..:::.<<< ...... , --<-............ ; r--....:<
,c ,:;:iCP ,pc
-;__,~ .f>
t-)
]?i' 7 '.-61'
-<
::,~(,;
, (_11CC
o,
~_/
'J> r,1; __ ,
·_::;<:D.f" o··:-' I""
,_., -t~
G•
(E) AC
/ '.::.c;;::: -;: '"-' -6 -·
(". --l
U'
9 ~ '
~ .!I ". "!--:..
--~;:·. --,;- ,,__., ~ -'/i'l-?9.
J-
".Qi< . , ,.·
.:. •• • • • ...... • &
"\\ ~_/ 8
~;;
~
. :~: ,"s?,.. . • '"'' :/.0 .•
. •. . . - 'l ". ' t Ofl~84: '';, . , ': •··
~
~&.,/', • 0 ':\ ' . . .. . . . . (..-\
• .- '!' ..•.• ' ~/J
. .
\ - . . ·.··
'2 ' ,-> • ~'1"2 \ ,--%'ii' ,-., . S.~ ,
D· \,,o
~
'-\i ,o
, OflB4;~,
- ' v ~
-c
;; c~,-:p
(jJVl J \•!I.) » .,
0 '{~ ' ~o
-- ' '
,_
., o,,-,
r.»;::.:,
(/ ?',u'
'
EXISTING BUILDING
®
®
-..
9 \ ,.J'\ '
'(( -'!,f, ;;,~
"l"'--- \-(
\ v-- r,
_ .. -~··: -~ ·~-1-~-~ ...
".Ds· .... :
~:. ~.-,;i.:_
t.'>N~ •
.• . . !"
.. • . ,'!~
.,... ·M;;1,
c-~
A-
_ ... ,0 o,
i ..
,r. '.i ~::,
:;O
,c ,o
,. --~ .. ~l . : ... ··_,_·
.,_ .. ;. .. \.:. -~-· .. _/'
'
. ,.;r· r .
EXISTING BUILDING " i\T'. i.
s ....
. .
. .. ..
. ,_,;
... ,· .t·
.... _ ..
....... .
...
.... . ·_'I,,- ·1
~
'. .. · .: .·, ~c- :-:; .... .- ..
Cl ,c,. --~-
,·~~--~-- ... :: -
.. '
• :., ;. ,I
.. .. •,
... ! •.~••·,
. ~:, 't' ,_
....
.. . . .
I t:-:->:
t--:r-,_/:{,
\{ft" • Vv'l)' • ,l\w•~'
~: .... •-. .. . -1.::. ' \ .. _!
-
..
... . .
....... -.
....
•
. '
_,_
D c,;;.
cc.~,c
,::.,
a,
,,, O'
·_:;<0-:'~· --0)
C, '.,·
,,,
:1;-t> -o·fc· ""
' -,
C - o,"-) ,::-,:.D -.\
,:,-~,
(E) AC
_l,-
f, i'.~-! ~_,c.,
S 11·32•00· W - --;;,;c::e- - 57.05
:·J ;
I
a
,I
Ul
' , ,11'
H~
~-,'l! lY· ~,~N .,,t,il~- Ul\~
'
l"1
!>is:,_ v·:·· _p:,.
& ' ):( ~\t e ?1,
-
. , ... :c-;~.r ...
. ... - ·•. - -......
. '~.i,:_ •.· !~·-· ·. ··-~.
.. . . .
~>
-y>
,(('
,/\\
o//
(>o/
-y .J-
~>
.. /\\
o:,
@---j \\
1~. ·_' rn o· ' (,:' •· •· -· :.::: \',.) ___ ._....,::,~-;:' • II- • -cfc'<;,.J l'lJ-- - (p:J __ , ;_
"-
:;; .,,. \}J
C,
c-•
s Q$"02'43'vWt. t ~( Q. :" ... ·-·
i) ----------Ii~\
--------- C
It,
y-f- ss
- ,:?~'=- f;1'1' "" -'-~;. .,, - -
i w -"" B '-ss
t- «. ft -- -,_,u, -- ~ '('< "" ,s ~mu
"' :J ;..,;;;,,=-- ,~,'5\>
~ "' -· t ~ "' S -:,/2'0 ,((' V -,/c'" It, ' --',
~-:< \ >',._ "' -
,,
/ \
L_________:,
,o
a,
/\
14!~;:~~\)
'
NORTH
s·:·~·/J/ ,,_. ;, ''=/,:/
---
--
-
-
() LI) 11) bl) 81)
/\ ,./\\
-:,;,0> (·."J
n.1,- "· .-" (" _t--
'c.
;:,A\~1.
(_1 '....·, (', ':JJ
\/ ··v/
0 DEMOLITION KEY NOTES 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
'7 V
EXISTING PERVIOUS PAVEMENT QUANTITIES
LEGEND
)(
ABBREVIATIONS
SURVEY INFORMATION
SURVEYOR:
,l\ /\ !_______j,
<;(
/,,,r "--......_~
. '(l',OtESSIO~
ll CR~~
.... '0l -~ %,
cf i# No. C 64561 * Exp. 6/30/21 / *
...
t OF C~L\t()
<1 1 e
<:(
<<
• .•.
• • • • ®
®
{:
r:
6::"
' ,s;.
