Sanborn County Park Trails Master PlanLIST OF MAPS Map 1. Regional Setting Map Map 2. Sanborn Park Existing Trail System Map Map 3. North Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map

Sanborn County Park

Trails Master Plan

Final Initial Study/

Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments and Responses

SCH No. 2007022016

Prepared by

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department

Los Gatos, CA

and

Jana Sokale Environmental Planning 7788 Hazelnut Dr.

Newark, CA 94560

TRA Environmental Services, Inc. 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200

Menlo Park, CA 94025 www.TRAenviro.com

September 2008

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan

Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

Comments and Responses SCH No. 2007022016

Prepared by

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department

298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032

and

Jana Sokale Environmental Planning

7788 Hazelnut Dr. Newark, CA 94560

TRA Environmental Services, Inc.

545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Menlo Park, CA 94025 www.TRAenviro.com

Page i

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan September 2008 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Introduction And Regulatory Guidance ...........................................................................................1-1 B. Lead Agency.....................................................................................................................................1-2 C. Purpose and Document Organization...............................................................................................1-3

II. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2-1 A. Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................2-1 B. Historic Landscapes.........................................................................................................................2-1C. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................2-2 D. Existing Facilities.............................................................................................................................2-4 E. Existing and Projected Park Trail Usage .........................................................................................2-6 F. Planned Trail Uses ...........................................................................................................................2-7 G. Planned Trail System.......................................................................................................................2-9 H. Specific Trail Descriptions.............................................................................................................2-15 I. Park Areas Deemed Unsuitable for Trail Development ................................................................2-18 J. Trails Proposed For Abandonment and Trail Bed Restoration......................................................2-19 K. Staging Areas, Roadway Crossings and Trail Amenities...............................................................2-21 L. Project Implementation..................................................................................................................2-24 M. Permits and Approvals Required....................................................................................................2-26

III. Initial Study Environmental Evaluation Checklist for Santa Clara County .......... 3-1 A. Land Use and General Plan ...........................................................................................................3-14 B. Geologic.........................................................................................................................................3-15 C. Resources/Parks.............................................................................................................................3-20 D. Sewage/Water Quality ...................................................................................................................3-21 E. Water Supply/Drainage/Flooding ..................................................................................................3-25 F. Biological Resources .....................................................................................................................3-27 G. Transportation................................................................................................................................3-43 H. Population/Housing .......................................................................................................................3-45 I. Safety/Health .................................................................................................................................3-46 J. Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................3-48 K. Noise ..............................................................................................................................................3-50 L. Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................................3-51 M. Energy............................................................................................................................................3-54 N. Historical/Archaeological ..............................................................................................................3-55 O. Public Services and Utilities ..........................................................................................................3-57 P. Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................................3-61

IV. References...................................................................................................................... 4-1

V. Maps\Figures................................................................................................................. 5-1

VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ............................................................... 6-1

VII. List of Comments Received.......................................................................................... 7-1

VIII. Master Responses to Comments.................................................................................. 8-1

IX. Responses to Written and Oral Comments ................................................................ 9-1

X. Summary of Revisions to the Initial Study and Trails Master Plan ...................... 10-1

Page ii


Appendix A. Archaeological Literature Search Report prepared by Holman Associates, January 2007

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sanborn Trails Master Plan Goals ..............................................................................................2-3 Table 2. Trails Summary Chart...............................................................................................................2-12 Table 3. Trail Abandonment Chart ........................................................................................................2-20 Table 4. Special status plant species documented within five miles of Sanborn County Park and their

potential to occur within the park.........................................................................................3-29 Table 5. Special-status wildlife species reported within five miles of Sanborn County Park and their

potential to present within the park ......................................................................................3-31

LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. San Andreas Rift Valley at Sanborn Park.................................................................................3-15 Photo 2. Sanborn Park Hostel .................................................................................................................3-51 Photo 3. Sanborn Park Youth Science Institute ......................................................................................3-52 Photo 4. View from Upper Elevation of the Park East Toward Santa Clara Valley...............................3-52

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Staging Area and Crossing at Sanborn Road Connecting Western Regions of the Park to Sanborn Creek and Aubry Creek Confluence ........................................................................5-2

Figure 2. Sanborn Road Crossing, Trail Access and Staging Area Modifications in the Day Use Area..5-3 Figure 3. Indian Rock Staging Area Improvements..................................................................................5-4 Figure 4. Summit Rock Staging Area Reconfiguration ............................................................................5-5 Figure 5. Sunnyvale Mountain Staging Area Development .....................................................................5-6

LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Regional Setting Map Map 2. Sanborn Park Existing Trail System Map Map 3. North Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 4. South Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 5. Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Map Map 6. Sanborn County Park Day Use Area Trail Map Map 7. Sanborn County Park Hiking Access Map Map 8. Sanborn County Park Equestrian Access Map Map 9. Sanborn County Park Mountain Biking Access Map Map 10. Sanborn County Park Trail Abandonment Map

Page iii


Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALUC..............................................Airport Land Use Commission BAAQMD.......................................Bay Area Air Quality Management District BARTC ...........................................Bay Area Ridge Trail Council BMP ................................................Best Management Practices Board...............................................Board of Supervisors Caltrans ...........................................California Department of Transportation CARB..............................................California Air Resources Board CCR.................................................California Code of Regulations CDFG..............................................California Department of Fish and Game CEQA..............................................California Environmental Quality Act County Parks Department ...............Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Countywide Trails Master Plan ......1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan

Update IS/MND...........................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP.............................................Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MROSD ..........................................Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District OSP .................................................Open Space Preserve Sanborn ...........................................Sanborn County Park Sanborn Trails Plan.........................Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan State of California Department of Parks and Recreation ................State Parks Strategic Plan ..................................2003 Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and

Recreation System Trail Guidelines ..............................1999 Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and

Management Guidelines VTA ................................................Valley Transportation Authority

Page 1-1


I. Introduction A. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

The County of Santa Clara, the lead agency under CEQA, must evaluate the

environmental impacts of a project when considering whether to approve a project. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (County Parks Department). The purpose of the Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan, Santa Clara County, California (see Map 1). This Trails Master Plan will guide future Park trail development, including general alignment of trails, trail use, and staging areas for trail access within the park. This document evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed and revised staging areas, two crossings of Sanborn Road, the Trout Creek Trail within Lexington County Park, and all trails within Sanborn County Park and their proposed trail uses at a project level assuming the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) will be adopted and the Department’s Best Management Practices (BMP), including those BMPs identified in the 1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (Countywide Trails Master Plan) and the 1999 Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines (Trail Guidelines) that are incorporated into the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan, are followed in the final design and construction of the trail for the proposed use. Adherence to this standard will allow trail and trail use implementation to occur without further CEQA documentation. The Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan does not address other aspects of Park development and use. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section§21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, section§15000 et seq. It is the County Parks Department's intent to rely on the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan and this IS/MND as the basis for proceeding with implementing the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan under CEQA. This process is expected to take 15 to 20 years, as staff and funding becomes available. This IS/MND contains a detailed analysis of the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan project, and it is expected that all subsequent activities as contained in this project will be found to be within the scope of the project described in this IS/MND. If the project level IS/MND adequately describes all activities, clearly lists the impacts and provides measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels, no further environmental documents will be required. The only factor that would change this statement is if there are changes to the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan or changes in the status of any environmental element at the site (for example, a new listing in the Endangered Species Act of a plant or animal found on the park site).

The Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan defines an expanded trail system to meet the changing recreational and interpretive needs of a diverse and growing population. At present, Sanborn County Park is estimated to be operating below visitor capacity. Thus, the park provides an immediate opportunity to serve more park visitors. The Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan includes both a short-range conversion plan that allows for immediate public benefit and a long-range plan to guide the development of the trail system.

Page 1-2


An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)). If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines the impacts are to a less-than-significant level, a Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)). The County Parks Department has prepared this IS/MND for the Project because all impacts resulting from the Project are reduced to less than significant levels by adoption and implementation of mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. B. LEAD AGENCY

The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed

project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed Project is the Santa Clara County. The contact person for the County Parks Department is:

John Falkowski, Project Manager Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 355-2232

Page 1-3


C. PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Project. This document is organized as follows:

• Chapter I – Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document.

• Chapter II – Project Description

This chapter describes the project location, project area, and site description, objectives, characteristics and related projects. This chapter also contains descriptions of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other mitigation incorporated into the project.

• Chapter III – Environmental Checklist and Responses

This chapter contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This chapter also contains the Mandatory Findings of Significance.

• Chapter IV – References

This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS/MND.

• Chapter V – Figures and Maps

This chapter contains all Figures and Maps identified in the IS/MND.

• Chapter VI – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for this project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP lists the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Timing of the Mitigation Measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan project.

Page 2-1


II. Project Description

A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Sanborn County Park (Sanborn) is nestled in the Santa Cruz Mountains between the City

of Saratoga and Skyline Boulevard (see Map 1 – Regional Setting Map). This 3,688-acre park contains one of the main tributary headwaters within the Los Gatos Creek Watershed, draining to the east and Saratoga Creek draining to the north.

Surrounding land uses include State Parks (Castle Rock State Park), Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Preserves (Saratoga Gap and El Sereno), County parklands and residential parcels. The western boundary of the park is State Highway 35 (Highway 35, also known as Skyline Boulevard), under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Caltrans’ Highway 35 rights-of-way pass along Sanborn lands. The Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan (Sanborn Trails Plan) adds a hiking, mountain biking, equestrian accessible trail connection that would link the Bay Area Ridge Trail with El Sereno Open Space Preserve (OSP) to the east, Castle Rock State Park to the north and west, and Saratoga Gap OSP to the north. All OSPs are within the jurisdiction of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). The California Department of Parks and Recreation owns lands within Castle Rock State Park on both sides (west and east) of State Highway 35 bordering Sanborn on the west and north, and the City of Saratoga is to the east.

Sanborn contains redwood forests, mixed evergreen forests of black oaks, tan bark oaks,

madrone and Douglas fir, riparian corridors, meadows and chaparral habitats. The park elevations range from 840 feet to 3,160 feet with an overall elevation change of 2,320 feet. The San Andreas Fault extends through the park.

Two Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes go to the Saratoga Village;

Sanborn Headquarters is three miles to the west (two miles along Highway 9, and then one mile from the Highway 9 intersection of Sanborn Road, along Sanborn Road). Public transportation does not provide direct access to the park. B. HISTORIC LANDSCAPES

While Sanborn is a park full of natural and scenic beauty, it is by no means an undisturbed wilderness area. Starting in the 1860s, extensive logging of redwood and tanoak forests eventually left most of the park clear-cut of trees. Pioneering families who moved to the area began to farm the steep hillsides, diverting and damming watercourses, and planting orchards, grapes, and grains to sustain their families.

Through extensive field work and research into the land’s history, evidence of prior land uses and geologic events, such as large historic landslides, stumps from harvested redwoods, home sites, Native American sites, dams, canals, and even logging camps have been found. Sites are scattered throughout the park and add to the rich history of Sanborn. The locations of these sites have been documented in order to ensure their protection while the expansion of the trail system is underway. Where appropriate, trails are planned to take visitors to historic sites,

Page 2-2


providing enrichment opportunities. In other instances trails were rerouted to safeguard environmental and cultural sites from damage, trails route visitors in other directions.

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to the 1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update

(Countywide Trails Master Plan), the County adopted the 2003 Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation System (Strategic Plan), which identifies trail planning and development action items. One of the Strategic Plan’s priorities identifies the development of three park-specific trail master plans over a ten-year period to increase multiple-use trails and to ensure consistency with the Countywide Trails Master Plan and the Strategic Plan. In 2003, the County Parks and Recreation Commission identified Sanborn as the first park in which to develop a trails master plan to fulfill this Strategic Plan priority. The Sanborn Trails Plan project is consistent with the Strategic Plan (page 34), which states that County Parks “is charged with the dual mission of protecting and preserving the natural and historic resources of the County Park system and of providing recreation opportunities and facilities for public use.”

The Mission of the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department: “To provide, protect and preserve regional parklands for the enjoyment,

education and inspiration of this and future generations.”

The Vision of the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department: “We create a growing and diverse system of regional parks, trails, and open

spaces of Countywide Significance that connects people with the natural environment, offers visitor experiences that renew the human spirit, and balances

recreation opportunities with resource protection.”

In keeping with the Trails Element of the Parks and Recreation Chapter of the 1995 General Plan, the Countywide Trails Master Plan, the 1999 Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines (Trail Guidelines), the Strategic Plan, and the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Administration Policy & Procedures Manual Section 3, Procedure 397, Dog Access in County Parks, the Sanborn Trails Plan provides trail opportunities for non-motorized trail users including hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and dog walkers (trail user with dogs on-leash), while balancing natural resource management goals.

The Sanborn Trails Plan complements the rugged, mountainous park affording visitors a

serene and secluded experience despite the proximity with the busy Santa Clara Valley. The majority of the trails, both existing and proposed, identified in the Sanborn Trails Plan are relatively narrow in width due to the challenging, physical constraints of the terrain and due to the public’s desire for a sense of remoteness (Strategic Plan). The design and construction of the Sanborn Trails Plan will be in accordance with the BMPs in the Permits and Approvals Required section, and the MMRPs in Ch. VI of this document.

The Sanborn Trails Plan goals were derived from trail concepts generated by Technical Advisory Committee members, comments received during the public scoping meeting and regional trail routes generally identified in previously completed plans including the Countywide Trails Master Plan, Bay Area Ridge Trail Plan, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail

Page 2-3


Plan, and the Strategic Plan. The goals listed in Table 1 guided the planning process and the investigation of trail routes.

The Sanborn Trails Plan establishes the County’s goals and priorities for the Park’s future improvement, maintenance and management of Sanborn trails and staging areas for the next 20 years that would be reflective of the mission and vision of the County Parks Department. The County Parks Department would be able to implement the Sanborn Trails Plan after the Board adopts the Department’s findings from completion of the environmental review process. Where these improvements require review and permit approval from regulatory agencies, the appropriate consultations and permits will be obtained prior to implementation of these projects.

Table 1 Sanborn Trails Master Plan Goals

• Develop trail routes and uses for Regional and Connector Trails identified in the 1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan.

• Identify trail access for all users to meet both short-term needs as well as long-range planning consistent with all existing land agreements.

• Locate a mid-elevation route running northwest to southeast to provide a greater variation in trail difficulty.

• Develop more loop routes to provide a greater range of trail opportunities.

• Create a route from the Day Use Area to the Lake Ranch Area to eliminate the need for park users to walk on Sanborn Road.

• Introduce multiple use trails into the park to meet the regional trail goals of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail and to be consistent with the 1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan.

• Evaluate existing trails relative to natural resources and reroute trails as necessary to enhance and preserve sensitive habitats.

• Evaluate opportunity for multiple use single-track trails that provide more of a wilderness experience.

• Evaluate the opportunity to provide more fully accessible trails for users of all abilities.

• Identify trail staging areas for all users: hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians.

• tnership opportunities with landowners and agencies to implement common Identify parobjectives.

Public Involvement

The public involvement process included regular meetings with a Technical Advisory

Page 2-4


mmittee

owners throughout the planning process to further the investigations of specific trail corridors.

ns.

en Space

nvited ,

n e Trails Master Plan, Castle Rock

General Plan, and MROSD Open Space Preserve policies.

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS

.

uipment, and

general costs of living, and to provide a location for orchards and vineyards.

ear

Committee and Project Team. The process included outreach to trail users and stakeholders through a public scoping meeting and individual stakeholder meetings. The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of members representing various trail user groups, nearby residents andtrail organizations (see Appendix A of the Sanborn Trails Plan – Technical Advisory CoRoster). The Project Team includes representatives from the various County Parks and Recreation Department divisions including planning, operations, maintenance, natural resourcesand interpretation. These two groups met regularly for a period of one-year to provide input on the development of the Sanborn Trails Plan. A public scoping meeting was held at the beginningof the planning process to gather suggestions on trail uses and potential routes for the expansionof the trail system. In addition, stakeholder meetings were held with adjoining property

Meetings with adjacent landowners where future trails are planned to pass through or

near, such as the Savannah-Chanelle Winery, the Cinnabar Winery, and parks and open space agencies with lands bordering Sanborn, were conducted to discuss unique needs and concerParticipation in the planning process by adjacent parks and open space agencies was a key component of inter-agency coordination with this plan. The Midpeninsula Regional OpDistrict (MROSD), who operates El Sereno OSP and Saratoga Gap OSP, accepted the Department’s invitation to be on the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff from the Santa Cruz District of the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) were ito participate, but they were unable to provide staff for this cooperative effort. Howevercoordinated outreach with State Parks, MROSD, and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council (BARTC) staff in the spring and summer of 2007 was conducted to discuss areas of mutual interest and concern, especially with consideration to the Bay Area Ridge Trail which passes through El Sereno OSP, Sanborn, and finally through Castle Rock State Park and Saratoga GapOSP. A meeting on October 24, 2007, attended by staff from MROSD, State Parks, BARTC, and the County Parks Department, resulted in consensus being achieved to plan a multiple-use segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail through all three agencies lands. The proposed conversioof this trail to multiple-use is consistent with the Countywid

Historic activities at Sanborn have had a lasting effect on the landscape of today.