'
~-
,-
"
f----------------,
~:
:c
,,
"-
8 ~';
c;:,
'
t
{~
' '.,:
C "
' C
,-c
-
fj
,-
~-
~-,
,-'
cii
c-.:;
I
V: ' ,,
,,
a '
,_
>----------------, ' C
<: >----------------<
' ,--, >----------------< ,_
>-------------;( '
i'.~
f------------,~
~--------~
,.
C
'
2 i
i;_-,
J
1 2
G s
E y
E '
[>
F
[>
E
[>
D
[>
C
B
[>
A
2 3 4 5 6
TABOR DRIVE
r-----------
------------
'•·. .. ' '
.
'� ....
. ·--.' .• . . . . ' �- ..
';_ . •�: ·. -
\-.' :•,b" -��:---:T �·-�- �- -:-'""._ r- -::
-- ·7. �
-
....
"PL
����--"f-'11----------
@
r·:·:>/:.:: .
:::nr.oi ==®s :::;;:i--, -2 .o---@�o 20.(}----11
@)
.,•
_@_s _W-.ni
.
-.-.-l\·.·•:·. r ' .... -� @ ■
,r;
:.-
.-.'\_-.-:- - .- 3
i1
I 'A. ��c"r: ,-===" , . •· 1ST FLOOR
: .· . .,, -� '. :
r
---
,
'
'
L---
r---
'
'
'
L __ _
r
---
'
'
L---
..
f. @ .
� :,·
. � ,,..
••. (11--+tl
@
..
@
.·1 _,·,.
----,
'
'
'
___ .J
----,
'
'
'
___ .J
----,
'
'
'
___ .J
---,
'
'
'
___ .J
;
.
'.
STO�J.
I
■ .J:
r
---
,
'
'
L---
�@
J:. · ---7
'
·'1·· '
.
\{" /
'884. !-,',
'
3 �
'
_@_1s--11.l'
· t@ I -�
I }·
·
-----11,.1•
·1>
I 11\
�'
,
l@
@ t
r
---
'
'
'
L __ _
r
---
'
'
L---
r---
'
'
J.<@
'l _
�--- a:1.
:--- r: ® ' .
'
I
'
I
L
--- 1•• '- · · r--- ·1.
:1, .. -
' )._ i· ·
:�--->'·· ���
:�,
.fl.f·!:� !-
, --i: ---1_l==l
l
m
lll
rrf
lll
ffii
llll
7 n
l
=
f
i
�t�,·:-- ,
L-
-- :'ff. •
I
:��- �0 ���;-�- --t--
4 :-_
:·:-:::-. :
':",·-::-:.-
: .
-.: :
· · ·.--0s·ili'.'4J'..-·.-w.··: ·. :·
·
..
. .
65.57 5
14 @
' ' ___ .J
----,
:}'· \ ___ .J
: -� ---7
--�·•
I
t ;
:::
�
·:
1 '
, ___ J
:_ 1:
1· .•
J,i;--:
.! .--".
',' ,•----· .. �=.x,·· ., : ,' .
}::\:\:/(?{ /:
-c,��">--�,,� ..
6 .• . � ·t
PL 4.0
OFFICE/STORAGE ..;
OFFICE/STORAGE - 3
7 ,
I
I
I
I
I
j��,;'.IJ,.l�⇒--24.2+-+_,
\
I >---:i
I
53 I
I
I
8 PL
PL
NORTH
--- - SCALE: 1''�20'
40 -- - 0 20 60 80
7 8
9 IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS
NEW
BUILDING
FRONT PARKING
MIDDLE DRNEWAYS
UPPER PARKING
CONCRETE SIDEWALKS
TOTAL NEW AND REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA
SHEET NOTES
1. MATCH AC@ SAWCUT LINE
2. MATCH CONCRETE@ SAWOJT LINE
3, CONCRETE SIDEWALK @
4. CONCRETE TYPE·C CURB @
5. CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER @
6, CONCRETE CURB TAPER @
7, TYPE·V VALLEY GlITTER �
2 8, RETAINING WALL @
9. CONCRETE FLUSH CURB @
10. CONCRETE WHEEL STOP @
11. CONCRETE DRNEWAY APRON @3
12. LIGHT DUTY AC PAVEMENT @
13. TRUNCATED DOMES @
14. ROLLED CURB @
LEGEND
I
-x.xCONCRETE SIDEWALK
BIORETENTION
STORM DRAIN DROP INLET
MANHOLE
MATCHLINE
TYPE "A" OJRB & GIJTTER
TYPE "C' CURB
DIMENSION TO FACE OF CURB
RETAINING WALl.
- - - - ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
@ PARKING STAil. COUNT
SO FT
27,675
4,760
1,340
6,920
3,250
43,945
10 0.635
1.001
PARKING CALCULATIONS (SEE A2.2 FOR SPECIFICS)
REQ.