Evidence of former home sites is easily ‘discovered’ by spotting the variety of non-native plantsVinca, German Ivy, St. John’s Wort, fruit and nut trees, along with ornamental flowers such as irises which are common plants in these disturbed sites. As many of these home sites functionedas self-sufficient farms, their areas of impact are much larger than just the pad where the houseonce stood. Photographs from the 1910’s obtained from various sources show a significantly different landscape from that found today. Clear-cutting was a common practice in the hills aslumbermen and farmers sought to extract cash from the land to pay for crops, eq

“Certain sections of the drainage channels seem to have been partially filled at some point in the past by debris-flow/landslide deposits...Some of these deposits appto have occurred after the slopes were logged, others seem to have occurred before

Page 2-5


d, cut stumps which grew on top of the fill deposits)” (Balance ydrologics 2007, pg. 2).

rowth forests, despite a lack of human presence for 40-

plus years, is stunted or non-existent.

tself

ion of sale, the San Jose Water Company retained water and ingress/egress rights to those lands.

ond by well meaning visitors who want to find a good home for their soon to be former pets.

ites

of nearly a century in some cases, many of these areas have yet to be reclaimed by the forest.

es

of what

ctions have failed, and on what types of slopes and soils landslides have occurred.

reas

k

logging (based on large, olH The persistent presence of landslides, in part aided by the clear-cutting of the park

starting in the 1860s, has significantly altered the makeup of the forest. Following old roadbeds (typically logging skid roads) usually leads to logged areas marked by redwood stumps. While the forest has regrown, the diversity of plant life has been affected in some areas. In many casesthe understory of these second or third g

In the 1870s waterways were diverted to deliver water to the Lake Ranch Reservoir, i

a modified San Andreas Fault related sag pond, to later be released into the Saratoga or Los Gatos Creek Watersheds. Rock lined canals with gate valves were constructed in the creek beds to facilitate the redistribution of water. The use of these canals and the reservoir continue to thisday under the direction of the San Jose Water Company. Since the 1870’s, residents or service vehicles from the San Jose Water Company have used the roads to the reservoir. In addition the County Parks Department has been accessing the site since 1981 when the property was added to Sanborn. As a condit

Other sag ponds have been filled in or dammed for storage such as “Walden Pond”

adjacent to the Walden West Environmental Education, which was constructed in the 1950’s byVernon J. Pick and is infested with non-native duckweed and bullfrogs, not to mention the red slider turtles that have been left in the p

Through the exploration of the park, many south facing meadows on steep slopes,

typically surrounded by evergreen forests, were encountered. When the location of these swas compared with old survey/land use maps, the prior use of the land, for vineyards and orchards, became clear. Despite the passage

All of this historic activity occurred despite the steep slopes, deep ravines, and

earthquake influenced landscapes found throughout the park. The Sanborn Trails Plan makuse of some of these historic landscapes to reduce the impacts of new trail construction by utilizing historic roadbeds, taking park users to those south facing meadows for the views they offer over the tops of the douglas-fir and redwood forests that dominate on the western halfthe park. Lessons can be learned, by observing which old roads are still in place and se

The Park’s current trail system includes approximately 19 miles of trails that are open to hikers and equestrians only (see Map 2 and Table 2), and a limited area open to dogs on-leash. Large portions of the park have no existing trails. Sanborn has the lowest density of trails (trailmiles per acre) of all the County parks that do not include large reservoirs. The primary alacking trails are the Lyndon Canyon drainage that extends from the Lake Ranch area to Lexington Reservoir County Park in the southeast, and the Bonjetti Creek and McElroy Creewatersheds in the northwest. The current trail system offers spectacular vistas and tranquil

Page 2-6


regional trails nvisioned for Sanborn County Park in the Countywide Trails Master Plan.

use,

rian erosion by not being built to any

standard or design and not subject to any maintenance.

ark

(see Map 2 for the Hostel location). Water service for the park is from existing wells at the site.

te

r classroom. The students that attend these programs are significant sers of the trail system.

prohibition on ock climbing, so rock climbers currently access rock formations at Sanborn.

E. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PARK TRAIL USAGE

en

uld increase to 88,738 visitors per year by 2025 without any additional attractions to the park.

his

landscapes, but can be quite challenging due to the steep grade encountered on many of the trails. Much of the current trail system is also unsuitable for the multiple-use e

A persistent problem at Sanborn County Park is the prevalence of volunteer trails coursing through the park, especially in the most heavily trafficked area of the park between theVisitor Center situated near the Day Use Area and Walden West and the Youth Hostel located off Pick Road. Volunteer trails are paths that were not sanctioned by the County for public however the County Parks Department monitors volunteer trails and determines whether a significant environmental impact or public safety issue needs to be addressed. These trails often do not meet the standards set forth in the Countywide Trails Master Plan or the Trail Guidelines. Additionally, these volunteer trails often occur in poorly suited terrain, or sensitive habitats, andcause damage to natural resources through such activities as trampling of vegetation in ripacorridors, compaction of soil around trees, and increased

The park provides 33 walk-in campsites for families and youth groups from spring

through fall and a year-round RV campground that has 14 spaces. In addition, the Sanborn PHostel, a member of American Youth Hostels, Inc., operates from the historic Welch-Hurst home (ca. 1913) within the park

The park also contains two environmental education centers. The Youth Science Institu

(YSI) operates out of the Dyer House (ca. 1915) located near the Day Use Area (see Map 2). The Walden West Outdoor Education Center, a program of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, is located on land surrounded by Sanborn. These environmental education programs use the park as their outdoou

Hiking is currently not prohibited off trail, so trail users are not prohibited from exploring features of the park, including rock formations. Currently, there is nor

Sanborn served an average of 72,145 park visitors per year during 1999, 2000 and 2001

(Strategic Plan, 2003 and Annual County Park Ranger Weekly Activity Report Summary). This number includes all park activities: hiking, horseback riding, camping, picnicking, special eventssuch as weddings, and also includes attendance levels from the Youth Science Institute, WaldWest and the Youth Hostel. Park visitation is anticipated to increase proportionally with the County’s population growth. Future projections by County Parks Department data suggest that the population in Santa Clara County will increase 23% by 2025. This would suggest that park use wo

Today, approximately 35% of the 72,145 annual visitors to Sanborn are trail users. T

amount equals 25,250 trail user visits (Santa Clara County Weekly Activity Reports, 2002-

Page 2-7


pper

vailable within each park and the interest and diversity of the trail system in each park.

in gs on-leash is

expected to be small, and that use will be distributed throughout all trails.

s

slightly more than the population growth projections because of the trail system improvements.

al

ted

d

nmental impacts, from the increase in use of trails will be kept to less than significant levels.

. PLANNED TRAIL USES

,

trails that meet the

ccessibility standards set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

rail Route Identification

rain

ost suitable routes and public uses, and then presented to the Technical Advisory Committee.

2005). Less than 2% of this number are equestrians. In County Parks that currently provide trails for mountain biking such as Almaden Quicksilver, Grant Ranch, Santa Teresa and UStevens Creek, mountain biking use varies from 5% to 50% of total park visitation. The variation is primarily due to the proximity of the park to population centers, other facilities a

Estimating the relative numbers of ‘new park visitors with dogs’ in comparison to the ‘existing users who will now bring their dogs when they visit’. However, the total increasepark visitation as a result of the expansion of access by dog walkers with do

It is expected that hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, and dog walkers will find the

planned Sanborn trail system worthy of visitation. Visitation would likely increase as more trailare constructed. The Sanborn Trails Plan will be implemented over many years as acquisition, easement and construction funding is secured. Thus, park visitation may increase

In 2025, using the 23% County population growth projections, trail use at Sanborn

County Park is projected to be 31,058 users without trail system improvements. If an addition10% of visitors were attracted to Sanborn because of these improvements, trail use would be projected to rise to 34,214 upon completion of the conversion phase, which is anticipated for 2011. As the entire trail system expands to full build-out, additional use of the park is expecto increase to 39,932 at build-out or 2025. The total park use of the Sanborn Trails Plan at buildout or 2025 is expected to be 97,612. According to the Strategic Plan, park use at Sanbornwould still be less than many other Santa Clara County Parks, some of which are substantiallysmaller in acreage than Sanborn (e.g., Vasona Lake Park, Lexington Reservoir Park, Coyote Hellyer Park, Los Gatos Creek Park, and Rancho San Antonio Park). All of these parks listehere have annual attendance that currently ranges from 150,000 visitors to over one million visitors per year. The enviro

F

Trails in the Sanborn Trails Plan are designated as hiking only, hiking/equestrian onlyhiking/mountain biking only, multiple-use or whole access. Multiple-use trails are those that offer access to hikers, equestrians and mountain bicyclists along the same trail. Dogs on-leashwill be allowed on all trails within Sanborn. Whole access trails are those a T

The planning process to identify feasible routes for the proposed trails involved lengthy evaluation of environmental and site constraints. The project team utilized vegetation and tersuitability mapping, and assessed existing and new routes. All of the ideas brought forth by these methods were discussed amongst the Project Team to determine the m

Page 2-8


rs

S)

,

Orchid, Redwood, Sedge, Spotted Coralroot Orchid, Tanoak, and Woolyleaf manzanita.

ing

r corridors most suitable for trail development were chosen for exploration by the roject team.

g of

utes were

the identification of which preliminary routes should be included in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

g

s

d for protection of habitat (see section - Park Areas med Unsuitable for Trail Development).

sed e

Vegetation mapping of all rural County Parks, including Sanborn began in 1999, utilizinginfrared imagery procured from Space Imaging Inc. Through an iterative process over six yeatime, using a combination of field verification by County Park’s staff, and spectral signatures derived from the imagery, vegetation communities and individual plants were mapped in the park with a high level of confidence. The following is a list of plant communities and individualspecies found in the park for which data is stored in the Geographic Information Systems (GIdatabase: Big leaf maple, Black oak, California annual grassland, California bay, Californiaground cone, California hazelnut, California sagebrush, Canyon live oak, Chamise, Creek dogwood, Coast live oak, Coastal scrub, Coyote brush, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, French broom, Freshwater emergent wetland, Ladies Tresses Orchid, Larkspur, remnant orchard, Mixed oakMixed sage, Mixed scrub oak, Oso Berry, Pink Flowering Currant, Poison oak, Rattlesnake

The landslide prone areas GIS dataset produced by the Santa Clara County Plann

Office, in combination with hydrology, slope, and geologic data, was used to conduct a suitability analysis using a GIS (Maps 3 and 4) that allowed the Project Team to narrow down the trail corridors most likely to be environmentally and economically feasible. Scores for each theme were given to each map area and then the total for each area from all themes were totaled; those with the lowest totals were deemed the most suitable for trail development. From this process, areas op

Trail assessments on these preliminary areas or corridors were conducted in the sprin2006 and involved approximately 30 days (6 hours per day) of hiking to determine the best routes. As routes were hiked, locations of springs, drainage crossings, animal sightings, sensitiveor unique plants, rock outcroppings, known cultural and Native American sites, and other pointsof interest were documented using Global Positioning Systems (GPS). As specific ronarrowed down, County Parks Staff proficient in related topical areas such as bridge construction, trail building, or natural resource protection collaborated on developing solutions to the challenges each route presented. These data were brought into the mapping system (from theGPS entries) to enable the Project Team to visualize areas of concern and choose an appropriate action to reduce that concern. This process was a key component in

Other considerations used when planning the trail alignments included maintainin

optimum trail width and the local and regional distribution of Sanborn Park’s vegetation communities. In determining trail suitability, staff referenced the Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995), which, depending on allowed public use, and trail and hillside slope, recommendan optimum 4 to 6-foot width for trails in mountainous parks. In addition, several routes that were under early consideration were later abandoned for reasons including, but not limited to a low likelihood of public benefit and the neeDee

Based on the “trail suitability factors” in maps 3 and 4 mentioned above, some areas of Sanborn are better suited for trails than others. However, in some cases other important factors may end up dictating that portions of trails pass through ‘poorly suited areas’ as that term is uin the suitability analysis. Trails in these areas may have more potential for erosion, but ar

Page 2-9


nty February 26, 2002), are

entified for additional maintenance to minimize problems.

. Planned Trail System

r xpansion of the trail system makes the park more

available and attractive to the park users.

.

trails are proposed ranging from ort one-quarter mile loops to five-mile long distance trails.

n

of

ction of the ail and trail use

plementation to occur without further CEQA documentation.

Regional Trail Linkages

s or

nsion

cultural and social evolution has brought with it a change in desired outdoor recreation activities

recommended for construction in order to create a varied trail system with connections to regional trails, variation in trail difficulty and clearly defined patterns of circulation. Trail segments proposed in more erosion prone areas, as defined by the official Santa Clara CouLandslide GIS dataset (approved by the Board of Supervisors onid G

The Sanborn Trails Plan defines an expanded trail system to meet the changing recreational and interpretive needs of a diverse and growing population. Sanborn is estimated to be operating below visitor capacity, thus the 3,688-acre park provides an immediate opportunityto attract and serve more park visitors. Sanborn has the lowest density of trails (trail miles per park acreage) of all the County parks that do not include large reservoirs (Almaden QuicksilveCounty Park Trails Master Plan, 1999). E

The Sanborn Trails Plan approximately doubles the length of the existing trail system

The current trail system provides 19 miles of trails for hikers and equestrians. The Sanborn Trails Plan adds a new trail use to Sanborn that currently does not exist: use of the trails by mountain bikers on trails designated for their use, and expands access to dogs on-leash. TheSanborn Trails Plan expands the system to approximately 38 miles of trails for hikers, dog walkers, equestrians and mountain bikers. Thirty-nine namedsh

The proposed alignments have been inspected on-foot in the field, however, final alignments may vary slightly for each route to respond to specific field conditions and mitigatiorequirements at the time of final design. As part of the Sanborn Trails Plan’s intent to protect natural resources in the park, assessments of the existing trails were conducted to identify areas of improvement and/or realignment in addition to defining routes for new trails. The analysis the planned trails system and proposed trail uses at Sanborn constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental work prior to construction, assuming the MMRP will be adopted and the Department’s BMPs are followed in the final design and construtrail for the proposed use. Adherence to this standard will allow trim

Three regional trail connections are planned within Sanborn: the Bay Area Ridge Trail,

the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail and the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail. These trailwill follow various trail alignments as shown in Map 5, and support shared or multiple uses fhikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and dog walkers. These regional routes reflect current visitor demands for multiple-use trails. Trail uses within the park are proposed for expabecause of the growing interest of the public as expressed through public meetings and comments received during the development of the Strategic Plan, Countywide Trails Master Plan, and the Sanborn Trails Plan. The once rural and agricultural character of the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” has steadily been transformed to the high tech culture of “Silicon Valley.” This

Page 2-10


such as trail uses. This plan reflects the significance of multiple-use trails, regional trail systems, and growing needs of the residents of Santa Clara County.

The Sanborn Trails Plan evaluates the existing trail system and weaves segments of the

existing trails into the new routes. The majority of the existing system is integrated into this plan, but in two areas, the trails are reorganized. In some instances, trails are closed off or rerouted to better protect park resources, improve circulation and reduce visitor confusion. The two areas of trail reorganization are the Day Use Area situated between the Youth Science Institute and Walden West and the parklands located east of Sanborn Road near the confluence of Sanborn and Aubry Creeks.

Both the Bay Area Ridge Trail (Route R5-A) and the Juan Bautista de Anza National

Historic Trail (Route R1-A) are identified in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. These two regional trails use segments of existing and planned trails and are shown on Map 5 – Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan.

The Bay Area Ridge Trail currently extends 4.8 miles through the park along the Skyline

Trail. The Sanborn Trails Plan proposes extending this route east to El Sereno Open Space Preserve on the Faultline Trail. The route would then exit the park property connecting with existing trails within El Sereno Open Space Preserve. In the future, this route would extend southward an additional 5.8 miles across the Trout Creek drainage to reenter County parkland at the Sycamore Property located on the western shore of Lexington Reservoir County Park and cross Highway 17 on the existing Bear Creek Road Overpass.

As a result of the trail planning evaluation of the environmental constraints, the Bay Area

Ridge Trail route varies in one area from what was described in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. Originally, this route was proposed to remain within Sanborn traversing the Lyndon Canyon drainage that lies in the southern most region of the park and is above the San Andreas Fault. The route through Lyndon Canyon was abandoned early in the planning process due to geological hazards including the fault, large active landslides and the need for numerous creek and tributary drainage crossings. The route along the Faultline Trail and through El Sereno OSP would achieve the goals of the Bay Area Ridge Trail, avoid significant environmental impacts to Lyndon Canyon, yet would still provide stunning views of the Santa Clara Valley.

As identified in the Countywide Trails Master Plan, the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT) is planned to cross Highway 9 to enter the northeast corner of the park on the Mt. Eden Trailand reach the Day Use Area via the Peterson Trail. Proposed use of a Highway 9 crossing location as described in the Countywide Trails Master Plan was not part of the Sanborn Trails Plan and thus would need to be explored in a future study. From the Day Use Area the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT climbs the Valley Vista Trail to the junction with the Bay Area Ridge Trail and then descends into the Lake Ranch Area on the John Nicholas Trail where the route shares the same trail alignment with the Bay Area Ridge Trail to Highway 17. This route would be 7.7 miles in length.

The Countywide Trails Master Plan also identified the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT using

the Stuart Ridge park property, which is currently not accessible to the public. This planned route was also dependent upon the County Parks Department securing other easements or

Page 2-11


acquisitions. The Sanborn Trails Plan proposes relocation of the trail fully within Sanborn County Park and uses planned trail routes to reach El Sereno OSP. This new route would allow the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT to be accessible to the public sooner than the previously proposed route in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. However, this long-term trail route should be retained for future development because it would serve other important park connection and trail user functions.

The regional Saratoga to Sanborn Trail has been recommended by the City of Saratoga,

and would connect Hakone Gardens to Sanborn. Since a formal plan for the trail has not been developed by the City of Saratoga, the alignments shown outside Sanborn are conceptual only. At the request of the City of Saratoga, a connection to this trail from the northeastern end of Sanborn was included. The regional Saratoga to Sanborn route will then utilize planned trails within Sanborn to reach the Skyline Trail adjacent to Hwy 35 (see Map 5 for details on the specific route).

Trail System within the Park

When the Sanborn Trails Plan is fully developed, visitors will be able to access 39 trails that offer a wide range of trail experiences (refer to Table 2). Each planned trail alignment was assessed using vegetation, listed species habitat, soils, hydrology, topography, and visitor circulation needs, to determine the appropriate public use (hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, dog walking, and whole access) for each alignment, and identify, avoid or mitigate potential significant impacts. The following planned trails reflect that analysis. The Sanborn Trails Plan includes relatively short trails with easy grades such as the San Andreas Fault Trail and portions of the Wood Rat Trail. It also provides steep, challenging routes such as the McElroy Ridge Trail that climbs to Skyline Ridge providing a more northerly route through the park. Recreationalists using the proposed hiking, mountain biking or equestrian trails could cover over nine miles before leaving the park boundary to enter adjacent MROSD or California State Park lands. Hiking Access

The existing trail system provides 19 miles of trails for hiking. The Sanborn Trails Plan

proposes doubling the mileage to 38 miles of trails accessible to hikers (Map 7 – Sanborn County Park Hiking Access Map). Of the 38 miles of trails, 11 miles would be open to hiking only and an additional 5 miles would be open to hiking and equestrian use only.

Equestrian Access

The existing trail system provides 15 miles of dual-use trails for hiking and equestrians.

The Sanborn Trails Plan proposes increasing the mileage to 25 miles of trails accessible to equestrians (Map 8 – Sanborn County Park Equestrian Access Map). Of the 25 miles of trails, 5 miles would be open to equestrians and hikers only. The remaining mileage is on shared multiple use trails. These trails vary in width from 4 to 10 feet.

Mountain Biking Access

Page 2-12


The existing trail system provides no mountain biking access. The Sanborn Trails Plan proposes opening existing trails and developing new routes to provide 23 miles of trails for mountain biking (Map 9 – Sanborn County Park Mountain Biking Access Map). Of the 23 miles of trails, 3 miles would be open to mountain bikers and hikers only. The remaining mileage is on shared multiple-use trails. These trails would vary in width from 4 to 10 feet.