SO FT STALlS
1ST FLOOR -PARKING REQUIREMENTS
1ST FLOOR PROF. OFACE (1 SPACE/250 SQ FT) 2,250 9
1ST FLOOR PROF. STORAGE (1 SPACE/3500 SQ FT) 2,919 1
OFFICE NO. 2 237 1
OFFICE NO. 2 - STORAGE 8,522 1
OFFICE NO. 3 184 1
OFFICE NO. 3 - STORAGE 1,539 1
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR 1ST FLOOR 14
SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 1.4
2ND FLOOR -PARKING REOIJIREMENTS
2ND FLOOR PROF. OFFICE (1 SPACE/250 SQ FT) 3,000 12
OFFICE NO. 4 250 1
OFFICE NO. 4 - STORAGE 5,170 1
OFFICE NO. 5 241 1
OFFICE NO. S - STORAGE 949 1
OFFICE NO. 6 285 1
OFFICE NO. 6 - STORAGE 3,883 1
OFFICE NO. 7 301 1
OFFICE NO. 7 - STORAGE 4,151 1
20 SUB·TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 20
3RDFLOOR-MRKINGRgJ_WREMENTS
3ND FLOOR PROF. OFFICE (1 SPACE/250 SQ FT) 1,537 6
OFFICE NO. 8 202 1
OFFICE NO. 8 - STORAGE 3,761 1
OFFICE NO. 9 246 1
OFFICE NO. 9 - STORAGE 3,942 1
OFFICE NO. 10 201 1
OFFICE NO. 10 - STORAGE 5,546 2
OFFICE NO. 11 315 1
OFFICE NO. 11 - STORAGE 5,838 ..1.
16 SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 1.6
TOTAL OFFICE SPACE (9,250 / 250} 37
TOTAL STORAGE (46,220 / 3500} 1.3
TOTAL STANDARD STALL PROVIDED 50
ADA STALLS PROVIDED 3
OVERAU PARKING S3
9 10
G
<J
F
<J
E
<J
D
<J
C
<J
B
<J
A
REVISIONS BY
f----------1,;
ii
'
>----------1�
Date: 11.13.20
Scale: l" = 20'
Drawn: TC/JB
Job: 338-40
Sheet:
C2. l
Of l 2 Sheets
�
�
Keith HigginsTraffic Engineer
Exhibit 3
Proposed Project
Site Plan
COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL BETHANY
PROPERTY
DRIVE BETHANY 125
CALIFORNIA , VALLEY SCOTTS
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Ii
'
I
'
I
' I
'
I
' I
'
. .
-. __ ,..
;. -•·· .
•. ,- ~- '•
•.
... .
.. ·.
. ,· ! .
.
. .
..
.. I
. ..
.
•
l
® lai\' ~' '
' ' ' ' '
___
--- ' L---J ' ' L-
• : .••• - ~ •A ~ -• - ~ ; __;_ ~-• <
•'• .- ,....; ,·
I : I I L
___ J
I
®
I
I
I I I
I I
""- ""·" ,., .. G 8 8
_,.,:;.-.. I ,.,0 .... , \l 11
I j.l
••------.,;;:::
. _./\)\
".:
K;~;~: 2,,tfa~~ ---
ppoJ ;,fg WD?;~ :g - OZDZ AON p~ :p.;1/0fd JSD1 0?:0Z '[/ AON /1~ :pw,05 JS07 ,/\S f,JOWfJJOJS 0/,-8r£\OVJ\p.;101JS\ .z :Ou_lMDJO Oll,1,-8£1> (l£8) OZt,t,-8£1> ( l £8) .L fS~~ 990S6 V'J 'Aa11e,\ s:JIOJS 9 ~1n5 / Aa11eA SIIO>S t,t,t,t, :g~ \ SJ8UUE!ld/SJaau16u3 Q ~o -1 :..i @ ":)NI 'dnO):I~ Sl.N'v' l. lnSNQ:) llAI:)/ ~l:) ,.., - « ....._ > u ti- u r.o c:; Li.. ··
·
· •@
0 (!) oi 0 z:w k:' /#
~ ·~,.: -I \
·"' ,.._\ ·~=--=\ .. . . \
lc~ \ \ ·.: t\ . \
·-·~~ ·- ·-·----\. . '••. , '
t -·
··:·.:,.. I
. ,. :.- .
i.,-, .. . -· • -'---:;,.,: .•.
~ --~ •;
\
'
e·· \
\
'
\
I
Project Component Net Common Area Gross Net Common Area Gross Office 8,261 958 9,219 11,444 1,328 12,772
School (Office Area) 3,495 406 3,901 0 0 0
Storage 0 0 0 39,095 14,337 53,432
Common Area 0 0 0 0
Total 11,756 1,364 13,120 50,539 15,665 66,204
Notes:
1. Existing Common Area is proporated to Office and School by net floor area.
2. Proposed Common Area is prorated to Office at the same ratio as Existing.
Existing (s.f.) Proposed (s.f.)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 4
Existing and Proposed
Project Components
with Floor Areas
ITE DAILY PEAK % PEAK %
LAND USE TRIP HOUR OF % % HOUR OF % %
TRIP GENERATION RATES CODE RATE RATE ADT IN OUT RATE ADT IN OUT Small Office (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 14.39 1.67 12% 0.82 0.18 2.16 15% 0.34 0.66 Private School K-12 (per student) 2.48 0.79 32% 0.63 0.37 0.17 7% 0.43 0.57 Mini-Warehouse (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 1.71 0.17 10% 0.77 0.23 0.18 11% 0.28 0.72 PEAK % PEAK %
PROJECT DAILY HOUR OF TRIPS TRIPS HOUR OF TRIPS TRIPS
PROPOSED USE SIZE TRIPS TRIPS ADT IN OUT TRIPS ADT IN OUT Small Office 9,219 Sq. Ft. 133 15 12% 13 2 20 15% 7 13
Private School K-12* (3,901 Sq. Ft.) 24 Students 60 19 32% 12 7 4 7% 2 2 Mini-Warehouse 0 Sq. Ft. 0 0 N.A. 0 0 0 N.A. 0 0
Current Use Total 13,120 Sq. Ft. 193 34 0 25 9 24 0 9 15 Small Office 12,772 Sq. Ft. 184 21 12% 17 4 28 15% 9 19 Mini-Warehouse 53,432 Sq. Ft. 91 9 10% 7 2 10 11% 3 7
Proposed Use Subtotal 66,204 Sq. Ft. 275 30 11% 24 6 37 14% 12 26 Proposed Use minus Current UseTotal 82 -4 0 -3 13 3 10
Note:
1. Trip generation rates published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021
3. All building areas are in gross square feet, which includes common area prorated and added to the net leasable square feet.
4. *-Brite Horizons School is a Non-Public School that serves special needs students in Grades 1 through 12.
5. "Net Change" values are positive if the proposed trip generation is anticipated to be greater than existing.
6. "Net Change" values are negative if the proposed trip generation is anticipated to be less than existing.
2. The Small Office category represents offices about 10,000 gross square feet or less. This compares to General Office which includes buildings between 10,000 gross square feet and over 600,000 gross square feet.
1. CURRENT USES
2. PROPOSED USES
3. NET CHANGE - PROPOSED TRIPS MINUS CURRENT USE TRIPS
151
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY
532
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
712
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 5
Existing and Proposed
Project Trip Generation
Tube Counts
Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data
SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION: Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12456607
SPECIFIC LOCATION: 0 ft from Tabor St
CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA
DIRECTION: EB/WB
DATE: Mar 20 2014 - Mar 21 2014
Start Time
Mon Tue Wed Thu
20-Mar-14
Fri
21-Mar-14
Average Weekday
Hourly Traffic
Sat Sun Average Week
Hourly Traffic
Average Week Profile
12:00 AM 2 2 2 2
12:15 AM 1 2 2 2
12:30 AM 0 3 2 2
12:45 AM 0 1 1 1
1:00 AM 2 2 2 2
1:15 AM 1 4 3 3
1:30 AM 2 1 2 2
1:45 AM 0 3 2 2
2:00 AM 0 2 1 1
2:15 AM 0 0 0 0
2:30 AM 0 0 0 0
2:45 AM 0 0 0 0
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0
3:15 AM 0 0 0 0
3:30 AM 0 0 0 0
3:45 AM 0 0 0 0
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0
4:15 AM 1 0 1 1
4:30 AM 1 1 1 1
4:45 AM 0 1 1 1
5:00 AM 0 1 1 1
5:15 AM 2 3 3 3
5:30 AM 1 2 2 2
5:45 AM 3 2 3 3
Day Total
% Weekday
Average
% Week
Average
AM Peak
Volume
PM Peak
Volume
Comments:
Report generated on 3/27/2014 12:11 PM
~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
D
Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data
SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION: Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12456607
SPECIFIC LOCATION: 0 ft from Tabor St
CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA
DIRECTION: EB/WB
DATE: Mar 20 2014 - Mar 21 2014
Start Time
Mon Tue Wed Thu
20-Mar-14
Fri
21-Mar-14
Average Weekday
Hourly Traffic
Sat Sun Average Week
Hourly Traffic
Average Week Profile
6:00 AM 6 5 6 6
6:15 AM 7 11 9 9
6:30 AM 8 7 8 8
6:45 AM 6 6 6 6
7:00 AM 14 12 13 13
7:15 AM 11 13 12 12
7:30 AM 21 20 21 21
7:45 AM 36 28 32 32
8:00 AM 63 38 51 51
8:15 AM 42 29 36 36
8:30 AM 22 27 25 25
8:45 AM 22 28 25 25
9:00 AM 9 15 12 12
9:15 AM 8 18 13 13
9:30 AM 7 8 8 8
9:45 AM 9 11 10 10
10:00 AM 15 16 16 16
10:15 AM 9 7 8 8
10:30 AM 11 18 15 15
10:45 AM 11 9 10 10
11:00 AM 7 6 7 7
11:15 AM 3 13 8 8
11:30 AM 7 7 7 7
11:45 AM 14 11 13 13
Day Total
% Weekday
Average
% Week
Average
AM Peak
Volume
PM Peak
Volume
Comments:
Report generated on 3/27/2014 12:11 PM
u
I I
c::::::J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
c::::::J
I I
l:::J
I I
I
□ I
l:::J
I
□ I
Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data
SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION: Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12456607
SPECIFIC LOCATION: 0 ft from Tabor St
CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA
DIRECTION: EB/WB
DATE: Mar 20 2014 - Mar 21 2014
Start Time
Mon Tue Wed Thu
20-Mar-14
Fri
21-Mar-14
Average Weekday
Hourly Traffic
Sat Sun Average Week
Hourly Traffic
Average Week Profile
12:00 PM 12 9 11 11
12:15 PM 12 12 12 12
12:30 PM 14 9 12 12
12:45 PM 16 10 13 13
1:00 PM 9 12 11 11
1:15 PM 13 11 12 12
1:30 PM 14 9 12 12
1:45 PM 12 14 13 13
2:00 PM 16 4 10 10
2:15 PM 14 18 16 16
2:30 PM 18 12 15 15
2:45 PM 19 22 21 21
3:00 PM 27 32 30 30
3:15 PM 25 26 26 26
3:30 PM 26 22 24 24
3:45 PM 16 27 22 22
4:00 PM 16 20 18 18
4:15 PM 24 16 20 20
4:30 PM 19 18 19 19
4:45 PM 21 21 21 21
5:00 PM 28 24 26 26
5:15 PM 32 34 33 33
5:30 PM 25 15 20 20
5:45 PM 23 28 26 26
Day Total
% Weekday
Average
% Week
Average
AM Peak
Volume
PM Peak
Volume
Comments:
Report generated on 3/27/2014 12:11 PM
'---J
l::::J
I I
I I
l:::J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data
SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION: Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12456607
SPECIFIC LOCATION: 0 ft from Tabor St
CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA
DIRECTION: EB/WB
DATE: Mar 20 2014 - Mar 21 2014
Start Time
Mon Tue Wed Thu
20-Mar-14
Fri
21-Mar-14
Average Weekday
Hourly Traffic
Sat Sun Average Week
Hourly Traffic
Average Week Profile
6:00 PM 19 25 22 22
6:15 PM 20 22 21 21
6:30 PM 16 15 16 16
6:45 PM 23 16 20 20
7:00 PM 14 14 14 14
7:15 PM 10 20 15 15
7:30 PM 8 9 9 9
7:45 PM 9 11 10 10
8:00 PM 10 13 12 12
8:15 PM 7 4 6 6
8:30 PM 9 6 8 8
8:45 PM 15 4 10 10
9:00 PM 13 9 11 11
9:15 PM 9 1 5 5
9:30 PM 6 7 7 7
9:45 PM 2 6 4 4
10:00 PM 6 6 6 6
10:15 PM 2 4 3 3
10:30 PM 7 6 7 7
10:45 PM 2 4 3 3
11:00 PM 2 3 3 3
11:15 PM 1 4 3 3
11:30 PM 2 1 2 2
11:45 PM 1 2 2 2
Day Total 1048 1030 1062 1062
% Weekday
Average 98.7% 97.0%
% Week
Average 98.7% 97.0% 100.0%
AM Peak 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM
Volume 63 38 51 51
PM Peak 5:15 PM 5:15 PM 5:15 PM 5:15 PM
Volume 32 34 33 33
Comments:
Report generated on 3/27/2014 12:11 PM
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l:::J
[)
Descriptive Statistics
Thursday Friday
Mean 10.9167 Mean 10.72917
Standard Error 1.09019 Standard Error 0.953005
Median 9 Median 9
Mode 0 Mode 0
Standard Deviation 10.6817 Standard Deviation 9.337507
Sample Variance 114.098 Sample Variance 87.18904
Kurtosis 5.21676 Kurtosis -0.07462
Skewness 1.72428 Skewness 0.848977
Range 63 Range 38
Minimum 0 Minimum 0
Maximum 63 Maximum 38
Sum 1048 Sum 1030
Count 96 Count 96
Confidence Level(95.0%) 2.16431 Confidence Level(95.0%) 1.891955 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
12:00 AM 2:24 AM 4:48 AM 7:12 AM 9:36 AM 12:00 PM 2:24 PM 4:48 PM 7:12 PM 9:36 PM 12:00 AM Vehicle Count
Time of Day
Tube Counts - Scotts Valley Drive near Tabor Street
Thursday -Friday
---
*Obtained from the Glenwood Drive & Casa Way/Kerry Court Intersection Study for the City of Scotts Valley conducted by Hexagon Consultinig, Inc. (April, 2014)
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Vehicle Count
Time of Day
Tube Counts - Glenwood Drive south of Scotts Valley High School -+-Tuesday
Existing AM Turning Movements
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 4/16/2014 6:39 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION: Bethany Dr -- Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12473201 CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA DATE: Wed, Apr 09 2014
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Bethany Dr
(Northbound)
Bethany Dr
(Southbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Eastbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 8
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 13
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 15
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 8 2 0 2 0 8 0 0 36 72
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 15 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 43 107
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 18 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 38 132
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 7 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 30 147
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 10 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 32 143
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 60 12 0 12 0 24 0 0 172
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
0 0 0
0062
53 8
0 0
23 1
0 62
61 24
49 0
8 90
0.85 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00.01.6 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.1
0 2
0 0
0 0 0
001
0 1
0 0
0 1
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
_J:. :L _J:. :L
• J \. •
.. □· • J \. •
.. .. "" . ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 a: Ou.~~.'.!l,-~,~~~.~
.. .. 7:. :1
COLLECT O srnv1c.:1:s
_J._.L _J~. ~L
t ~ t _Jh ~ J ~ , .. ~ . ~ ' 7 .... 1 +--
~ 7~· ~I
_J:. :L --1+ _J~. ~L
• J ~ , •
~ I J rel\. .. -. .. !II! • .. ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 7~· ~I I I
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 4/16/2014 6:39 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION: Tabor Dr -- Vine Hill School Rd QC JOB #: 12473203 CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA DATE: Wed, Apr 09 2014