Dog Walkers All trails will be accessible to dogs on leash (6-foot or less) and under control per the County Parks Department’s Administrative Policy #397, Dog Access in County Parks, approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 4, 2007, and County Ordinance Section B14-34.1, Pets in Parks, as revised by the County Board of Supervisors on September 11, 2007.

Accessible Trails Accessible Trails are those designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Two planned ‘fully accessible’ or whole access trails in the Sanborn Trails Plan are the Indian Rock Trail from the Indian Rock Staging Area to Indian Rock, and the Native Garden Trail at the Day Use Area. Construction of these trails will adhere to any local, state, or federal laws and will also comply with Section D 3.7 of the Countywide Trails Master Plan.

In Table 2 below, the ‘Use’ column contains abbreviations for public access to trails

(note that all trails, including whole access trails, are accessible to hikers and dog-walkers). In addition to hiking (H refers to hiking only) these are the additional uses allowed:

• E = Equestrian • B = Bicycle • M = Multiple-use (hiking/equestrian/mountain biking) • W = Whole Access (Fully accessible ADA compliant trail)

Table 2 Trail Summary Chart

Trail Number

Segment Letter Trail Name Use Width Length

Average Grade

1 ALL Valley Vista Trail M 4-6' 8,406 19% A 4-6' 600 18% B 4-6' 2,578 12% C 4-6' 5,228 15% 2 ALL Sanborn Trail E 2-4' 12,523 7% A 2-4' 2,070 0% B1 8-10' 3,105 8% C1 2-4' 5,172 10% D1 4-6' 912 5% E 2-4' 1,264 7% 3 ALL Aubry Cascade Trail H 2-4' 6,341 18% A2 8-10' 1,958 22%

B3 2-4' 175 3% C3 2-4' 263 -3%

Page 2-13



Trail Number


Average Grade

4 ALL1 Walk-In Campground Road H 8-10' 3,854 10% 5 ALL1 San Andreas Fault Trail H 8-10' 3,989 2%

A 8-10' 557 6% B 8-10' 442 -1% C 8-10' 2,990 -1%

6 ALL1 Vernon J. Pick Trail B 8-10' 6,606 6% A 8-10' 514 -3% B 8-10' 399 13% C 4-6' 1,151 -1% D on road 1,182 0% E 8-10' 2,656 13% F M 8-10' 1,617 7%

7 ALL3 Wood Rat Trail H 2-4' 6,433 7% A 2-4' 1,468 5% B 2-4' 2,036 17% C 2-4' 2,929 -15% 8 ALL3 Wood Rat Connector H 2-4' 421 -21% 9 ALL1 Lower Madrone Trail H 2-4' 4,743 11%

10 ALL1 Upper Madrone Trail E 8-10' 5,895 13% A 8-10' 2,080 12% B 8-10' 1,262 13% C 2-4' 2,553 13%

11 ALL1 San Andreas Fault Connector H 8-10' 659 10%

12 ALL Pourroy Trail H 2-4' 15,265 10% A 2-4' 2,506 0% B3 2-4' 3,744 -1% C3 2-4' 3,008 19% D 2-4' 6,007 17%

13 ALL Partridge Farm Trail H 2-4' 746 7% 14 ALL1 Walden Pond Loop H 2-4' 729 0% 15 ALL1 Walden Pond Connector H 8-10' 485 13% 16 ALL Native Garden Trail W 2-4' 798 0% 17 ALL Welch-Hurst Trail H 2-4' 3,435 7% A 2-4' 1,415 17% B1 2-4' 2,020 4%

18 ALL Peterson Trail M 4-6' 7,454 22% A 4-6' 1,514 -15% B1 4-6' 1,823 7% C1 4-6' 965 9% D2 4-6' 3,152 6%

19 ALL Sanborn Creek Loop M 4-6' 2,088 3% A1 4-6' 487 -3% B 4-6' 1,601 5%

Page 2-14



Trail Number


Average Grade

20 ALL3 Ohlone Trail H 2-4' 1,570 4% A 2-4' 632 -6% B 2-4' 938 -4%

21 ALL1 Sanborn Narrows Trail H 2-4' 958 6% 22 ALL Mt. Eden Trail M 8-10' 3,007 10% 23 ALL Stuart Ridge Trail E 8-10' 7,605 7% A 4-6' 3,460 15% B 8-10' 2,389 6% C 8-10' 1,756 13%

24 ALL Saratoga to Sanborn Trail E 4-6' 13,254 10%

25 ALL1 Lake Ranch Trail B 8-10' 2,750 13%

26 ALL1 Faultline Connector M 8-10' 619 3%

27 ALL Faultline Trail M 4-6' 7,201 5% A2 8-10' 5,576 1% B 4-6' 1,625 20% C 4-6' 2,475 15%

28 ALL Trout Creek Trail M 4-6' 3,227 19% A 4-6' 10,321 4% B 4-6' 3,227 19%

29 ALL John Nicholas Trail M 8-10' 17,204 6% A1 8-10' 10345 -1% B 4-6' 4229 17% C2 8-10' 2630 13%

30 ALL1 Skyline Trail M 4-6' 25,693 1%

31 ALL1 Sunnyvale Mtn. Loop H 2-4' 739 1%

32 ALL1 Todd Creek Redwoods Trail H 2-4' 2,326 13%

33 ALL Springboard Trail M 4-6' 4,422 11% A 4-6' 1,685 10% B 4-6' 2,737 11%

34 ALL Summit Rock Trail M 4-6’ 966 8%

35 ALL McElroy Ridge Trail M 4-6' 11,080 11% A 4-6' 4,800 10% B 4-6' 1,712 7% C 4-6' 4,568 13%

36 ALL3 Lumberjack Trail H 2-4' 2,113 12%

374 All Indian Rock Trail 4-6’ 2,005 7%

A W 4-6’ 495 12%

B H 4-6’ 1,510 5%

38 ALL DiFiore Trail M 4-6' 4,129 12% A3 4-6' 1,213 16% B 4-6' 2,916 11%

Page 2-15



Trail Number


Average Grade

C3 DiFiore Overlook Trail 4-6' 639 10%

39 ALL Summit Rock Loop M 8-10' 5,925 7% A 8-10' 3,674 -12% B 8-10' 2,251 16%

1 Existing Trail 2 Existing Service Road to be converted to public use 3 Historic Road Bed to be reclaimed for public use H. SPECIFIC TRAIL DESCRIPTIONS

A short description of each trail and the reason for inclusion in the Sanborn Trails Plan is provided below for each of the 39 routes. The trails are listed by route number under the appropriate trail use category: hiking trails, hiking/equestrian trails, hiking/mountain biking trails and multiple-use trails (hiking/equestrian/mountain biking). Dogs on-leash will be allowed on all trails. A matrix specifying areas of access and closure will be posted on the Parks and Recreation Department website. Additional details are provided on these routes in the Sanborn Trails Plan under Appendix F – Trail Summaries (bound separately).

Hiking Trails

• Aubry Cascade Trail (#3) – provides a new single-track hiking only route and spectacular

view of creek cascade.

• Walk-in Campground Road (#4) – provides access to walk-in campgrounds from upper parking lot.

• San Andreas Fault Trail (#5) – used for interpretation and environmental education.

• Wood Rat Trail (#7) – provides new interpretive opportunities and wooded trail experience close to environmental education centers.

• Wood Rat Connector (#8) – provides short cut between Wood Rat Trail and San Andreas Fault Trail to assist environmental education programs.

• Lower Madrone Trail (#9) – provides remote, rugged trail experience.

• San Andreas Fault Connector (#11) – provides a short cut and wooded trail experience between maintenance shop and San Andreas Fault Trail. Serves power lines in park.

• Pourroy Trail (#12) – provides connection to Pourroy residences and loop trail in northern area of the park. Completion is contingent upon future acquisitions or easements.

Page 2-16


• Partridge Farm Trail (#13) –This trail connection to Castle Rock State Park would not be

constructed unless a crossing over Hwy 35 was desired and a design approved by all involved agencies.

• Walden Pond Loop (#14) – circumnavigates the pond and provides water access for environmental education programs.

• Walden Pond Connector (#15) – provides short cut for Walden West students between Pick Road and San Andreas Fault Trail.

• Native Garden Trail (#16) – provides new interpretive whole access trail close to the Youth Science Institute, especially designed for very young children.

• Welch-Hurst Trail (#17) – provides access from western parklands to eastern parklands across Sanborn Road.

• Ohlone Trail (#20) – leads to grinding stones for interpretation.

• Sanborn Narrows Trail (#21) – provides scenic views and water access on Sanborn Creek. May be developed to provide a fully accessible trail for all users.

• Sunnyvale Mountain Loop (#31) – short loop immediately accessible from Skyline Boulevard.

• Todd Creek Redwoods Trail (#32) – area will be limited to foot traffic only to provide for restoration and interpretation.

• Lumberjack Trail (#36) – provides opportunity to view historic logging area and second

growth redwoods in the headwaters of McElroy Creek.

• Indian Rock Trail (#37) – provides opportunity to view Tafone formations. Intended to provide a whole access route, to Indian Rock from the staging area, for all users to experience these unique geologic features.

Hiking/Equestrian Trails

• Sanborn Trail (#2) – provides access at mid-elevation and connections to many other

trails. • Upper Madrone Trail (#10) – provides access to Skyline Ridge. • Stuart Ridge Trail (#23) – provides access to Stuart Ridge property and implements

Connector Trail 13 (C-13) identified in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. • Saratoga to Sanborn Trail (#24) – provides trail connection to downtown Saratoga.

Page 2-17


Hiking/Mountain Biking Trails

• Vernon J. Pick Trail (#6) – provides access from Day Use Area into the trail system. Leads to the former Pick Labs Residence with views to the Santa Clara Valley.

• Lake Ranch Trail (#25) – provides short cut from Lake Ranch to Sanborn Road.

Multiple Use Trails

• Valley Vista Trail (#1) – provides highly desired connection between Day Use Area and

Lake Ranch Area. There are stunning views of the undeveloped areas of Sanborn from the route. Completion is contingent upon a single acquisition or easement.

• Vernon J. Pick Trail (#6) – final segment (6F) provides a multiple-use route to the former

Pick home site and McElroy Ridge Trail.

• Peterson Trail (#18) – provides important connection between Aubry Creek and Sanborn Creek confluence area and Day Use Area.

• Sanborn Creek Loop (#19) – provides views into Sanborn Creek drainage and additional

loop until lease expires on adjacent parkland parcel. • Mt. Eden Trail (#22) – provides access across Highway 9 for Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail. • Faultline Connector (#26) – provides short cut from John Nicholas Trail to Faultline Trail

extending to El Sereno Open Space Preserve. • Faultline Trail (#27) – serves as Bay Area Ridge Trail and Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail connection to El Sereno Open Space Preserve. • Trout Creek Trail (#28) - serves as Bay Area Ridge Trail and Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail alignment and provides access to Highway 17 crossing. • John Nicholas Trail (#29) – provides highly desired connection between Skyline Trail

and Lake Ranch Area. Serves as Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment. • Skyline Trail (#30) – provides northeast to southwest route along the ridgeline. This route

is the highest point in the park and offers views of Monterey Bay. Serves as Bay Area Ridge Trail and Saratoga to Sanborn Trail alignment. Two spur trails off the Skyline Trail are considered part of the Skyline Trail and planned for full multiple-use access. These trails will retain their current names: the Service Road Trail (south of the Summit Rock Parking Area) and the Connector Trail (north of the Indian Rock Parking Area). The public use of these trails will be designated to match the corresponding uses of the connecting trails in Castle Rock State Park. If Castle Rock State Park revises the public use of these trails on the segments in their jurisdiction, then the County will consider a

Page 2-18


change to the public use of Sanborn’s segments of these trails to be consistent with the adjacent jurisdiction. However, any future modifications would be limited only up to the planned maximum use of the trail as described in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

• Springboard Trail (#33) – provides mid-elevation loop opportunity with McElroy Trail. • Summit Rock Trail (#34) – provides access to Summit Rock.

• McElroy Ridge Trail (#35) – provides new northerly route to Skyline Ridge. • DiFiore Trail (#38) – provides loop between Indian Rock Trail and Summit Rock Loop. • Summit Rock Loop (#39) – provides loop from Skyline Trail and access to Tafone

features found off Summit Rock Trail. I. PARK AREAS DEEMED UNSUITABLE FOR TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

A number of the trail routes explored were deemed unsuitable for trail development. The

route within the Lyndon Canyon drainage from the Sycamore property at Lexington County Park to Lake Ranch at Sanborn was excluded from the Sanborn Trails Plan due to seismic hazards, large active landslides and the need for numerous creek and tributary crossings. The tributary drainages to the west of Lyndon Canyon were explored for possible mountain biking and hiking loops off the John Nicholas Trail. However, this entire area was also deemed unsuitable due to steep slopes and seismic hazards.

The goal of developing a mid-elevation trail route running the length of the park was not

achieved. In those areas of the park where suitable routes (DiFiore Trail, McElroy Ridge and Springboard Trail) were found, the elevation was much higher than previously desired. The trail loops created by these mid-elevation trails are shorter from Skyline Ridge and longer from the Day Use Area. The steep canyon walls in the headwaters of Bonjetti Creek and McElroy Creek made these areas unsuitable for trail development.

The area south of the confluence of Todd Creek and Bonjetti Creek and to the north of

Walden West was explored for a route to cross Sanborn Road and access to the parklands to the east. But this area was also deemed unsuitable for trail development, as it was second only to Lyndon Canyon in the number of active landslides.

As unique habitat and plants were encountered, assessments on the potential impact to

those resources were considered, both in the context of their specific location and park-wide distribution. For example:

• Planned trails in the Bonjetti, Todd, and McElroy Creek Watershed area were re-routed to avoid chaparral due to its relative rarity on this slope.

• To avoid impacts to waterfowl known to frequent this long, narrow 15-acre reservoir, a trail on the western shore of Lake Ranch Reservoir was not included in the Sanborn Trails Plan. The existing John Nicholas Trail on the eastern shore of the reservoir will be retained with the additional use of the trail by mountain bikers and dog walkers.

Page 2-19


• A trail to a cascade from the McElroy Ridge Trail was deemed environmentally undesirable given the final ascent to the cascade and the relative isolation of this trail from existing and planned trailheads. A trail of similar scenic value was retained due to its proximity to the walk-in campground and the Day Use Area.

The process whereby the Department scouted and evaluated trails involved identifying

feasible routes, and evaluating areas of constraint, such as water crossings, active landslides, rare habitat, and sensitive historic sites. As fieldwork was conducted, all site constraints were documented using GPS and added to the GIS database. The Project Team and Technical Advisory Committee were informed about areas to avoid, thereby narrowing the choices until an optimum trail alignment was identified.

J. TRAILS PROPOSED FOR ABANDONMENT AND TRAIL BED RESTORATION County Ordinance Section B14-12.1(d), Custody of park property, authorizes the Parks

and Recreation Department to “ prohibit such activities or uses which are deemed to be of hazardous nature, or of a nature which endangers property”. The Sanborn Trails Plan clearly identifies legitimate trails, and abandons and restores the current web of volunteer trails between the Youth Science Institute and Walden West, in accordance with this ordinance and Section M 3.7 of the Countywide Trails Master Plan. The majority of trails proposed for closure or rerouting are within these two areas. Trails proposed for closure or rerouting include segments of the existing San Andreas Trail, Nature Trail, Peterson Trail, Sanborn Road Cut-off, Pourroy Road (landslide area) and an old logging road dubbed “Heartbreak Hill.”

Three primary trails weave between Walden West and the Day Use Area: Peterson, San

Andreas, and the Nature Trail. The width of the trails has been allowed to stray over the years, resulting in areas where the trails are 15 to 20 feet wide. The upper segments of the Peterson Trail, the historic ”Downer Road” which dates back to the 1870s, needs to be abandoned and restored, closing a steep, gullied, road-width trail. A segment of the Nature Trail parallels two other trails on either side, that is duplicative and should be abandoned and restored. Two segments of the Nature Trail parallel the existing San Andreas Trail and should be abandoned and restored.

Heartbreak Hill is an unsanctioned, incredibly steep former utility access route, upon

which public use must be discontinued as the route leads hikers to an unsafe crossing of Sanborn Road. A new trail located a half-mile to the south will replace this unsanctioned route and lead users to a safe crossing of Sanborn Road. The road to the former Pourroy Property, another piece of the historic “Downer Road” should be abandoned and restored. A new trail is planned to be built away from and above the 100’ wide landslide, avoiding the hazards and maintenance responsibilities of the current route.

There are also many small segments of volunteer trails (volunteer trails are paths that

were not established by the operating agency for public use) proposed for closure in the Aubry Creek and Sanborn Creek confluence. Most of these trails are unnamed so description of their closure is difficult. Map 10 identifies the location of these closures. Removal of duplicate routes is a primary objective in the Sanborn/Aubry Creek confluence area. Due to the collapse of an

Page 2-20


unmortared stone bridge, the crossing of Aubry Creek was accomplished in four separate routes that each caused hillside erosion and are detrimental to the health of the creek. In accordance with applicable permit requirements, a new bridge is planned to be built around the remaining abutments, removing users from the creek bed without damaging the potentially historic bridge site. Several other trails parallel one another, though they are only a short distance away from one another.

A portion of the Indian Rock Trail along Skyline Ridge would be realigned to reduce

erosion and provide an ADA accessible route to the rock formations. Roads in the area of the former Biddles property would be closed. In addition, there are some areas throughout the park where old logging roads could be recontoured and revegetated as habitat improvements (see Map 10 – Sanborn County Park Trail Abandonment Map).

Best Management Practices for volunteer trail abandonment and trailbed restoration can

be found in Section M. Other volunteer trails not included in Table 3, which may be either game trails or caused by human activities, will continue to be monitored to determine if they have become a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users.

The Sanborn Trails Plan provides that trails to be abandoned and trail bed areas to be

restored (see Table 3) will be done by hand or Sweco Trail Dozer (small, mechanized trail building tractor 4 feet in width) on 4' trails and could be done by a larger piece of equipment (tractor or backhoe) on the few road-width trails. In areas where an old trail is being relocated or abandoned, the trail under restoration shall be posted ‘not a trail, habitat restoration taking place’.

Table 3

Trail Abandonment Chart

Name and Park Location Width, in feet

Length, in feet

Area, in square feet

Former Peterson Trail - Day Use Area 8 1,923 15,386Former Nature Trail - Day Use Area 2 631 1,262Former Nature Trail - Day Use Area 2 548 1,095Former Nature Trail - Day Use Area 2 541 1,081Former Nature Trail - Day Use Area 2 202 403Former Nature Trail - Day Use Area 2 154 308Sanborn Road Cut-off - Connects to Heartbreak Hill 8 327 2,618Former San Andreas Trail - Day Use Area 3 1,847 5,540Former San Andreas Trail - Day Use Area 12 371 4,456Lower Madrone Trail (future closure) - Day Use Area 2 4,743 9,486Former Walden Trail - Day Use Area 5 1,083 5,415Old Roadbed - Campground Area Site 10 8 308 2,461Old Roadbed - Campground Area Site 25 8 178 1,427Aubry Cascade Trail - Above Cascade 2 2,885 2,885Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area Crossing Aubry Creek 4 334 1,336Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area Crossing Aubry Creek 4 434 1,734

Page 2-21


Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area - Behind Pipe Gate 4 160 638Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area Between Ohlone and Peterson Trails 4 201 803Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area - Staging Area 4 119 476Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area - Along Aubry Creek 4 334 1,338Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area - Along Aubry Creek 3 366 1,099Volunteer Trail - Sanborn Road Area - Below Culvert 4 160 641Ohlone Trail (reroute) - Sanborn Road Area 4 30 122Old Wood Cutting Road - Sanborn Road Area - Downslope from Mt. Eden Trail 2 1,315 2,631Historic Roadbed - "Heartbreak Hill" - Walden West to Sanborn Road 4 929 3,717Connector Trail from Youth Hostel to Walden Pond 2 119 239Water Tank Road (section past water tank to Lower Madrone Trail) 8 161 1,288Indian Rock Trail (reroute) - Skyline Area 12 131 1,572Indian Rock Trail (reroute) - Skyline Area 12 402 4,823Volunteer Trail - Skyline Area - Seagraves Site 2 331 662Skyline Trail (reroute) - Skyline Area - The Peak 4 1,807 7,228TOTAL 23,074

feet 84,168

square feet

K. STAGING AREAS, ROADWAY CROSSINGS AND TRAIL AMENITIES

Staging Areas There are eight staging areas included in the Sanborn Trails Plan. Of the eight staging

areas, one is new, one is modified to accommodate equestrians (Day Use Area), one is proposed for expansion (Sunnyvale Mountain), two are proposed for reconfiguration for improved patrol and resource protection and three would remain unchanged (see Map 5 – Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Map). The following provides specific details on these staging area improvements:

1. Sanborn Road at Highway 9 (unchanged) Informal parking for five or six cars is available on pavement along Sanborn Road near

the access to the Sanborn Narrows Trail. There are no plans to modify this parking area. 2. Sanborn Road at Welch-Hurst Trail Crossing (new) A small, unorganized staging area currently exists along Sanborn Road and is proposed

for improvements in the vicinity of a planned pedestrian crossing down the hill from Walden West. This pedestrian crossing would provide access between the majority of the park located to the west of Sanborn Road and the acreage located to the east of Sanborn Road (see Figure 1). The Welch-Hurst Trail would bring hikers to Sanborn Road and the Sanborn Creek Loop, which connects to the Peterson Trail. A new pedestrian bridge is proposed at the historic rock bridge abutments located on Aubry Creek. The multiple-use Peterson Trail would extend from the Mt. Eden Trail to the Day Use Area. A modest parking area holding five vehicles is proposed at this

Page 2-22


location. This pedestrian crossing is intended to improve upon the ad hoc crossing now used by students further down Sanborn Road where “Heartbreak Hill” terminates. The design of this improved staging area includes fencing, bollards, and bulkheads to minimize public use conflicts and reduce existing environmental impacts. For this reason, no significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements.

This analysis of the staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require

further environmental analysis prior to construction. The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department reviewed the conceptual plans and required that the County Parks Department consult with them prior to any construction of this parking area (pers. comm. Peter Hu, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, County Roads and Airports Department).

3. Youth Hostel (unchanged) There is parking for 8 to 10 cars at the Youth Hostel. This parking area serves youth

hostel visitors. There are no plans to modify this parking area. 4. Lower Parking Lot of the Day Use Area (modified for equestrians) To accommodate horse trailers, modifications to the lower parking lot in the Day Use

Area are proposed. At this time, there are no equestrian specific facilities within the Day Use Area. Conversion of this 10-car lot would accommodate two equestrian trailers and a hitching area, and result in the loss of all 10 parking spaces. The staging area would directly connect to the Peterson Trail and greatly facilitate equestrian access into the trail system (see Figure 2). The design of this staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental analysis prior to construction. No significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements.

5. Indian Rock (reconfigured) The Indian Rock parking area would be reconfigured to reduce tree impacts and to avoid

existing drainage issues. The Indian Rock Staging Area currently extends approximately 250 feet along Highway 35. Approximately 95 feet of this area would be closed off to the public to protect existing trees and move vehicles out of standing water (large puddles which form from Highway 35 surface sheet flow). This is also the deepest and widest section of the parking area although it is poorly used because of the trees. The remaining parking area would be formalized for parking (see Figure 3). The parking area tapers to the south. This area would be widened just a few feet to align with of the rest of the frontage. No trees would be removed for this slight widening. Formalizing the lot and defining the parking spaces will increase the parking capacity of the staging area while avoiding existing impacts to existing trees.

The current parking area can accommodate approximately 10 cars. It is possible to add a

couple more cars in between the trees if every driver parks efficiently, but typically there is a collection of parallel parking, diagonal parking and straight in parking which results in significant under utilization of the space. The configured parking lot would accommodate approximately the same number of cars. The design of this staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental analysis prior to construction. No

Page 2-23


significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements. Prior to the reconfiguration of this staging area, construction plans will be submitted to Caltrans for their review, approval, and issuance of any necessary permits, including the effect, if any, of the Castle Rock State Park General Plan (1999) element that calls for removal of parking along Hwy 35.

The Castle Rock State Park General Plan recommends the removal of public parking

along Skyline Blvd., starting south of Sanborn’s Summit Rock parking area for 2.1 miles to the south. If Caltrans is in agreement with State Parks, this Castle Rock State Park General Plan proposed change would negatively affect the Indian Rock staging area. This Sanborn parking area is needed to provide access to one of the most prominent vista points in the park, and will provide the only Whole Access Trail to a vista point within Sanborn, and direct access to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. In the event that Caltrans does not permit this proposed reconfiguration of the Indian Rock staging area, the County could move the parking area outside of the Caltrans right of way and into the boundaries of Sanborn. The environmental impacts of moving the staging area into Sanborn have already been reviewed at a project level and no significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements. Any permits or other approvals from Caltrans will be obtained prior to construction.

6. Summit Rock (reconfigured) Improvements to the Summit Rock parking area are proposed to facilitate patrol and to

provide an alignment for the Skyline Trail adjacent to the parking area. The existing parking lot does make efficient use of space, due to a lack of marked parking spaces. The proposed improvements would formalize the parking area and provide the best use of limited parking space. The reconfigured parking area would ensure the current maximum number of parking spaces, 20 cars, would be available every day (see Figure 4). Improvements at Summit Rock parking area would require review by Caltrans since the majority of the parking area is within the Caltrans right of way, and because the access from Highway 35 would be changed. The design of this staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental analysis prior to construction. No significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements.

7. Sunnyvale Mountain (expanded for additional vehicles) Modifications to the Sunnyvale Mountain parking area are proposed to accommodate

additional vehicles (see Figure 5). Improvements at Sunnyvale Mountain staging area would accommodate 19 vehicles, an increase of 13 spaces from the existing configuration. While this staging area is also accessed from Highway 35, the staging area is set back from the roadway and therefore no changes to the access driveway are proposed. The design of this staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental analysis prior to construction. No significant environmental impacts will result from these staging area improvements.

8. Black Road (unchanged) Black Road provides parking for three or four cars in its current configuration. No

Page 2-24


changes are contemplated in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

Roadway Crossings Two roadway crossings are proposed on Sanborn Road. A pedestrian crossing is

proposed from the Welch-Hurst Trail to the new staging area on Sanborn Road. This crossing would link the Sanborn lands on either side of Sanborn Road. It would be an important crossing for Walden West students (see Figure 2). A second crossing is proposed on Sanborn Road in the vicinity of the park entrance. The crossing would link parkland currently closed to the public to the Day Use Area. This crossing would serve the multiple-use Peterson Trail (see Figure 2). The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department has reviewed these two crossings in concept (pers. comm. Peter Hu, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, County Roads and Airports Department) and will be consulted prior to implementation to secure all required approvals and permits. The design of this crossing constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental analysis prior to construction. No significant environmental impacts will result from these proposed crossings.

The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose a crossing design for Highway 35, but

identifies a future trail alignment to this location (Partridge Farm Trail) from the County trail system should this crossing be desired in the future. This trail connection would not be constructed unless a trail crossing was desired and a design approved by all involved agencies. Educational Gathering Spaces and Shelters

Three gathering spaces and shelters for environmental education activities are proposed

along the trails. The shelters would consist of a simple pole barn structure and would provide shelter from inclement weather for students participating in environmental education activities (see Map 5 – Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Map). These shelters would, to the extent possible be made from local materials found on site, and have post footings, but would not have concrete pad or floors, and would require only minimal grading. These shelters would be large enough for a group of 20 kids to sit in a circle under the structure. L. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Signage Program

An expanded signage program is critical to clarify name and use changes to the existing

trail system and to highlight new routes. Where a new trail construction creates inter-park crossings, the County will erect signs informing the public of changes in trail use and regulations as they are leaving one jurisdiction and entering another. The signage program will follow the signage guidelines established in the Countywide Trails Master Plan including M 1.3.1 which recommends appropriate signage, discouraging unauthorized use, be placed where trail use is restricted to a particular type of user, Policy PR-TS 4.6, which states “All trails should be marked. Signed information should be provided to encourage responsible trail use. Appropriate markers should be established along historically significant trail routes”, and PR-TS (i) 4.H to “clearly sign trails. Provide trail users with information regarding property rights in order to minimize public/private use conflicts and trespassing.”

Page 2-25


The County will indicate on leash dog access trails with appropriate signage consistent

with County Ordinance Section B14-34.1, Pets in Parks and County Parks Policy #397, Dog Access in County Park.

In areas where an old trail is being relocated or abandoned, the trail under restoration

shall be posted ‘not a trail, habitat restoration taking place’. Conversion Phase The conversion phase is a short-range plan to open those portions of Sanborn to new trail user groups where capital improvement funds are not immediately required. The conversion phase allows some of the benefits of the Sanborn Trails Plan to be realized using existing operation and maintenance funds and volunteer support to build trails. The conversion phase, which opens the Skyline Area of the park to mountain biking, and expands access for dog walkers, provides some immediate benefits to the public and fulfills the priorities in the Strategic Plan (2003). The remaining routes, which make up the existing trail system, would remain open to equestrians and hikers as currently designated. The County Parks Department expects to implement all elements listed in the conversation phase within three years of the plan’s approval. All elements of the conversion phase have been analyzed at a project level and potential environmental impacts reduced to less than significant levels. Standards for signage in the preceding section will be adhered to in the conversion phase. All trail construction projects in the conversion phase are located on parklands owned and currently open to the public. None of these projects require new land acquisition, easements or the expiration of leases.

As part of the conversion phase, the construction of the first segments of the Valley Vista Trail (Routes 1A and 1B) and Sanborn Trail (2A) would be implemented to provide a connection from the Day Use Area into the existing trail system for hikers, and eventually for equestrians when adequate staging facilities are developed for horse trailers in the Day Use Area. The Valley Vista Trail (1A and 1B) and Sanborn Trail (2A) provide an alternate route to the paved Walk-In Campground Trail, which currently serves campers and hikers.

The conversion phase also includes the extension of the John Nicholas Trail (Routes 29B

and 29C), a key regional alignment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail, which would provide access to Lake Ranch from the Skyline Trail near the Sunnyvale Mountain staging area. It would lengthen the number of miles of trail and diversify the terrain accessible from Highway 35 for all trail users. Following construction of this trail, mountain bikers would be provided access to all newly designated multiple-use ridgeline trails, including the Skyline Trail, Summit Rock Loop Trail, and the existing John Nicholas Trail from Black Road to Sanborn Road. As a multiple-use route, the 1.3 mile addition of the John Nicholas Trail would make the Skyline Area attractive for mountain bicyclists who would be limited to this area of the park during the conversion phase. Upgrades to the Skyline Trail (Route 30) are also proposed with the conversion phase. These improvements include minor trail repairs, rerouting a short segment of trail and the abandonment and restoration of the old trail bed.

As part of the conversion phase, dogs on-leash and under control of their handlers will be

allowed on all trails in accordance with County Parks Policy #397, Dog Access in County Parks

Page 2-26


and subject to County Ordinance Section B14-34.1, Pets in Parks.

New Trail Construction Proposed for Conversion Phase • Valley Vista Trail (Routes 1A and 1B) and Sanborn Trail (2A) • John Nicholas Trail (Routes 29B and 29C) • Skyline Trail (Route 30), upgrades only

Staging Areas and Amenities

Modifications are proposed to the following two existing staging areas to enhance access

to the multiple use trail system.

• Day Use Area Parking Lot Modifications to Accommodate Equestrians • Sunnyvale Mountain Staging Area Development

These two improvements are beyond the scope of a volunteer trail building crew, but

should be completed as grant funds or capital improvement program funds become available in future years. Each of these access improvements is associated with development triggers.

Long-Range Phasing Plan The proposed trails and amenities of the Sanborn Trails Plan have been ranked and identified within three phases for implementation with tiered development priorities. Each phase includes the types of trail uses and the amenities (access improvements and staging areas) and trail abandonments associated with the routes. There is no additional ranking within the phases.

The placement of the trails within the three phases does not reflect any known constraints to trail development, but reflects the community’s preference for the new trail route. A handful of these new routes are constrained by the need for future land acquisitions or easements, the expiration of leases on existing public lands with neighboring agencies.

The tiered priorities are intended to allow the plan to be implemented over time as

funding resources and development opportunities arise. It is assumed that, all else being equal, Phase 1 priorities would be constructed first. Full details of this phasing plan are contained in Chapter 4 Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan. M. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Prior to construction of all proposed creek crossings, the California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG) would require notification and a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1600 of the CDFG code. CDFG Code 1602 states that "An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake...where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake" unless CDFG is notified and a Streambed Alteration Agreement is obtained. Although many of the drainages in Sanborn are located at higher elevations and only convey water during storm events or because of a nearby spring or seep, they still fall under the jurisdiction of CDFG (D. Johnston, pers. comm.). Currently, separate notification and fee submittal is required for each

Page 2-27


work site or crossing to be installed. However, if a crossing, such as a bridge, can be installed without disturbing the creek bed, channel or bank with no riparian vegetation removed, no notification is necessary.

It is estimated that the Sanborn Trails Plan would add 24 drainage crossings and convert

to public use two existing drainage crossings. The drainage crossings are classified into six categories: large bridge (>60 feet), small bridge (15 to 59 feet), puncheon, turnpike, rock crossing and stepping stones. All bridges would be clear spans. The totals per category are:

• Large bridge = 4 • Small bridge = 6 plus 1 existing now for public use • Puncheon = 7 • Turnpike = 4 • Rock crossing (rock ford) = 1 plus 1 existing now for public use • Stepping stones = 2

It is possible there would be need for other small drainage crossings not identified at this

time due to the scale of this master plan effort. It is anticipated that these would be primarily puncheons across seasonal drainages only. There are many areas in Sanborn where flows exist only during storm events. However, these areas would need drainage crossings to prevent the trails from washing out.

Of the large bridges, two span Aubry Creek, one spans Sanborn Creek and one spans Trout Creek (Trout Creek Trail - acquisition needed thus placement of bridge remains undefined). Of the small bridges, one spans Sanborn Creek, two span tributaries to Sanborn Creek, one spans tributary to Aubry Creek, one spans Bonjetti Creek and one spans McElroy Creek or Bonjetti Creek (Pourroy Trail - acquisition needed thus placement of bridge remains undefined). The placement of any bridges, and construction of trails, on lands outside the boundaries of the project were not analyzed as part of this plan and will require separate environmental analysis prior to implementation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Incorporated Into the Project

The County Board of Supervisors adopted the Countywide Trails Master Plan in 1995,

and approved the Trail Guidelines in 1999. Both of these documents establish the County Parks Departments best management practices for trail siting, trail construction, and trail maintenance that will be used to avoid or reduce impacts to natural resources and to sensitive receptors. The Sanborn Trails Plan contains a listing of geologic and hydrologic features that exist within Sanborn. The Sanborn Trails Plan also contains a Trail Suitability Analysis and Trail Design Guidelines that are specific to Sanborn. These are listed as Appendix C of the Sanborn Trails Plan. Inclusion of all of these as conditions of the project would ensure that potential environmental impacts would be kept to less than significant levels.

In addition, the following BMPs have been incorporated into the project to ensure that

project-related effects are minimized or avoided. Successful implementation of these design guidelines and BMPs by County Park staff would ensure the minimization of air quality impacts related to construction dust, avoidance of spread of sudden oak death syndrome, avoidance of

Page 2-28


geological hazards, and minimization of erosion and siltation of creeks and other water bodies. All trails proposed for development within Sanborn have been analyzed at a project level,

whereby impacts are reduced to less than significant levels when the plan’s BMPs and the mitigation measures identified in this document’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) are adhered to. Below are BMPs for trail construction that all trails developed under this plan will adhere to. Air Quality BMP

The following best management practice would be implemented at all construction sites to minimize PM10 emissions during construction.

1) Sweep daily if visible soil material is carried out onto adjacent public streets, paved

park access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Biological BMPs To discourage the spread of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SOD), the following BMPs would be used:

1) Inform work crews that they are working in an area with SOD, such that unauthorized movement of plant material would be prohibited. Do not transport or move host plants, infected soil, or plant material such as firewood, wood chip or bark mulch from infested areas. When brushing, pruning or cutting live or dead host plants in an infested area, leave trunks, foliage, slash, and chips at the same area. Do not leave firewood and chips in areas such as along edges of road or at trail heads where they might be transported to another location. Locate landings, roads, chipping sites, equipment access, staging areas, and other equipment activity areas away from host plants in infested areas, especially those host plants showing symptoms of SOD. If some sites in the park are found to be disease-free or have a low incidence of disease, consider initiating work in these sites before moving to more heavily infested sites.

2) To the extent practical and feasible, choose trail alignments that avoid areas

containing host plant and trees that have disease symptoms. Locate staging areas away from host plants, especially areas with disease symptoms.

3) Whenever possible, schedule tree removals from June to October when conditions are

warm and dry, and avoid removing diseased trees during the wetter months which favor pathogen spread – November to May.

4) When work must be conducted during the wet season in infested areas, stay on roads

or trails.

5) When cutting vegetation in infested areas, clean soil and vegetation off equipment, including pruning saws, chainsaws, loppers, etc, then spray or wipe the tools with

Page 2-29


Lysol, Chlorine bleach mixture (10 parts bleach to 90 parts water), Clorox Clean-up® swipes, 10% denatured alcohol, or similar substances, preferably on site.