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Tabor Dr
(Northbound)
Tabor Dr
(Southbound)
Vine Hill School Rd
(Eastbound)
Vine Hill School Rd
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 4 2 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 28
7:15 AM 6 5 4 0 0 7 4 0 2 0 4 0 9 2 0 0 43
7:30 AM 18 2 3 0 1 15 2 1 1 0 4 0 9 3 0 0 59
7:45 AM 74 9 14 0 0 19 3 0 3 2 53 0 21 4 1 0 203 333
8:00 AM 84 18 16 0 0 18 4 0 4 0 96 0 17 6 2 0 265 570
8:15 AM 26 3 15 1 0 21 1 0 3 3 48 0 14 4 0 0 139 666
8:30 AM 14 11 11 0 1 11 1 0 0 0 8 0 20 1 0 0 78 685
8:45 AM 29 7 9 0 0 13 1 0 3 1 14 0 17 2 0 0 96 578
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 336 72 64 0 0 72 16 0 16 0 384 0 68 24 8 0 1060 Heavy Trucks 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
199 41 56
1699
10 5
205 72
15 3
296
79 220
90 54
347
62 222
0.65 2.0 2.4 0.0
0.00.00.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 1.4
0.0 0.0
1.7 0.0
0.9 1.1
1.9 0.9
0.0 1.8
0 5
2 0
0 0 0
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
_J:. :L _J:. :L
• J \. •
.. □· • J \. •
.. .. "" . ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 a: Ou.~~.'.!l,-~,~~~.~
.. .. 7:. :1
COLLECT O srnv1c.:1:s
_J._.L _J~. ~L
t ~ t ~ ~ J ~ , .. ~ . ~ ' 7 .... 1 4-- 7~· ~I
_J:. :L -+ _J~. ~L
• J ~ , •
~ Hr-- J rel\. .. -. .. !II! • .. ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 7~· ~I I I
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 4/16/2014 6:39 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION: Glenwood Dr -- Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12473205 CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA DATE: Wed, Apr 09 2014
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Glenwood Dr
(Northbound)
Glenwood Dr
(Southbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Eastbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 16 2 0 0 5 13 26 0 39 14 30 0 16 22 3 0 186
7:15 AM 31 4 3 0 2 28 42 0 132 46 48 0 12 26 34 0 408
7:30 AM 35 6 4 0 1 54 97 0 109 43 65 1 8 34 19 0 476
7:45 AM 43 2 6 0 6 34 59 0 61 108 72 0 31 81 4 0 507 1577 8:00 AM 45 0 6 0 3 27 69 0 106 116 58 2 40 118 7 0 597 1988 8:15 AM 44 6 3 0 2 41 89 0 116 52 46 0 33 68 10 0 510 2090 8:30 AM 51 4 6 0 1 28 58 0 48 42 73 0 27 30 4 0 372 1986 8:45 AM 36 5 2 0 2 34 31 0 33 52 61 0 27 47 2 0 332 1811 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 180 0 24 0 12 108 276 0 424 464 232 8 160 472 28 0 2388 Heavy Trucks 12 0 0 0 0 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 28
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
167 14 19
12156314
395
319
241 112
301
40 200
482
955
453
446
509
350
785
0.88 6.6 0.0 0.0
0.01.32.2 0.8
1.3 5.0 0.0
1.0 0.0
5.5 1.9
2.0 0.7
0.7 2.8
1.1 2.7
0 9
0 1
0 0 0
001
3 1
0 0
0 0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
_J:. :L _J:. :L
• J \. •
.. □· • J \. •
.. .. "" . ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 a: Ou.~~.'.!l,-~,~~~.~
.. .. 7:. :1
COLLECT O srnv1c.:1:s
_J._.L _J~. ~L
t ~ t __.JH lt_ J ~ , .. ~ . ~ ' 7 .... 1 +--
~ 7~· ~I .- ___J,
___J,
_J:. :L ---+ _J~. ~L ---+
----..
• J ~ , • 'l it[- J rel\. .. -. .. !II! • .. ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 7~· ~I I I
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 4/16/2014 6:39 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION: Granite Creek Rd -- Scotts Valley Dr QC JOB #: 12473207 CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA DATE: Wed, Apr 09 2014
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Granite Creek Rd
(Northbound)
Granite Creek Rd
(Southbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Eastbound)
Scotts Valley Dr
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 43 6 48 0 1 0 0 0 2 25 43 0 24 39 0 0 231
7:15 AM 39 4 96 0 0 0 2 0 1 114 39 0 35 60 3 0 393
7:30 AM 45 4 114 0 1 1 0 0 3 115 48 0 43 121 3 0 498
7:45 AM 136 8 123 0 0 5 0 0 3 111 60 1 46 130 3 0 626 1748 8:00 AM 79 3 128 0 3 2 2 0 5 148 60 0 65 151 2 0 648 2165 8:15 AM 67 3 102 0 2 2 3 0 4 96 78 3 68 148 4 0 580 2352 8:30 AM 98 3 93 0 1 0 1 0 2 78 73 1 38 108 2 0 498 2352 8:45 AM 70 7 75 0 0 1 1 0 2 64 61 0 27 84 1 0 393 2119
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 316 12 512 0 12 8 8 0 20 592 240 0 260 604 8 0 2592 Heavy Trucks 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 20 4 16 0 52
Pedestrians 0 36 40 0 76
Bicycles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
327 18 467
6105
19 470
246 222
550
12 812
21 735
784
45 478
943
886
0.91 2.4 0.0 0.6
0.00.00.0 0.0
2.1 4.1 0.9
3.1 0.0
1.4 0.0
2.7 2.4
0.0 2.5
1.4 2.8
1 20
19 0
1 0 1
000
0 2
2 0
3 0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
_J:. :L _J:. :L
• J \. •
.. □· • J \. •
.. .. "" . ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 a: Ou.~~.'.!l,-~,~~~.~
.. .. 7:. :1
COLLECT O srnv1c.:1:s
_J._.L _J~. ~L
t ~ t __.JH lt_ J ~ , .. ~ . ~ ' 7 .... 1 +--
~ 7~· ~I .-
_J,
_J:. :L ---+ _J~. ~L ---+
----..