6) Sanitizing pruning tools before pruning healthy trees is a best management practice to

reduce the spread of other debilitating plant diseases including rust, pine pitch canker, and anthracnose.

7) Before relocating earthmoving, tree trimming, chipping, or mowing equipment or

tractors from infested areas, sweep, wash off or otherwise remove accumulations of plant debris (especially leaves), soil and mud, and blow out air filters, preferably on site. Truck-mounted pumpers, garden hoses, or a pressure washer can be used for cleaning large equipment.

8) Whenever practical, after driving all-terrain vehicles or mules, hiking, bicycling or

otherwise working in an infested area, brush, wash off, or otherwise remove accumulations of plant debris (especially leaves), soil and mud from shoes, boots, tires and vehicles. Spray the bottom of cleaned shoes or boots and the floor mat of your vehicle with Lysol. Footwear and vehicles will be cleaned before traveling to an area not infested, preferably on site, or at the closest field office.

9) If an infested tree has died, do not remove but fall and leave in place. Cut tree as

close to the ground as practical. Stump grinding is not recommended because the equipment may become contaminated by soil and result in pathogen spread when used at another location.

Geologic BMPs

The following design guidelines would be followed during detailed design of the trails so

that the trails avoid geologic hazards and minimize erosion.

1) All trails should be designed in accordance with the Countywide Trails Master Plan Design and Management Guidelines.

2) Trails should not follow the fall line of a slope; they should contour along side slopes.

Fall-line trails become watercourses, erode easily and then are difficult to maintain. Even low-slope (less than 10 percent) fall-line trails usually become the preferential flow path for water. Trails following the contour along side slopes, versus fall-line trails, help to moderate the speed of trail users.

3) Trails should be out-sloped in most cases (except for short sections at outside bends).

This encourages water to run off the side of the trail, rather than along the trail. Trails should be built to have about 3 to 5 percent outslope after trail compaction has occurred, so initial out-sloping should be greater than 5 percent. After a year or two, it should be expected that maintenance would be needed to return and “de-berm” sections of trail where soil compaction and displacement have exceeded the outsloping.

Page 2-30


4) Frequent rolling dips should be built into a trail (as a backup to out-sloping), to avoid water flow along a trail. These should be placed to enhance natural grade dips. Rolling grade dips are long and gentle features (12 to 20 feet long) that avoid the short and abrupt style of traditional “water bars” (Klein, 2003; Riter and Riter, 2005). Having the outside bend of a trail at a relative high point helps reduce erosion; this is achieved because the upslope naturally slows a bicycle rider, which reduces the need to brake or skid.

5) Trail widths should be minimized to reduce the amount of bare soil subject to erosion.

Contour trails should be cut on a full bench, rather than a combination of cut and fill. The cut material should be broadcast downslope, unless the trail is near a creek. Cut material can also be utilized for the ramp section of rolling dips if it is compacted one layer at a time.

6) For mountain biking trails, climbing turns or switchbacks should be located whenever

possible where the side-slope is 10 percent or less, in order to create a sustainable, low-erosion trail. The actual trail gradient should be determined by site geology and terrain. The wider the turn and the lower the slope of the turn itself, the less braking and skidding (going downhill) is needed, and less wheel spinning (going uphill) is likely (Schmidt and Woolner, 2004).

7) Reduce locations where bicycles tend to brake heavily and or have to climb steep

hills, which could cause erosion. Make a conscious effort to design trails with consistent “flow” (IMBA), 2004). Exaggerate grade reversals at outside bends. Gradual flow transitions should also reduce user conflicts.

The following BMPs would be incorporated during the construction and operational

phase as appropriate: 1) If landslides or slope failure occurs, cut a temporary ramp through the edge of the

scarp, have the trail traverse across the slide, and then cut another ramp to go up the scarp on the other side. This would reduce the tendency for users to create volunteer trails around the head of the landslide scarp.

2) All trails in areas with active landslides should be considered for closure during wet-

weather and storm events. 3) Close more erodible trails during wet-weather and storm events per the County Parks

Department’s trail closure policy and procedures.

4) Maintain the trail corridor by trimming encroaching vegetation; a bush leaning into a trail can lead users to travel outside the trail to avoid brushing against the bush, which would eventually widen the trail over time.

5) If a trail area is too sandy, adding clay can help the tread be more cohesive.

Page 2-31


6) Where deemed beneficial by County Parks Department Staff, reapplication of the forest duff layer, peeled back from the site at the beginning of construction, will be used on top of the new trailbed to help reduce erosion.

7) As trails approach one another they should rise gently to the junction with other trails,

which will reduce water collection at the junction, and moderate the speed of trail users.

Hydrological BMPs

The following design guidelines would be followed for trails in areas of steep slopes or in areas adjacent to a creek or riparian area:

1) In order to reduce erosion and maintenance problems during construction, disturbance

to the soil surface should be kept to a minimum. 2) Where a potential for significant soil erosion exists along a new trail alignment,

specific erosion control plans should be developed by a Registered Civil or Soils Engineer as part of the trail construction documentation. Criteria to be used in determining the erosion potential include: slope; soil type; soil composition and permeability; and the relative stability of the underlying geologic unit as identified on local General Plans or other adopted planning documents.

3) Keep “tread watersheds” small. A tread watershed is the amount of area that drains to

a specific spot off of a trail (Parker, 2004). Increasing the frequency of rolling dips is an easy way to reduce the area of each tread watershed. Reducing tread width of the trail is another way to reduce the tread watershed. Compacted trail surfaces produce more surface runoff than the uncompacted soil next to the trail; narrow trails would produce less concentrated runoff than wide trails (with all other factors being equal).

4) Frequent grade reversals should be built into a trail (as a backup to out-sloping), to

avoid water flow along a trail. Also known as “rolling grade dips”, they should be placed to enhance natural grade dips. Rolling grade dips are long and gentle features (12 to 20 feet long) that avoid the short and abrupt style of traditional “water bars” (Klein, 2003; Riter and Riter, 2005).

5) Contour trails should be cut on a full bench, rather than a combination of cut and fill.

The cut material should be broadcast downslope, unless the trail is near a creek. Cut material can also be utilized for the ramp section of rolling dips if it is compacted one layer at a time.

6) If trails are located in riparian zones extra precautions should be taken, such as using

paving stones or other rock work (to armor the trail surface), and providing settling areas for trail drainage where water can infiltrate and sediment can settle out (such as brush boxes).

Page 2-32


7) Rock drains and gravel surfaces should be used where trails cross seep areas. This is better than having trail users bypass the soggy area in ever-increasing arcs. Use soil amendments such as sand, crushed rock, or gravel to make a trail less prone to compaction and displacement; amendments can also help the tread drain better.

8) Constructed creek crossings should not greatly alter the cross-sectional shape of the

channel or floodplain. 9) The approach to a creek crossing should slope downward toward the creek, and climb

when traveling away from the creek, so that in the event of a blockage in the channel, the creek water would not be diverted to flow along the trail.

10) The source of water for horse troughs will only come from seeps and springs; water

will not be diverted from creeks or other waterways. To minimize the mobilization of sediment to creeks and other water bodies, the following

erosion- and sediment-control measures would be included in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project after final design. These measures are based on standard County measures and standard dust-reduction measures.

1) Enclose and cover exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction

materials that could contribute sediment to waterways. 2) Contain soil and filter runoff from distributed areas by berms, vegetated filters, silt

fencing, straw wattles, plastic sheeting, catch basins, or other means necessary to prevent the escape of sediment from the disturbed areas.

3) Prohibit the placement of earth or organic material where it may be directly carried

into a stream, swale, ditch, marsh, pond, or body of standing water. 4) Prohibit the following types of materials from being rinsed or washed into streets,

shoulder areas, or ditches: concrete, solvents and adhesives, fuels, dirt, gasoline, asphalt, and concrete saw slurry.

5) Conduct dewatering activities according to the provisions of the SWPPP. Prohibit

placement of dewatered materials in local water bodies or in storm drains leading to such bodies without implementation of proper construction water quality control measures.

6) The County Parks Department and/or its contractors should implement a monitoring

program to verify effectiveness of the best management practices implemented as part of the SWPPP. The monitoring program would begin at the outset of construction activities and terminate upon completion of the project.

Abandoned Trail Obliteration and Restoration - BMPs

1) If a volunteer trail has been determined to be a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users, the volunteer trail shall be blocked with

Page 2-33


local native vegetation materials such as limbs, logs, rocks and brush. These items should be placed in such a way as to create obstacles for the volunteer trail user. If suitable native materials are not readily available or not effective, then safety railing or fencing can be installed to block off the volunteer trail.

2) Rehabilitation of a disturbed area will include the transplanting and seeding of native

plant species typically found in the area. Such revegetation will be placed, as they would grow naturally. The County Parks Departments Natural Resource Program shall pre-approve plans.

3) Transplanted vegetation will be selected and harvested from areas abundant with desired

species (upon pre-approval from Natural Resource Program, and attaining all necessary permits, as they apply). Harvested areas shall be left in a natural condition. Do not repeatedly use the same access point when gathering vegetation, as this creates way trails.

4) The trail bed of the volunteer trail should also be rehabilitated, especially with historic

volunteer trails with high historic usage. Entrenched trail must be filled and reshaped to the natural contours. If soil compaction has occurred, the soil must be scarified and aerated. The volunteer tread must be revegetated by planting native vegetation, transplanted from the vicinity, or seeded with native species found in the area.

5) Once the obliteration and restoration has been completed, the volunteer trail should be

totally obscured, present a difficult and uncomfortable route to the potential volunteer trail user, and, if possible, block the view of the trail from a designated trail.

6) In all cases, the obliterated trail shall be posted as ‘not a trail’ and ‘habitat restoration

taking place’.

Page 3-1


III. INITIAL STUDY Environmental Evaluation Checklist for Santa Clara County

Project Title: Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Date: April 28, 2008 File Number: None APN(s): 51728011, 51702030, 54410001, 54410005, 54419011, 54407023, 54418005, 54410006, 51704062, 51704063, 51703005, 51706004, 51704034, 54410009, 54404025, 54410011, 54417002, 51737006, 51705062, 54409003, 54410010, 54404015, 54409002, 54409004, 54408012, 51706021, 51704064, 51706022, 51703034, 54409009, 54410004, 51701011, 51704061, 54408013, 54404017, 54410003, 54410012, 54420011, 54407014, 54411019, 50346002 500" Map #: Zoning: Gen. Plan Designation: 124, 125, 137, 138, 151, 152 Hillsides (HS) Regional Parks, Existing Project Type: Trails Master Plan USA (if any): N/A Applicant’s Name & Address: Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (County Parks Department), 298 Garden Hill Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 355-2200 Project Location (address or description): Sanborn County Park, 16055 Sanborn Rd., Saratoga, CA 95070 See Map 1 in this document. Project Description (attach additional sheets if necessary): See Chapter 2 of this document Environmental Setting / Surrounding Land Uses: Environmental Setting

The 3,688 acre park is characterized by the steep slopes and dense tree growth typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Sanborn contains redwood forests, mixed evergreen forests of black oaks, tan bark oaks, madrone and Douglas fir, riparian corridors, meadows and chaparral habitats. The park elevations range from 840 feet to 3,160 feet with an overall elevation change of 2,320 feet. The San Andreas Fault extends through the park. The park contains one of the main tributary headwaters, Lyndon Canyon, within the Los Gatos Creek Watershed draining to the southeast, and contains the headwaters of Saratoga Creek draining to the north.

Surrounding Land Uses:

Sanborn is located in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west of the City of Saratoga and interconnected with a larger system of parks and open space preserves. The park is bounded by Highway 35 to the west, residential properties, Open Space Preserves (Saratoga Gap OSP and El Sereno OSP) under the jurisdiction of the MROSD, other County parklands, and Castle Rock State Park, which borders Sanborn to the west and north.

Page 3-2


Three regional trail routes are planned within the park and identified in the Sanborn Trails Plan. These are Bay Area Ridge Trail (Route R5-A), Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, including the Juan Bautista de Anza Northern Recreation Retracement Route (Route R-1A), and the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail. The Ridge Trail (R5-A) and Anza Trail (R1-A) are also approved routes in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. The County Board of Supervisors approved the Countywide Trails Master Plan in November 1995 as part of the Parks and Recreation Element of the County of Santa Clara General Plan, (1995-2010). A more complete description of these trail routes is contained in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

The Sanborn Youth Hostel, a member of American Youth Hostel, Inc, operates under a lease agreement with the County Parks Department from the historic Welch-Hurst home (ca. 1913) within the park. Two environmental education centers also operate within the park. These are the Park Management Program offered by West Valley College, and YSI, which operates under a lease agreement with the County Parks Department from the Dyer House (ca. 1915). The Walden West Environmental Center, a program of the Santa Clara County Office of Education is located on lands surrounded by the park. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will review the revised Indian Rock and Summit Rock staging areas, since these areas are within the Highway 35 right-of-way. Required permits and approvals will be secured from Caltrans prior to construction. The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department will review the planned crossings and staging areas on Sanborn Road, and required permits and approvals will be secured prior to construction.

Page 3-3


The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this project. See sheets attached to the Initial Study for a discussion of these environmental factors and any possible mitigation which may

be proposed.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

Land Use / General Plan Biological Resources Aesthetic

Geologic Transportation / Traffic Energy

Resources / Parks Population / Housing Historical / Archaeological

Sewage / Water Quality Safety / Health Public Services / Utilities

Water Supply / Drainage/ Air Quality Noise Flooding

Mandatory Findings of Significance

Page 3-4


IMPACT

YES

WILL THE PROJECT: “Questions relating to the California Department of Fish & Game “de minimus impact finding” for the Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics.

NO

Not Signifi- cant

Signifi- cant Unless Mitigation Incorpor- ated

Signifi- cant. No apparent Mitiga- tion

Cumu- lative

SOURCES

A. LAND USE / GENERAL PLAN

1. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?

6a,7,9a,10a

2. Conflict with applicable plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

[ ]

3. Conflict with special policies?

a. San Martin and/or South County 6a,b,10a,44,45

b. Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed

6a,10a,13,14

c. East Foothills Policy Area 6a,10a

d. New Almaden Hist. Area/Guadalupe Watershed

6a,7,10a

e. Stanford 6a,15,16

f. San Jose 8,10a

4. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?

1,2,3,12b

5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community?

2,4

B. GEOLOGIC 1. Be located in an area designated as having a potential for major geological hazard?

9b,10c,11a 12a,17,18

2. Be located on, or adjacent to a known earthquake fault?

9c,10c,11a

3. Be located in a Geologic Study Zone? 9c,11a 4. Be located in an area of soil instability (subsidence, liquefaction, landslide, shrink/swell potential, soil creep or severe erosion)?

9c,12a,12d,20, 21

Page 3-5


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

5. Cause substantial erosion or siltation? 1,2,3 6. Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site?

1,2,3

7. Cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

1,2,3,11c

8. Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of:

a. 30% or greater? 1,3,10j,11c

b. 20% to 30%? 1,3,10j,11c

c. 10% to 20%? 1,3,10j,11c

C. RESOURCES/PARKS

1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state?

1,2,3,19

2. Result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource?

2,3

3. Convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural land (Class I to II) to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime land?

2,20,21

4. Involve lands protected by the Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) or an Open Space Easement?

1,9a

5. Affect any existing agricultural operations? 2

6. Be on, within, or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail (includes those proposed for the future), or affect existing recreational opportunities?

2,4,9d,10h

7. Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20" report.

38

8. Increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities?

3,5

Page 3-6


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

D. SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY

1. Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with severe septic drain field limitations or where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface?

10e,11b,12d, 20,21,22,24

2. Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of a reservoir at capacity?

1,2,3,4

3. Result in extensions of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development?

3

4. Require a NPDES permit for construction [Does it disturb one (1) acre or more?]?

3

5. Result in significant changes to receiving waters quality during or following construction?

46,47

6. Degrade surface or ground water quality or public water supply? (Including marine, fresh and wetland waters.)

1,3,11b,21,46

7. Be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?

4,10a,13,23

8. Result in use of well water previously contaminated by nitrates, mercury, asbestos, etc. existing in the groundwater supply?

10e,23

9. Is the project a tributary to an already impaired water body? If so will the project result in an increase in any existing pollutants?

46,47

E. WATER SUPPLY/DRAINAGE/FLOODING

1. Interfere substantially with ground water recharge or reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?

3,10e,11b

2. Substantially change the direction, rate of flow, or quantity, or quality of ground waters, either

1,3,46

Page 3-7


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?

3. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Note policy re flood retention in water course and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.)

3,28,45

4. Substantially alter existing drainage patterns in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

46

5. Involve a surface water body, natural drainage channel, streambed or water course such as to alter the amount, location, course, or flow of its waters?

1,3,11c,28,45

6. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters?

46

7. Expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?

9c,12c

F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or plant life, by [a] change in diversity or numbers or [b] introduction of new species or [c] restrictions to migration or movement or [d] reducing habitat?

1,2,3,4,10b, 11d,e

2. Result in impact to an endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitat (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?

10b,11d,e, 10k, & 12d

3. Impact a local natural community, such as a fresh water marsh, oak forest or salt water tide land?

1,2,3,10b,11d,e

4. Impact a watercourse, aquatic, wetland, or riparian area or habitat? (Subdivision includes or construction within 150 feet.)

2,3,12b,39,45, 46

5. Adversely impact unique or heritage trees or a large number of trees over 12" in diameter?

1,2,3,25

Page 3-8


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

G. TRANSPORTATION

1. Cause a substantial increase in traffic or traffic congestion in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? (Exceed LOS level ‘D’ in vicinity-GP policy C-TR 12, C-TR(i)6.)

4,6a,26,27,28, 29,43

2. Generate 100 or more peak hour trips? [If yes, a CMA transportation impact analysis must be prepared]

1,3

3. Increase traffic hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles?

3,4

4. Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?

3,12e

5. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off-street parking because of inadequate project parking?

1,3,30

6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. transit, bicycles, walking)?

3,6a

H. POPULATION/HOUSING

1. Reduce the supply of low-income housing or displace people or businesses?

3,4

2. Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?

2,3,4

I. SAFETY / HEALTH

1. Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (including pesticides, herbicides, toxic substances, oil, chemicals or radioactive materials?

1,3,4,5

2. If yes to #1, be within 1/4 mile of a school [public notice]

40

Page 3-9


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

3. Be located within 200' of a 230KV or above electrical transmission line

2,4

4. Create any health hazard? 1,3,4,5

5. Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards?

2,3,4

6. Be located in an ALUC Safety Zone? 31

7. Increase fire hazard in an area already involving extreme fire hazard?

10g

8. Be located on a cul-de-sacs over 800 ft. in length and require secondary access which will be difficult to obtain?

1,3,4,32,33

9. Employ technology which could adversely affect safety in case of a breakdown?

1,3,5

10. Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?

3

11. Provide breeding grounds for vectors? 1,3,5 J. AIR QUALITY

1. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations?

5,34

2. Create objectionable dust or odors? 1,3,5

3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?

2,3,4

K. NOISE

1. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas during and/or after construction?

1,3,5,6a

2. Expose people to high noise or vibration levels generated by the project or from the surrounding

1,2,4,3,5,31

Page 3-10


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

area? L. AESTHETIC

1. If subject to ASA, be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?

35,36

2. Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

2,3,37

3. Visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities, be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor?

2,3,4,7,10f,37

4. Obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, public lands, public water body or roads?

2,3

5. Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the valley floor?

2,10f,11c,37

6. Adversely affect the architectural appearance of an established neighborhood?

2,3

7. Generate new light or glare? 1,3 M. ENERGY

1. Use non-renewable resources in large quantities or in a wasteful manner?

1,3,5

2. Involve the removal of vegetation capable of providing summer shade to a building or significantly affect solar access to adjacent property?

2,3

N. HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL

1. Disturb potential archaeological or paleontological resources?

3,10d,41,42

2. Disturb a historic resource or cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?

3,25,42

Page 3-11


IMPACT

YES


NO

Not Signifi- cant



Cumu- lative

SOURCES

3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g., New Almaden Historic Area)?

7,10a

O. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

1. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? (Growth inducing?)

1,3,5

2. Employ equipment which could interfere with existing communications or broadcast systems?

1,3,5

3. Have an effect upon or increase the need for or alter services in any of the following areas:

a. Fire Protection 1,3,5

b. Police Protection 1,3,5

c. School facilities 1,3,5

d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads

1,3,5

e. Other government services 1,3,5

4. Increase the need for new systems or supplies, or cause substantial alterations to the following utilities:

a. Electricity or Natural gas 1,3,5 b. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities

1,3,5

c. Local or regional water supplies 1,3,5

d. Sewage disposal 1,3,5

e. Storm water drainage 1,3,5 f. Solid waste or litter [Would a recycling facility be appropriate?]

1,3,5

Page 3-12

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan September 2008

WILL THE PROJECT: NO YES P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)

c. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects.

d. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Discuss on attached sheet(s) all “yes” answers and any “no” answers that are potentially controversial or require clarification. (Must be TYPED). Describe any potential impacts and discuss possible mitigations. For source, refer to attached “Initial Study Source List”. When a source is used that is not listed on the form or an individual is contacted, that source and/or individual should be cited in the discussion.

DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a

significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached are included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE RECOMMENDED.

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

The project may have significant effect(s) on the environment, but they were analyzed in a prior document

pursuant to applicable legal standards and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. For these effects that are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the mitigation measures from the prior document are described to the extent they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date:

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4/28/2008 Print name & title: Antoinette Romeo, Planner Date: 4/28/2008

Page 3-13


INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST*

17. County Geologist 1. Environmental Information Form 18. Site Specific Geologic Report 2. Field Inspection

3. Project Plans 19. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #146 4. Planner’s Knowledge of Area

20. USDA, SCS, “Soils of Santa Clara County” 5. Experience With Other Project of This Size and Nature 21. USDA, SCS, “Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara

County” 6a. County General Plan 6b. The South County Joint Area Plan 22. County Environmental Health/Septic Tank Sewage

Disposal System - Bulletin “A” 7. County Zoning Regulations (Ordinance) 23. San Martin Water Quality Study 8. Second Amendment to Agreement [with San Jose] for

Allocation of Tax Increment Funds 24. County Environmental Health Department Tests and Reports 9. MAPS (various scales)

a. County Zoning (500' or 1,000') 25. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource (including Trees) Inventory [computer database] b. ABAG “On Shaky Ground”-Santa Clara

26. Official County Road Book County Map Set (2 miles) 27. County Transportation Agency c. Barclay’s Santa Clara County Locaide

Street Atlas (2631') 28. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land Development) d. County Regional Parks, Trails and Scenic

Highways Map (10,000') 29. Public Works Departments of Individual Cities 30. County Off-street Parking Standards 10. 5000' or one mile Scale MAPS31. ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding

Airports [1992 version] a. County General Plan Land Use b. Natural Habitat Areas

32. County Fire Marshal c. Relative Seismic Stability d. Archaeological Resources 33. California Department of Forestry

34. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses & BAAQMD, “Air Quality & Urban Development-Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects & Plans”

e. Water Resources & Water Problems f. Viewshed and Scenic Road g. Fire Hazard

35. Architectural and Site Approval Committee Secretary

h. Parks and Public Open Space i. Heritage Resources

36. County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval

j. Slope Constraint k. Serpentine soils

37. County Development Guidelines for Design Review 11. 2000' Scale MAPS38. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation

2020 Task Force, April 1987 (Chapter IV) a. State of California, Special Studies Zones [Revised

Official Map] 39. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt

Coalition, November 1988. b. Water Problem/Resource c. USGS Topo Quad (7-1/2 minutes) d. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data

Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports 40. Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code. 41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance Report 42. State Archaeological Clearinghouse, Sonoma State

University e. Natural Resources [Key to map found in: Natural

Resource Sensitivity Areas-Locality Data, Harvey & Stanley Associates-Contact County staff] 43. Transportation Research Board, “Highway Capacity

Manual”, Special Report 209, 1985 12. 1000' Scale MAPS/Air Photosa. Geologic Hazards 44. Design Guidelines for Non-residential Development in

San Martin. b. Color Air Photos (MPSI) 45. Southwest San Martin Area Interim Development

Guidelines c. Santa Clara valley Water District-Maps of Flood

Control Facilities & Limits of 1% Flooding d. Soils Overlay Air Photos 46. 2001 NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit

47. 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) e. “Future Width Line” map set


13. County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to Sewage Disposal *Items listed in bold are the most important sources and

should be referred to during the first review of the project, when they are available. The planner should refer to the other sources for a particular environmental factor if the former indicate a potential environmental impact.

14. Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan 15. Stanford University Master Use Permit and

Environmental Impact Report [EIR] 16. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement

Page 3-14

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan April 2008 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

A. LAND USE / GENERAL PLAN

Would the project:

1. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan project involves trail design and construction, infrastructure modification and park improvements within an existing park within Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction. These activities do not conflict with any applicable general plan designation or zoning.

2. Conflict with applicable plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan project involves trail design and construction, infrastructure modification and park improvements within an existing park within Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction. These activities do not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. While the Santa Clara County is currently developing a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), Sanborn is not within the HCP/NCCP project boundaries.

3. Conflict with special policies?

a. San Martin and/or South County

No Impact. The project is not located in San Martin or the South County.

b. Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed

No Impact. The project is not located in an area covered by the Los Gatos Specific Plan. The project also does not propose alteration or new sewage facilities as regulated by the County Lexington Basin Ordinance relating to sewage disposal.

c. East Foothills Policy Area

No Impact. The project is not located in the East Foothills Policy Area.

d. New Almaden Hist. Area/Guadalupe Watershed

No Impact. The project is not located in the New Almaden Historical Area or the Guadalupe Watershed.

e. Stanford

No Impact. The project is not located on Stanford-owned land.

f. San Jose

No Impact. The project is not located in the City of San Jose.

Page 3-15

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan April 2008

4. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?

Setting - Surrounding Land Use: Sanborn is located in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west of the City of Saratoga and interconnected with a larger system of parks and open space preserves. Highway 35, residential properties, MROSD Open Space Preserves, other County Parks Department parklands, and Castle Rock State Park bound the park. Land uses within the surrounding public parks and open spaces are compatible with the uses in the park, and include hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, camping, and picnicking.

No Impact. The project is the implementation of a Trails Master Plan within an existing County park. The Sanborn Trails Plan project involves trail design and construction, infrastructure modification and park improvements. These proposed improvements do not represent a change in land use and are compatible with existing land uses in surrounding parks and open space preserves. Where trails leave Sanborn and pass into the jurisdictions of neighboring agencies, signage will be erected to inform park users of changes in permissible trail uses and regulations.

5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? No Impact. The project is the implementation of a Trails Master Plan within an existing County Park. The proposed improvements would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.

B. GEOLOGIC

Photo 1. San Andreas Rift Valley at Sanborn Park. This photo was taken from the parking lot at the Mountain Winery (about 2 miles east of Sanborn Park on Eden Road - off of Highway 9). Skyline Ridge is in the distance. The valley to the left is Sanborn Creek. The vineyards of the Savannah-Chanelle Winery are in the foreground. (Source: USGS, San Francisco Bay Region 3D Image Tours http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/3Dbayarea/html/Sanborn.htm.) Affected Environment Balance Hydrologics conducted an assessment of the hydrologic and geologic conditions of Sanborn to be used to focus park trail planning and assist with the creation of the Sanborn Trails Plan (Balance Hydrologics, 2006). They obtained baseline hydrology and geology data

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/3Dbayarea/html/Sanborn.htm

Page 3-16


from maps, geology reports, and other sources, and conducted field-truthing site visits during the spring/summer of 2006. In addition to summarizing the baseline hydrologic and geologic conditions of the site, Balance Hydrologics evaluated the hydrologic and geologic opportunities and constraints of the site and recommended practical best management practices for trail design in areas where there are multiple constraining physical factors. Trails would be used for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and/or dog walking.

From these data and information, Balance Hydrologics created broad trail suitability maps (Maps 3 and 4) based on several major factors, which provided a general trail-planning framework. Four physical parameters were combined to estimate general sensitivity to trail construction. These were: steepness of landscape slope, riparian zones, erodibility of geologic units, and presence of landslides. In addition, trail planning should factor in the local, site-specific constraints and hazards as described in section 4 of the Sanborn Trails Plan.

A more complete description of these factors, how they affected trail suitability, and the results of their analysis is included in the Balance Hydrologics’ Opportunities and Constraints Analysis for Geology and Hydrology report. The report is available in Appendix C of the Sanborn Trails Plan, or is available upon request from the County Parks Department. Local Geology Sanborn is divided in a northwest/southeast direction by the San Andreas Fault zone, though most of the park lies on the western side of the fault. Consequently, the geology of the park varies significantly from one side of the fault to the other. The following section summarizes the various rock units that outcrop within Sanborn, consistent with the most current stratigraphic descriptions by Brabb, Graymer, and Jones (2000), but drawing upon a rich history of local and regional published work. Eastern Sanborn County Park The San Andreas Fault crosses the park in the northeast corner, and continues southeastward near the eastern boundary of the park, through Lake Ranch Reservoir to the southern tip of the park. East of the fault, there are two primary units exposed within the park. Nearest the fault is a strip of unnamed sedimentary units, mostly mudstone and shale with some sandstone. Given the estimated age of these units (Eocene), it is likely that they are associated with the sedimentary units across the fault, and may represent a change in location of the fault trace (a slight, local jump from east to west) within the broader fault zone. Further east of the fault, along the eastern edge of the fault zone, a band of diabase/gabboro is exposed. This unit may represent a piece of oceanic crust that was sheared off the subducting plate and incorporated into the Franciscan mélange. At the very eastern edge of the park, the Franciscan complex proper is exposed. Most of the Franciscan complex within the park is composed of highly sheared greywacke, siltstone, and shale, though some bands of Franciscan argillite (weakly-metamorphosed shale), and coarse-grained sandstone with interbedded shale are present as well, most notably in the northeastern corner of the park.

Page 3-17


Western Sanborn Park The granitic rock that makes up a large part of the basal Salinian block on the western side of the fault is not exposed at the surface within the park, though it is presumably present at depth. Therefore the geology on the western side of the fault within the park is dominated by marine and nearshore sedimentary units that were deposited on top of the granite before the Coast Range was uplifted. The Vaqueros formation underlies most of the western side of the park. This unit is composed predominately of coarse-grained sandstone, though layers of shale and mudstone are locally present, with beds up to 3 meters thick in places. The Mindego basalt is exposed in this area as well, as tabular intrusions within the Vaqueros, however exposures are very limited. East of the exposed Vaqueros rocks, a sliver of the San Lorenzo formation is exposed. This unit, stratigraphically below (older than) the Vaqueros, consists mainly of shale, mudstone, and siltstone, representing a deeper depositional environment. Within the park the San Lorenzo formation is exposed only in the lower reaches of the northeastward-draining canyons along the San Andreas fault, and the unit is truncated by the fault on its eastern side. Near the northeast corner of the park, a significant expanse of alluvial fan and alluvium is present. These sediments, predominately dense gravelly and clayey sand, were deposited within a small tectonic basin within the San Andreas Fault zone. Erodibility The geologic units within Sanborn erode at different rates due to a variety of factors. Units that are poorly consolidated, such as the artificial fill and alluvial fan/alluvial units, can rapidly erode or incise under certain conditions. Other units that are well-cemented, such as the Vaqueros sandstone, or are composed of resistant igneous material, such as the Mindego basalt, can be resistant to erosion. Geologic units such as the San Lorenzo and portions of the Franciscan, are moderately-well consolidated and have a resistance to erosion somewhere between the two extremes. Erodibility also depends on position within the surrounding landscape. Steep-slope areas like much of the area within Sanborn, are also high-energy environments for erosion processes (primarily storm-water runoff and mass wasting in this case). Rilling, gullying, slumping and landsliding all contribute to higher erosion rates in these areas than on similar material in low-slope areas. Low-lying areas with low slope are typically depositional environments, though these deposits may be prone to other erosion triggers (see section 3.4 below). Geologic Hazards Seismic Activity The San Francisco region is one of the more highly active seismic areas in the world, at the junction between two major tectonic plates—the North American and Pacific plates. The region is cut by several major faults, including the San Andreas, Hayward, and San Gregorio Faults, and numerous minor fault traces as well. Several major earthquakes have been recorded on these faults over the past two hundred years, including events in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989.

Page 3-18


The United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2003) estimates that there is a 21% chance that an earthquake magnitude greater than 6.7 would occur on the San Andreas Fault within the San Francisco Region sometime between 2003 and 2032. When considering all of the fault systems in the area, the USGS estimates a 67% chance of an earthquake greater than 6.7 occurring somewhere in the region by 2032. For reference, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was a magnitude 6.9. Landslides and Debris Flows The steepness of the terrain within Sanborn and the presence of active faults in the area contribute to the high occurrence of landslides within the park. Much of the park is prone to landslide activity, especially near the San Andreas Fault. The unconsolidated alluvial fan and fluvial deposits within the Sanborn Creek Valley in the northeastern corner of the park, as well as colluvial deposits that fill in many of the tributary valleys in the area, are evidence of previous landslide and debris flow events. While some slides likely correspond to watershed disturbance during past logging activity, others certainly occurred pre-settlement, a reflection of the high uplift rates and tectonic activity within the region. Landslides preferentially occur during wet periods—not just while it is raining, but throughout the entire wet season (when the ground is saturated even when it is not raining) and even more so when rainfall has been above average for a year or for multiple years. Water seeping underground at the bottom of a landslide serves to “lubricate” slip planes, decreasing a slope’s resistance to slippage. Discussion: Will the Project: 1. Be located in an area designated as having a potential for major geological hazard? 2. Be located on, or adjacent to a known earthquake fault? 3. Be located in a Geologic Study Zone?

Response to 1), 2), and 3): Not Significant. Sanborn straddles the San Andreas Fault

zone, and therefore is likely to be affected by a major quake in the area. A major earthquake in the region could result in damage to park structures, rupture of utilities crossing the fault, earthquake-induced flooding and/or landslides (see below) and potential loss of life. However, damages would be of much smaller scale than in densely urbanized areas (where the threat of earthquake-induced fire is high), and in areas underlain by unconsolidated sediments (where ground-shaking is accentuated by the loose underlying material). All trails users would be recreating outdoors, and since it is impossible to anticipate a seismic event, there are no precautions that can be taken to avoid or reduce seismic events for recreationalists at Sanborn. No structures that could expose people to loss of injury or death are proposed. Implementation of the BMPs as listed in the Project Description chapter of this document would ensure that no significant adverse impacts would occur. 4. Be located in an area of soil instability (subsidence, liquefaction, landslide, shrink/swell potential, soil creep or severe erosion)?

Page 3-19


Not Significant. At several locations within the park vertical or overhanging scarps were

observed at the head and sides of previous landslide and debris flow scars. These over-steepened areas are prone to collapse and present a significant hazard within the park. When deemed necessary due to public safety or environmental concerns, volunteer trails in areas of landslides and/or unstable soils will be closed and restored with guidance from the BMPs.

All Project elements would conform to and be developed under guidance of the BMPs to

ensure that none of the proposed improvements would cause instability of the project site or result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Implementation of the BMPs would ensure that no significant adverse impacts would occur. 5. Cause substantial erosion or siltation?

Not Significant. Many of the small tributary valleys and drainages are partially filled with debris flow and landslide deposits, creating a relatively flat valley floor bounded by steep walls. Because of the unconsolidated nature of the material, these areas are prone to incision during larger storm events, sometimes at a very rapid rate. This incision can then leave steep-walled ‘chasms’ that present a real danger to hikers and other trail users, especially if the incision crosses or occurs next to an established trail. In many places these valley fill deposits are stabilized primarily by deep-rooted trees and other vegetative cover. Removal of vegetation in these areas could destabilize the deposits and induce rapid incision of the channel during storms. The Countywide Trails Master Plan also includes, as BMPs within this project, the following guidelines related to removal of vegetation:

D – 1.3.1.2 Existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. D – 1.3.3.3 Trail crossings of freshwater stream zones and drainages shall be designed to minimize disturbance, through use of bridges or culverts, whichever is least environmentally damaging. Bridges and culverts shall be designed so that they visually and functionally blend with the environment.

The project would be constructed using the BMPs in the Project Description chapter to protect areas from substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil during and after construction. In addition, erosion and sediment control measures included in the BMPs as listed in the Project Description chapter would be included in a SWPPP prepared for the project after final design. The Countywide Trails Master Plan also includes as BMPs within this project the following guidelines related to soil erosion during the construction phase: D – 3.5.3 Soil Disturbance. In order to reduce erosion and maintenance problems, disturbance to the soil surface shall be kept to a minimum. Only those rocks, stumps, and roots which interfere with safe passage shall be removed. D - 3.5.5 Erosion Control Plans. Where a potential for significant soil erosion exists along a new trail alignment, specific erosion control plans shall be developed by a Registered Civil or

Page 3-20


Soils Engineer as part of the trail construction documentation. Criteria to be used in determining the erosion potential include: slope; soil type; soil composition and permeability; and the relative stability of the underlying geologic unit as identified on local General Plans or other adopted planning documents. D – 3.6 Planting of Disturbed Areas. Any cut or fill slopes shall be immediately reseeded or replanted with vegetation native to the general area. D - 4.1.1 Drainage Crossings. Trails crossing creeks and drainages may require a bridge or culvert. Structures over water courses shall be carefully placed to minimize disturbance. Erosion control measures shall be taken to prevent erosion at the outfalls of drainage structures. 6. Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in

substantial compaction at Sanborn.

7. Cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in a substantial change in the project area’s topography or create any unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill. No major grading, excavation or fill is proposed.

8. Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of:

a. 30% or greater? b. 20% to 30%? c. 10% to 20%? No Impact. The proposed Sanborn Trails Plan does not contain any provision to build a

habitable structure, road or septic system on any slopes within Sanborn. C. RESOURCES/PARKS 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. Sanborn is not currently mined for minerals and the proposed project does

not propose any mining activities. The Sanborn Trails Plan would not preclude future mining operations should the County decide to do so. 2. Result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource?

No Impact. The project does not propose any activities that would result in the

substantial depletion of any non-renewable resources.

Page 3-21


3. Convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural land (Class I to II) to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime land?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of any prime

farmland to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime farmland. 4. Involve lands protected by the Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) or an Open Space Easement?

No Impact. There are no lands protected by the Williamson Act or an Open Space

Easement on Sanborn land. 5. Affect any existing agricultural operations?

No Impact. There are no agricultural operations at Sanborn.

6. Be on, within, or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail (includes those proposed for the future), or affect existing recreational opportunities?

Not Significant. The project is the implementation of a Sanborn Trails Plan at an

existing County park. Implementation of the project would expand the trail system within the park and provide regional trail linkages. The Sanborn Trails Plan would increase recreational opportunities at Sanborn resulting in a significant beneficial impact. 7. Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20" report.

No Impact. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in a loss of open space.

8. Increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities?

Not Significant. Sanborn is estimated to be operating below capacity (Strategic Plan

2003, pg. 22). It is thought that expanding the trail system, increasing trail mileage, improving trail maps, and providing access to additional types of users would satisfy the public demand for multiple-use trails and increase park attendance.

D. SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY Affected Environment Balance Hydrologics conducted an assessment of the hydrologic and geologic conditions of Sanborn to be used to focus park trail planning and assist with the creation of the Sanborn Trails Plan (Balance Hydrologics, 2006). They obtained baseline hydrology and geology data from maps, geology reports, and other sources, and conducted field-truthing site visits during the spring/summer of 2006. In addition to summarizing the baseline hydrologic and geologic

Page 3-22


conditions of the site, Balance Hydrologics evaluated the hydrologic and geologic opportunities and constraints of the site and recommended practical guidelines, which are included in this project’s BMPs, for trail design in areas where there are multiple constraining physical factors. Trails would be used for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and dog walking. The results of their analysis is presented below and their full report is available as Appendix C of the Sanborn Trails Plan which is available on line at www.parkhere.org, or upon request, from the County Parks Department. Drainages within Sanborn County Park

The watersheds and sub-watersheds within Sanborn range in elevation from 840 feet to 3,160 feet. The park receives average annual rainfall that ranges from 38 inches at the lower entrance of the park to 54 inches at the highest elevations along the southwestern boundary (Rantz, 1971). The drainages tend to be steep, and the creek channels are generally filled with boulders. Sanborn Creek occupies the valley eroded along the San Andreas Fault zone (see Geologic section above); the fault-zone valley serves as the master drainage way for the park. The steep tributaries drain northeastward into this valley, as is shown on Map 2. The main valley drains both to the northwest (Sanborn Creek towards Saratoga Creek) and to the southeast (Lyndon Creek towards Lexington Reservoir). Lake Ranch Reservoir is at the tipping point of these two drainage directions, with impoundment structures at both ends of the reservoir. Historically, water was diverted into Lake Ranch reservoir from the upper portions of Sanborn Creek; some of that diversion infrastructure is still in place. Lake Ranch Reservoir is managed for water production by the San Jose Water Company. Filled Drainages

Certain sections of the drainage channels seem to have been partially filled at some point in the past by debris-flow/landslide deposits (colluvium1). These deposits often take on the appearance of a flat-bottomed section of an otherwise “V-shaped” valley, or a small rocky ridge in a valley bottom with alternate stream channels on both side of the ridge. Where such valley fill was observed, it was often 5 to 15 feet in depth. These deposits were observed in Todd Creek, the west-most branch of Aubry Creek, the headwaters of Sanborn Creek above Lake Ranch reservoir, and another unnamed channel draining to Lyndon Canyon (see Map 4). Some of these deposits appear to have occurred after the slopes were logged, others seem to have occurred before logging (based on large, old, cut stumps which grew on top of the fill deposits).

The importance of noting this is that filled drainages are evidence that the steep landscape

of Sanborn has evolved by way of the processes of landslides and debris flows (which have filled the bottoms of the drainages). Therefore we can expect more landslides and debris flows to occur over time. Also, this valley fill material can be unstable and prone to rapid erosion. Trails and stream-crossing structures built on this type of fill can be lost if the fill material erodes. This erosion can happen gradually, but can also happen catastrophically during a single large storm. Braided Drainages

1 Colluvium is rock and earth that has been deposited at the base of a slope by landslides, debris flows, slumps, and other mass movement.

Page 3-23


Either as a result of filled drainages or due to other causes, some sections of creek channels in Sanborn have multiple flow paths and are similar to braided stream channels. These are most common in the flat-bottomed drainages mentioned above. This braided type of channel form may be due to the creek channel working its way through old debris-flow deposits. Typically the valley bottoms in these locations are filled with boulders as well as growing redwoods or other trees.

Regardless of the cause, these braided drainages present a challenge to trail crossings,

because the location of the active channel is likely to shift over time (from month to month or from year to year). In order to minimize this challenge and impacts to the creek channel that result in soil loss, planned trails and trail crossings should be located in more stable creek channel locations such as narrow-defined channels in low flowing locations. Seeps and Springs

Ground-water contribution to creek flow is important, and becomes increasingly evident toward the end of the dry season. During sites visits in September 2006 (when it had not rained appreciably since April 2006), we observed many small drainages with active surface-water flow. These are more common lower in the watershed, where there is more uphill elevation to contribute to the groundwater flow. Persistent late-season flow is important to sustaining riparian vegetation and stream biota. Seeps and springs also provide potential water sources to equestrian trail users (ideally the water would be piped to fill a trough to prevent horses drinking directly from the creek). Water year 20062 was unusually wet (approximately 140 to 160 percent of average annual rainfall), so these instances of late-season water will likely be less abundant after a dry year or series of dry years.

Would the project:

1. Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with severe septic drain field limitations or where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface? 2. Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of a reservoir at capacity?

Response to 1) and 2): No Impact. No facilities are proposed in the Sanborn Trails

Plan that would require construction of a septic field.

3. Result in extensions of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development? No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose facilities that would require an

extension of a sewer trunk line.

4. Require a NPDES permit for construction [Does it disturb one (1) acre or more?]?

2 Most hydrologic and geomorphic monitoring occurs for a period defined as a water year, which begins on

October 1 and ends on September 30 of the named year. For example, water year 2006 (WY2006) began on Oct. 1, 2005, and concluded on September 30, 2006.

Page 3-24


Not Significant. New trails and staging areas, and the closure and obliteration of old trails will be in excess of one acre or more. The project would apply for a NPDES permit for construction as applicable. 5. Result in significant changes to receiving waters quality during or following construction?

Not Significant. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not cause impacts to water quality or violate waste discharge requirements in any receiving body of water, including the streams within Sanborn. Implementation of the Countywide Trails Master Plan, the Trail Guidelines, and the BMPs as listed in the Project Description chapter of this document will ensure that impacts are avoided or reduced to less than significant levels.

6. Degrade surface or ground water quality or public water supply? (Including marine, fresh and wetland waters.)

No Impact. Construction or operation of the proposed Sanborn Trails Plan would not

affect surface water or contaminate a public water supply. BMPs including preparation of a SWPPP, as listed in the Project Description chapter of this document would be used to ensure that no water body is impaired.

Equestrian use of existing trails at Sanborn is currently allowed. With the new planned

trails, the potential exists for horses to defecate or urinate in streams. However the vast majority of trail crossings of streams will be through the use of redesigned bridges and puncheons that will minimize direct contact of horses with water bodies. The Countywide Trails Master Plan County’s riparian setback requirements, and BMPs have recommendations for trail siting in riparian corridors to minimize proximity of trail users to creeks. Equestrians make up less than 2% of total trail users at Sanborn. The County Parks Department enforces County Ordinance B14-34.1 5(d), Pets in Parks, which states “A person shall, in the event that his or her horse defecates on park property in a parking lot or paved areas (including paved trails), remove the animal waste from the park and/or place it in a proper receptacle.” The small number of water contact crossings, trail design guidelines in the Countywide Trails Master Plan, combined with the small number of equestrian users will reduce the impacts to streams and water quality to less than significant levels.

To accommodate equestrian uses, proposed amenities for horses include water troughs that would be developed at a few locations along the trails. The source of water will only come from seeps and springs; water will not be diverted from creeks or other waterways (see section 2.4 of the report by Balance Hydrologics Inc. [Balance Hydrologics] in the Sanborn Trails Plan). Equestrian access and use is subject to County Ordinance Section B14-42.1 (a, b), Equestrian trails. The additional introduction of new planned equestrian trails will not require a large number of troughs to be built. This combined with the use of seeps and springs, as sources of water for the troughs will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 7. Be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?

Page 3-25


Not Significant. The northeast corner of the park is located in the Los Gatos Creek watershed. Lyndon Canyon drains to Lexington Reservoir. The new trails in this area avoid the Lyndon Canyon drainage and are routed on higher slopes away from this tributary. The proposed trails are planned to be 4-6’ in width unless using an existing service road, which is 8-10’ in width. These narrow trails situated away from the drainage in Lyndon Canyon would not affect water quality in the Los Gatos Creek watershed.

8. Result in use of well water previously contaminated by nitrates, mercury, asbestos, etc. existing in the groundwater supply?

No Impact. While Sanborn does use well water for its water supply, the groundwater

does not contain these elements. 9. Is the project a tributary to an already impaired water body? If so will the project result in an increase in any existing pollutants?

No Impact. Sanborn is not on a tributary to an impaired water body.

E. WATER SUPPLY/DRAINAGE/FLOODING 1. Interfere substantially with ground water recharge or reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan would double the trail mileage. However, besides

the construction of one new staging area on Sanborn Road and one expanded staging area along Highway 35, no new visitor service facilities, including new restrooms or drinking fountains, would be built. Therefore, the amount of water that would be used by the new trail users would be insignificant, and no lowering of the water table is expected. 2. Substantially change the direction, rate of flow, or quantity, or quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan would double the trail mileage. As stated above, no new visitor-serving facilities would be built, therefore no changes to the quantity or quality of ground waters as a result of implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan is expected. 3. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Note policy re flood retention in water course and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.)

No Impact. Implementing new trails will not create large amounts of impervious surfaces, which would change absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff. As part of its resource management goals the Sanborn Trails Plan also would consolidate the current web of volunteer trails between the Youth Science Institute and Walden West by clearly identifying legitimate trails, abandoning, obliterating, and restoring others. The majority of trails proposed for closure or rerouting are within these two areas. A total of 23,074

Page 3-26


lineal feet, or 84,168 square feet (1.93 acres) would be restored to natural conditions and topography using hand tools and the small Sweco trail-dozer. Restoring almost 2 acres in the main activity area would increase absorption rates and result in a beneficial effect. 4. Substantially alter existing drainage patterns in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

Not Significant. The floodplain of any stream or river is an important part of flow

conveyance during periods of high water. In order to protect these areas, the trail suitability analysis performed by Balance Hydrologics for the Sanborn Trails Plan, established a 30-foot buffer around all minor creeks within the park, a 75-foot buffer around Sanborn Creek, and a 150-foot buffer around Lyndon Creek, and automatically designated these areas as “poorly-suited” on the suitability maps (maps 3 and 4). These riparian buffers in the Sanborn Trails Plan should not be considered setbacks or buffer zones precluding development. These buffer limits provide a useful general guide for trail suitability at a broad scale. Balance Hydrologics evaluated the hydrologic and geologic opportunities and constraints of the site and recommended practical guidelines, which are included in this projects BMPs, for trail design in areas where there are multiple constraining physical factors.

In addition, the Countywide Trails Master Plan requires the preparation of an erosion

control plan where there is potential for significant erosion along a new trail alignment (refer to B. Geologic discussion above) and have been included in the BMPs for this project. Adherence to these policies as part of the implementation of the BMPs, which includes preparation of an erosion control plan as part of the SWPPP, as listed in the Project Description chapter of this document would avoid or reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

As stated in the Biological Resources section of this document, the project proposes drainage crossings. The Sanborn Trails Plan would add 24 drainage crossings and convert to public use 2 existing drainage crossings. The drainage crossings are classified into six categories: large bridge (>60 feet), small bridge (15 to 59 feet), puncheon, turnpike, rock crossing and stepping stones. All bridges would be clear spans, which are outside and above high water and streambanks. Descriptions of the crossings can be found in the Balance Hydrologics report available in Appendix C of the Sanborn Trails Plan. The totals proposed per category are: Large bridge (4); Small bridge (6 plus 1 existing now for public use); Puncheon (7); Turnpike (4); Rock crossing (rock ford) (1 plus 1 existing now for public use); Stepping stones (2).

It is possible there would be a need for other small drainage crossings once the more detailed design phase is initiated. It is anticipated that these would be primarily puncheons across seasonal drainages only. There are many areas in Sanborn where flows exist only during storm events. However, these areas would need drainage crossings to prevent the trails from washing out.

Of the large bridges, two would span Aubry Creek, one would span Sanborn Creek and one may span Trout Creek (acquisition is needed for the Trout Creek Trail, thus placement of the bridge is undefined at this time). Of the small bridges, one would span Sanborn Creek, two would span tributaries to Sanborn Creek, one would span a tributary to Aubry Creek, one would span Bonjetti Creek and one may span McElroy Creek or Bonjetti Creek (Pourroy Trail -

Page 3-27


acquisition needed thus placement of bridge undefined). Because the bridges are proposed to be clear spans and not involve construction of footings in the creek channels, and no riparian vegetation is removed; no biological impacts or impacts to riparian areas adjacent to these bridges would occur from the placement of bridges within the new trails. The placement of any new bridges, and construction of planned trails, on lands outside the boundaries of the project were not analyzed as part of this plan and will require separate environmental analysis prior to implementation.

Prior to construction of all proposed creek crossings, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would require notification and a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1600 of the CDFG code, if within CDFG jurisdiction. However, if a crossing, such as a bridge, can be installed without disturbing the creek bed, channel, bank, or riparian vegetation, notification is not necessary since the project is not within CDFG jurisdiction. Since all creek crossings proposed in the Sanborn Trails Plan would be clear span, CDFG may not need to be notified. 5. Involve a surface water body, natural drainage channel, streambed or water course such as to alter the amount, location, course, or flow of its waters?

No Impact. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not involve altering any water course.

6. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters?

No Impact. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not involve increasing any pollutant discharges to receiving waters. There are no new uses as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan that would increase either land or water pollution. The Sanborn Trails Plan provides for development of water troughs at a few locations along trails providing areas to water livestock. The use of water troughs will minimize equestrian impact on streams by providing areas to water horses. The source of water for these troughs will only come from seeps and springs; water will not be diverted from creeks or other waterways. 7. Expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?

Not Significant. The only dam that would potentially cause flooding is the Lake Ranch Reservoir Dam. The implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not add new residents or structures downstream of this dam. One existing trail is located below the dam on a service road. F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Affected Environment

While Sanborn and the surrounding protected lands of Castle Rock State Park and MROSD Open Space Preserves consist of relatively spacious areas of outstanding scenic or natural character, they are by no means undisturbed wilderness areas. Humans have manipulated and altered the landscape for over a hundred years. These areas, however, provide wildlife species large continuous areas of habitat with little human intrusion, offering areas to escape

Page 3-28


from fires, predators, or human disturbance. Vegetation Communities and Special Status Plants Vegetation Communities

Vegetation communities found within Sanborn include redwood forest, mixed evergreen forest, riparian, oak woodland, chaparral and grassland. These vegetation communities exist in various amounts with the most abundant being redwood forest and mixed evergreen forest. Common plant species found within the redwood forest include coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California bay (Umbellularia californica), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and common snowberry (Symphoricarpos laevigatus). Riparian habitat along creeks and the fringes of ponds contains plants such as willows (Salix spp), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), rush species (Juncus effusus and Juncus patens), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), and marsh aster (Aster chilensis). Plant species found within mixed evergreen and/or oak woodland habitats include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), tan oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Grasslands, generally dominated by non-native species, occur in small areas throughout the park. Typical species found within the grasslands are wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), and California oatgrass (Danthonia californica). Brushy areas are found on southern facing slopes and contain California sage (Artemisia californica), California coffee berry (Rhamnus californica), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), and sticky monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Special Status Plants

A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants resulted in a total of 12 special status plants documented within a five-mile radius of the park. Therefore, these 12 plants have some potential to occur within the park boundaries (see Table 4). No other special status plants besides those on the CNPS listing have been identified. Eight of the 12 plants require serpentine soils to grow. They are the coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae), Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albiduss), most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), Mt. Hamilton thistle (Circium fontinale var. campylon), Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata), and woolly-headed Lessingia (Lessingia hololeuca). Due to the lack of serpentine soils recorded in the park and the lack of field observations of serpentine soils, there is very low potential that suitable habitat exists within the park for the eight serpentine plant species. However, in the unlikely event that suitable habitat is present in the park, these plants have moderate potential of being present.

Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), was recently recorded at El Sereno Open Space

Preserve outside documented serpentine soils, as mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A summary of suitable habitat produced by the Elkhorn Slough Coastal Training Program identifies Franciscan formation substrata and gravelly creekbeds as possible habitat. Suitable habitat such as this could be found in the southeastern areas of Sanborn and around the

Page 3-29


planned Trout Creek Trail at Lexington County Park. However, based on this scientific evidence and lack of field observations, Loma Prieta hoita has a low potential of being present in Sanborn.

The three non-serpentine plants are the King’s Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos

regismontana), Santa Cruz Mountains manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii), and the round-headed coyote-mint (Monardella villosa globosa). King’s Mountain manzanita is found on granite or sandstone outcrops in chaparral, coniferous and evergreen forests. The round-headed coyote-mint is found in openings of oak woodland or chaparral habitats. Over 100 round-headed coyote-mint plants were recently documented in 2005 at Castle Rock State Park (CNDDB). Santa Cruz Mountains manzanita is known to inhabit the Santa Cruz Mountains from Crystal Springs Reservoir south to Mt. Madonna, typically above 1,000 feet in elevation.