• J ~ , • 'l iiir-- J rel\. .. -. .. !II! • .. ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 7~· ~I I I
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 4/16/2014 6:39 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION: Granite Creek Rd -- Santas Village Rd QC JOB #: 12473209 CITY/STATE: Scotts Valley, CA DATE: Wed, Apr 09 2014
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Granite Creek Rd
(Northbound)
Granite Creek Rd
(Southbound)
Santas Village Rd
(Eastbound)
Santas Village Rd
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 41 23 0 0 6 4 37 0 58 5 7 0 3 17 0 0 201
7:15 AM 64 14 2 0 6 12 72 0 52 5 11 0 1 8 0 0 247
7:30 AM 92 14 3 0 6 14 69 0 47 13 18 0 1 7 0 0 284
7:45 AM 153 14 8 0 25 23 110 0 47 41 28 0 1 9 0 0 459 1191 8:00 AM 114 24 6 0 25 18 82 0 67 20 48 0 2 4 1 0 411 1401 8:15 AM 91 20 3 0 28 25 75 0 55 48 35 0 2 6 1 0 389 1543 8:30 AM 117 22 10 0 28 22 76 0 46 30 41 0 1 7 0 0 400 1659 8:45 AM 85 17 6 0 12 18 56 0 38 29 26 0 2 6 0 0 295 1495 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 612 56 32 0 100 92 440 0 188 164 112 0 4 36 0 0 1836 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 0 4 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 28
Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 4
Bicycles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
475 80 27
10688343
215
139
152 6
26 2
582
537
506
34 297
246
272
844
0.90 1.9 3.8 0.0
0.96.82.3 5.6
0.7 0.7 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.1 2.8
2.8 0.0
5.1 2.8
0.7 2.0
3 0
0 0
3 0 0
000
0 1
2 1
0 0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
_J:. :L _J:. :L
• J \. •
.. · • J \. •
.. .. "" . ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 a: Ou.~~.'.!l,-~,~~~.~
.. .. 7:. :1
COLLECT O srnv1c.:1:s
_J._.L _J~. ~L
t ~ t ____.JJ J \ lt_ J ~ , .. ~ . ~ ' 7 .... 1 4-- 7~· ~I _J:. :L _J _J~. ~L ---+
----..
• J ~ , • 'l Hr- J rel\. .. -. .. !II! • .. ~ ' .. ~ ' 7:. :1 7~· ~I I I
August 23, 2023
City of Scotts Valley
c/o Susie Pineda
Contract Planner
[email protected]
RE: 125 BETHANY DRIVE
Dear Ms. Pineda and City Council Members,
Pursuant to the Public Review and Comment Period for the above-mentioned proposed project, the concerned group of Bethany Drive Neighborhood Residents (referred to as BDNR for the remainder of this document) hereby submits to the City of Scotts Valley (the City) and the development group, Heritage Real Estate Ventures, LLC (the Developer) our collective concern for the proposed development and disagreement with the Negative Declaration determination as outlined in the report dated July 24, 2023 by the Lead Agency (attached as an exhibit).
BDNR first wants to acknowledge that the existing property and site improvements at 125 Bethany Drive are outdated, likely underutilized, and generally not perceived as providing a significant benefit to the immediate neighborhood or broader community. For these reasons BDNR is generally amenable to redevelopment at this location, however; BDNR opposes the Negative Declaration without prejudice and has two primary concerns at this time, as outlined within this letter.
CONCERN 1
Negative Declaration Report Statement, (Page 3):
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.
BDNR Observation
BDNR submits that changing the existing zoning type for the proposed redevelopment project at 125 Bethany Drive from Professional Commercial (C-P) to Light Industrial (I-L) would be highly irregular and significantly inconsistent with typical land use adjacencies within the City of Scotts Valley. BDNR performed a cursory review of all existing parcels with zoning types I-L bordering any Residential type with a total of four locations identified (refer to Zoning Map without Buffer Zones between Light Industrial and Residential attached as an exhibit). Each of these four locations could not reasonably be considered as comparable to the proposed 125 Bethany Drive site, or as favorable examples of I-L adjacent to Residential for reasons uniquely outlined below:
Site A
Access to and around the adjacent residential area does not require passing through or by the I-L site. Any and all traffic produced by the I-L building/site occupants appears to not be accessible to the adjacent residential areas. The elevation of the I-L site and all improvements are significantly below the adjacent residential area with limited or no line-of-sight nuisance.
Site B
Access to and around the adjacent residential area does not require passing through or by the I-L site. Any and all traffic produced by the I-L building/site occupants appears to not be accessible to the adjacent residential areas. The elevation of the I-L site and all improvements are significantly below the adjacent residential area with limited or no line-of-sight nuisance.
Site C
Access to and around the adjacent residential area does not require passing through or by the I-L site. Any and all traffic produced by the I-L building/site occupants appears to not be accessible to the adjacent residential areas. The elevation of the I-L site and all improvements are significantly below the adjacent residential area with limited or no line-of-sight nuisance.
Site D
Access to and around the adjacent residential area does not require passing through or by the I-L site. Any and all traffic produced by the I-L building/site occupants appears to not be accessible to the adjacent residential areas. The I-L site and all improvements provide limited or no line-of-sight nuisance.
125 Bethany Drive (proposed)
Access to and around the adjacent residential area require passing through or by the proposed I-L site. Any and all traffic produced by the proposed I-L building/site occupants must utilize primary residential access roadways. The location of the proposed I-L site and all improvements are fully exposed to residents with unavoidable line-of-site nuisance.
Additionally, BDNR submits that when reviewing the City’s published zoning map for where I-L zoned parcels are generally designated, the overwhelming majority of parcels that border I-L consist of Commercial Service (C-S) type land use, not Residential (refer to Zoning Map Light Industrial with Buffer Zones attached as an exhibit). This strong majority placement of I-L and C-S together suggests an intentional land use adjacency strategy likely to promote complimentary land use activities while also providing an extremely important buffer between more sensitive zoning types, like Residential.
BDNR interprets the City’s adopted Code and current placement of I-L zoned parcels as support for maintaining appropriate buffer zones between otherwise incompatible Industrial and Residential areas, and so not to cause harm from one land use activity to another. Chapter 17.26 of the City’s Code provides the description and purpose of Light Industrial as follows:
The I-L district is intended to apply to all lands designated in the General Plan as "light industrial." This land use classification is designed to accommodate industrial and industrially related land uses and provide a location for businesses that are inappropriate in commercial or residential zones because of their operations or sizes 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.
BDNR Requests
1. The City reject the proposed redevelopment project until and unless, the Developer provides a revised design resulting in site improvements that do not require a change in zoning and address requests in “CONCERN 2” outlined further below.
2. Directly notify BDNR in advance of any official public proceeding that may directly or indirectly relate to BDNR’s Concern 1 so adequate representation can be mobilized.
3. Provide BDNR reasonable opportunities to engage with meaningful feedback regarding proposed design changes in good faith.
CONCERN 2
Negative Declaration Report Statement, (Page 5):
Scenic Resources and Visual Character: [A]lthough 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.
BDNR Observation
BDNR submits that the project as proposed in the Negative Declaration report is not consistent with the type of development that currently exists in the relevant vicinity. BDNR supports this statement based on various proposed design elements including building height of 34’-9” at three stories, total square footage of 52,822, and building coverage near
or at 50%. BDNR was unable to locate a single structure of similar size or proportion within a relevant vicinity. The average size of structures within a relevant vicinity appears to be ~2,200 square feet excluding the single-story elementary school buildings to the west of the proposed redevelopment site.
Additionally, based on the information provided, 80.2% of the 52,822 square feet is to be designated as storage for up to “227 user spaces”. Based on this limited information it appears that this project is generally considered to be an industrial storage type facility, which BDNR contends is not consistent, or a compatible building use for the relevant vicinity.
BDNR Requests
1. The City reject the proposed redevelopment project until and unless, the Developer provides a revised design that results in site improvements and building use more congruent with the existing surrounding residential area and address the requests presented in “CONCERN 1” outlined above.
2. Directly notify BDNR in advance of any official public proceeding that may directly or indirectly relate to BDNR’s Concern 2 so adequate representation can be mobilized.
3. Provide BDNR reasonable opportunities to engage with meaningful feedback regarding proposed design changes in good faith.
About BDNR
Bethany Drive Neighborhood Residents (BDNR) is a group comprised of 25 concerned residents and/or homeowners to be directly impacted by the proposed redevelopment project and are located only on Tabor Drive, Tabor Way, Bethany Drive, Scotts Valley Drive (north extension), Sawyer Circle, and Saywer Court. Refer to BDNR Resident Location Map (attached as an exhibit) for additional location context.
Members (at time of submission):
Matt Hoey, AIA, NCARB (Lead Representative)
Tabor Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Mahina Hoey
Tabor Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
BDNR Members (Cont’d)
Brandee Demblewski
Scotts Valley Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Goeury
650 Bethany Dr
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Jim Stewart
Sawyer Circle
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Michelle Stewart
Sawyer Circle
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Lara Brough
Tabor Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Jenna Reamer
Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Michael Zeller
Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
EXHIBITS
1. Scotts Valley Zoning Map Locations without Buffer Zones between Light Industrial and Residential
2. Scotts Valley Zoning Map with Buffer Zones between Light Industrial and Residential
3. BDNR Resident Location Map
4. Negative Declaration Report Date July 24, 2023 (without appendices)
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.
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.
City of Scotts Valley
125 Bethany Drive Initial Study
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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