The majority of the 12 plant species are listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as 1B, which means they are rare, threatened or endangered in California or elsewhere. The woolly-headed Lessingia is a CNPS List 3, which serves as a review list because more information is needed about the plant. The coyote ceanothus is listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

Table 4. Special Status Plant Species Documented Within Five Miles of Sanborn County Park

and Their Potential to Occur Within the Park.

Species Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur Onsite

Serpentine-based plants: Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae), Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albiduss), Most Beautiful Jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), Mt. Hamilton thistle (Circium fontinale var. campylon), Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata), and woolly-headed Lessingia (Lessingia hololeuca).

Various, from CNPS 3 to FE

Serpentine or ultramafic soils mostly in grassland habitats, chaparral, sometimes foothill woodland, open coniferous forest

No Potential. No serpentine soils recorded in the park and no serpentine soils observed during field visits

King’s Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana)

CNPS 1B

Granite or sandstone outcrops in chaparral, coniferous and evergreen forests

Low Potential. One record from 1929 five miles north of park. Not documented within park, however some suitable habitat present within park.

Round-headed coyote-mint (Monardella villosa globosa)

CNPS 1B

Openings of oak woodland or chaparral habitats

Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat present within park.

Page 3-30



Documented at Castle Rock State Park in 2005.

Santa Cruz Mountains manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii)

CNPS 1B.2

Generally below 3,000 ft in openings or early-successional stands of mixed forests of Douglas fir, coast redwood, coast live oak, interior live oak, and madrone

Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat present within park. Documented at Castle Rock State Park.

Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina)

CNPS 1B.1, Federal Species of Concern

Openings in chaparral or oak woodland, serpentine, or related Franciscan-formation substrata, and descending in gravelly creekbeds draining from the mountains

Low Potential. One recent recorded sighting at adjacent El Sereno OSP outside of documented serpentine soils.

Wildlife and Special Status Animals Wildlife

Sanborn offers large areas of habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The Park represents only a small portion of much larger tracks of protected land throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains. In that respect, Sanborn provides movement corridors and foraging for wildlife such as mountain lion (Felis concolor), Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and neotropic migrants including olive sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), and black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus). Reptile species either observed or expected to occur within the park include northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), western fence lizard (Sceloperous occidentalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Downed woody debris can provide a suitable microclimate including cover and invertebrate forage for amphibian species such as California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuata), western toad (Bufo boreas), and ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzi).

California newts (Taricha torosa) are abundant throughout the park and migrate after the

first fall rains to their breeding grounds within the park’s ponds and creeks. At the conclusion of breeding, approximately May, they will spend the summer months under rocks, bark, or rotting wood.

Special Status Animals A literature search and CNDDB search was conducted for Sanborn and resulted in finding eight special status animal species that have the potential to be present within the park (see Table 5). These include the federally threatened and California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), the California state fully protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), long-eared owl (Asio

Page 3-31


otus), and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) all of which are CSSC species. Additionally, another CSSC species, the southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) a subspecies of western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), is known to occur within the park. The federally threatened steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) has been documented by the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (2005) to have runs or populations within Saratoga Creek, Booker Creek and Bonjetti Creek, and steelhead likely occurs in McElroy Creek. However, multiple barriers on San Tomas Aquino Creek in Santa Clara and a barrier on Saratoga Creek at the confluence of San Tomas Aquino Creek and Saratoga Creek prevents passage of steelhead into the upper reaches of all these creeks. This confluence is located in the City of Santa Clara near Monroe Street and San Tomas Expressway. Genetic tests have not been done on the steelhead/rainbow trout populations found within these creeks to determine if the rainbow trout are of an evolutionary significant stock.

The Unsilvered fritillary (Speyeria adiaste adiaste), a California Species of Special Concern, is most often associated with serpentine habitat, but is known to exist outside serpentine areas. This species has a low potenital for being present at Sanborn in the few open meadows near oak woodlands, redwoods, or chaparral within the park.

There is low potential for foraging and aestivation habitat for the California red-legged frog at Sanborn. The creeks, Walden Pond and Lake Ranch Reservoir provide only marginal breeding habitat for the frog due to the presence of bullfrogs at the pond and reservoir and the lack of or sparse aquatic vegetation found along many of the creeks. There are two records of California red-legged frog in the vicinity of Sanborn: one is located at Saratoga Creek, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the park and the other at Los Gatos Creek, approximately 4.6 miles southeast of the park (CNDDB, 2006)

Table 5. Special-Status Wildlife Species Reported Within Five Miles of Sanborn County Park

and Their Potential to Be Present Within the Park.


White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)

SFP Low elevation agricultural, grassland, oak woodland, wetland, savannah or riparian habitats adjacent to open fields

Moderate potential. Suitable habitat present.

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

CSSC Nests typically found in riparian areas with deciduous trees or oaks, as in canyon bottoms on river flood plains

Moderate potential. Suitable habitat present.

Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida)

CSSC Ponds, creeks in woodlands, and grasslands

Yes. Documented at Lake Ranch Reservoir in 2003.

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii)

FT, CSSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent

Low Potential. Suitable habitat present along creeks and at Lake Ranch Reservoir.

Page 3-32



riparian vegetation. However, habitat is marginal due to the presence of bullfrogs at the reservoir and lack of emergent vegetation and deep pools along creeks.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens)

CSSC Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. May prefer chaparral and redwood habitats

Yes. Woodrat nests found throughout the park during field surveys.

Long-eared owl (Asio otus) CSSC Dense vegetation adjacent to more open areas such as grassland

Moderate Potential. Some suitable habitat found throughout the park.

Steelhead - Central California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)

FT Moderate to fast flowing, well oxygenated waters for breeding

No Potential. Impassable barriers on the lower section of Saratoga Creek preclude the presence of steelhead in the park.

Unsilvered fritillary (Speyeria adiaste ssp. adiaste)

CSSC Openings in redwood and coniferous forests, oak woodlands, chaparral.

Low Potential. Suitable habitat present in open meadows near oak woodlands, redwoods, or chaparral

Riparian Setback Requirements

Santa Clara County: The Santa Clara County General Plan (1995 – 2010) requires a setback of 150 feet from the top of bank of streams where the creek or stream is predominantly in its natural state and 100 feet from top of bank for altered streams for streams within rural unincorporated areas. Guidelines for the extent of the buffer as described in County policies are flexible. The Santa Clara County Planning office is in the process of developing Riparian Protection regulations for integration in the County Zoning Ordinance. These regulations are intended to provide for the protection and potential enhancement of riparian habitat along designated streams in the County.

Sanborn Trails Plan: Discussions regarding riparian buffers in the Sanborn Trails Plan are part of the trail suitability analysis performed by Balance Hydrologics and should not be considered setbacks or buffer zones precluding development. (see Chapter 2 section Analysis of Planned Trail Uses).

Page 3-33


Guidelines for work in riparian zones contained in the Countywide Trails Master Plan,

and incorporated into this plan as BMPs, give examples of exceptions to riparian setbacks:

D – 1.3.3.1 When parallel to a stream or riparian zone, new trails shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the top of bank or from the outside edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater as measured from the edge of the low flow channel, except where topographic, resource management, or other constraints or management objectives make this infeasible or undesirable. Examples of possible exceptions to this requirement include where prime agricultural land would be converted to a non-agricultural use, at drainage crossings, passing under bridges, or where the trails are on an existing flood-control structure (e.g., levee or filled bank. Based on advice of a professional biologist and concurrence of reviewing agencies, riparian setbacks may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.) Santa Clara County Protected Trees

As stated in the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Policy, a protected tree within Sanborn would consist of: 1) any tree present on property owned or leased by the County that is twelve (12) inches or more in diameter measured at four and one-half feet above the ground, or which exceeds twenty (20) feet in height; 2) any multi-trunk trees totaling 24 inches or more in diameter measured at four and one-half feet above the ground; and 3) any tree designated as heritage by the County Board of Supervisors. Tree Preservation and Removal Policy, except in the case of heritage trees, provides certain exceptions to requiring a permit for cutting, removal, destruction, or pruning of a tree. One such exemption includes trees removed or pruned as part of the maintenance of County Parks under established policies and procedures of the County Parks Department.

Will the Project: 1. Affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or plant life, by [a] change in diversity or numbers or [b] introduction of new species or [c] restrictions to migration or movement or [d] reducing habitat?

Not Significant. Rainbow trout are known to occur in Saratoga, Booker, and Bonjetti Creek and are likely to occur in McElroy Creek. Existing downstream fish passage barriers prevent steelhead from entering streams in the park. However, in order to protect current movement of rainbow trout and potential future movement of steelhead if downstream barriers are removed, all of the creeks, which flow year-round in the park, are proposed to have crossings that would span the creek (bridges and puncheons) to allow for in-stream movement of species. In a few instances high in the headwaters of streams, rock crossings and stepping-stones are recommended. Rock crossings would be used along trail crossings, which carry only storm drainage and flow seasonally. Stepping-stones would be used in very shallow flows and would be spaced so that water flows between the stones. These two stream crossing techniques would be located in the channel, but both allow for in-stream animal passage.

Research on the impact of dogs in parks suggests that wildlife will tend to avoid those

areas frequented by dogs off-leash. This avoidance zone generally extends no more than 100

Page 3-34


meters (Lenth, Brennan, & Knight 2006). Given the scale of Sanborn Park’s 3,688 acres, the small overall footprint of the planned trails, and County Ordinance B14-34.1, Pets in Parks which requires pets to be on a leash no greater than 6-feet in length, wildlife will have ample room to nest and forage safely. “Wildlife that are sensitive to recreational disturbance are generally most sensitive to unpredictable spatial patterns of disturbance (MacArthur et al. 1982, Knight and Cole 1995)” Lenth, Brennan, & Knight 2006. By requiring dogs to be on-leash (6-foot or less) and under control of their owners, the area of potential disturbance within a 3,688 park is very small. N Park and trail users who violate the Pets in Parks Ordinance will be subject to citation.

Lenth, Brennan, & Knight (2006) suggest that deer, bobcat, and other animals adjust their behavior commensurate with levels of dog access. While the Sanborn Trails Plan will allow dogs on all trails, they will be required to be on-leash (6-foot or less) and under the control of their owners at all times. This will present a small travel and movement area of 6 feet to either side of the trail, and will restrict dog activity to that of its owner, which is a far more predictable pattern of activity for wildlife.

The historical presence of dogs on-leash in the Day Use Area at Sanborn hasn’t precluded

frequent sightings of deer and bobcat in the Day Use Area. In fact, according to Park Staff, both are quite common in this area, suggesting both species have adjusted to the presence of humans and dogs on-leash. It may be likely that both species have become habituated to the temporal and behavioral patterns of park use and have adjusted their behavior accordingly. This suggests that the current or prior presence of a dog will not dissuade these species from sharing their natural habitat with dogs and humans.

Potential water quality concerns may result from dogs on-leash by defecation and urination near water bodies on trails in Sanborn. However, the County Parks Department enforces County Ordinance B14-34.1 5(c), Pets in Parks, which states “A person shall, in the event that his or her dog defecates on park property, remove the animal waste from the park and/or place it in a proper receptacle.” Potential impacts to water quality resulting from dogs on-leash urinating near water bodies are insignificant due to the small number of water contact crossings and redesigned creek crossings that would avoid environmental impacts, as identified in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

Within Sanborn, dog walkers will be allowed on all trails in accordance with the County Parks Department’s Administrative Policy #397, Dog Access in County Parks (which includes the dog access matrix,) and subject to County Ordinance B14-34.1, Pets in Parks (Approved by the Board’s HLUET Policy Committee and the Board of Supervisors). Through analysis of the suitability of trails for dogs on-leash, and review of the literature, the County Parks Department has determined that, with the expansion of dogs on-leash at the park, potential environmental impacts to the park and wildlife will be less than significant.

When the Board of Supervisors approved the Countywide Trails Master Plan in 1995, the

general plan policy identified hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling trail uses for Sanborn to connect to the Bay Area Ridge Trail, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, and Sanborn Connector Trail alignments. The considerable experience that the County Parks Department has had with the introduction of mountain biking to existing parks dates as far back as 1992.

Page 3-35


Mountain biking was added to Almaden Quicksilver County Park in 1999, Joseph D. Grant County Park in 1993, and Santa Teresa County Park in 1992, following the Board of Supervisors’ approval of their respective planning documents. The addition of this user group has not had a significant impact on the environment.

Sanborn will have the same user groups as Almaden Quicksilver, Joseph D. Grant, and Santa Teresa County Parks, with the exception of horse carts, which are allowed at those parks. The trails planned for mountain biking access will be built in conformance with the BMPs presented in the Permits and Approvals Required section of chapter 2. Mountain Biking access and use is subject to County Ordinance Section B14-42.2 (a-f), Bicycle trails. Conformance with the BMPs, MMRPs, and applicable County Ordinances will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. Result in impact to an endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitat (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?

Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated. There is potential for both listed and special status species to occur in Sanborn and some species could occur in areas proposed for new trail construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 calls for preconstruction surveys for all special status plant

species along proposed new trail routes prior to final trail alignment. This measure includes surveying for the three CNPS-listed plants that have a higher potential for occurrence, (King’s Mountain manzanita, Santa Cruz Mountains manzanita, and round-headed coyote mint). If any special status plant species are found, trail segments would be rerouted to avoid any significant populations of the plants. If re-routing proves to be infeasible, the County Parks Department would consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine if the special status plants could be relocated.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented to detect the presence of special status wildlife, including the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. If the trail alignment is located near or would pass over water, surveys for red-legged frogs, and western pond turtles would also be conducted as part of this Mitigation Measure. The likelihood of presence of the California red-legged frog and steelhead is low. The southwestern pond turtle is known to occur at Lake Ranch Reservoir. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, a CDFG species of special concern, is a sub species of the common dusky footed woodrat species (N. fuscipes) and is known to occur in hardwood forests and chaparral throughout the Bay Area including the Santa Cruz Mountains. Impacts to these species would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

An existing service road parallels one side (east side) of the reservoir and is used by park

staff and utility company staff (San Jose Water Company and PG&E) vehicles. This service road is very narrow with a steep drop off into the reservoir and blind corners exist on either side of the reservoir. Therefore, vehicles traveling this road do not typically exceed speeds of 10 miles per hour for safety reasons, and drivers could easily spot and avoid any wildlife including southwestern pond turtle crossing, foraging, and/or basking on the road. A segment of the existing John Nicholas trail utilizes this service road and is used by park visitors. This existing

Page 3-36


trail on the eastern shore of the reservoir will be retained. No trail alignments were proposed along the western side of the reservoir or hillside as a conscious effort to avoid any sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, use of this trail is not expected to impact these species or other wildlife species, i.e. waterfowl that frequent the reservoir.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be implemented to detect the presence of nesting raptors, including the white-tailed kite, long-eared owl, and Cooper’s hawk, and the presence of nesting migratory birds. Impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3.

Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by CDFG Code section 3503, which reads,

“It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) which prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

New trails would provide new access to habitat that was formerly inaccessible. Thus,

nests of white-tailed kites, Cooper’s hawks, or other common raptors (red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, osprey) could be subject to disturbance by humans during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 calls for pre-construction surveys for raptors.

The Sanborn Trails Plan adds a new trail use to Sanborn that currently does not exist: use

of the trails by mountain bikers on trails designated for their use, and expands access to dogs on-leash (6-foot leash or less and under control, per County Ordinance B14-34.1, Pets in Parks). Both of these uses are allowed in other Santa Clara County Parks. Provided that these users adhere to Park policies and rules, such as bicyclists remaining on marked trails, and dogs remaining on a six-foot leash, potential environmental impacts to biological resources as a result of these uses will be kept to less than significant levels. There are no indications from other county parks, which have allowed dogs on-leash in the same manner as proposed at Sanborn, that dogs on-leash and under control of their handlers create a significant impact.

Since the trail construction activities would be short-term in nature, the direct impacts on

the species and their habitat would also be short-term. Any vegetation disturbed by the trail construction would be restored in accordance with the Countywide Trails Master Plan. The Countywide Trails Master Plan contains the following guidelines, included as BMPs in this project, related to special status species:

D - 1.3.2.1 To the maximum extent feasible, trail alignments shall avoid impacts to known special status plants and animal habitats. Trail alignments shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a professional biologist to identify impact avoidance measures or mitigation measures for biotic impacts. Consideration shall be given to: rerouting the trail; periodic closures; revegetation prescriptions including replacement vegetation based on habitat acreage or plant quantity; buffer plantings; and other appropriate measures. Removal of mature native trees shall be avoided as much as possible to protect the productivity of the landscape and the aesthetics of the trail. The appropriate resource agencies will be contacted for consultation

Page 3-37


regarding any trail alignments that are identified as having potential significant impacts to special status species or their habitat. D - 1.3.2.3 Existing access routes and levees shall be used wherever possible to minimize impacts of new construction in special status species habitats. D – 1.3.3.6 Revegetation and/or enhancement will be undertaken where any sensitive habitat or special status species habitat will be disturbed or destroyed by trail construction. The design of an appropriate revegetation program shall fully compensate for the lost habitat, with no net loss of habitat functions and values.

Steelhead/rainbow trout could be affected by erosion or sedimentation of the creeks during construction. Adherence to the Countywide Trails Master Plan guidelines and BMPs will reduce impacts on steelhead/rainbow trout to less than significant levels. In particular the following policies would minimize impacts on steelhead/rainbow trout: D - 3.5.3 Soil Disturbance: In order to reduce erosion and maintenance problems, disturbance of the soil surface shall be kept to a minimum. Only those rocks, stumps, and roots which interfere with safe passage shall be removed. D - 3.5.5 Erosion Control Plans: Where a potential for significant soil erosion exists along a new trail alignment, specific erosion control plans shall be developed by a Registered Civil or Soils Engineer as part of the trail construction documentation. Criteria to be used in determining the erosion potential include: slope; soil type; soil composition and permeability; and the relative stability of the underlying geologic unit as identified on local General Plans or other adopted planning documents.

In order to avoid or reduce potential impacts to special status species, the following Countywide Trails Master Plan guideline will be followed: D - 1.3.2.2 In special status species habitat areas, trail use levels shall be limited as appropriate to ensure protection of resources. Techniques for limiting use may include, but are not limited to: - physical access controls - seasonal or intermittent closures - restricted use permits - exclusion of domestic pets

Impacts on special status species would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the following Mitigation Measures and BMPs identified in this plan. Impact BIO-1: Trail construction could affect populations or individual plants, listed by CNPS as rare, threatened or endangered. The listing covers three plants that could occur at Sanborn County Park: King’s Mountain manzanita, Santa Cruz Mountains manzanita, and round-headed coyote-mint.

Page 3-38


Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If a trail alignment is within suitable habitat for any of the three plant species, preconstruction plant surveys will occur after the preliminary trail alignment has been flagged. If any special status plant species are found within the affected area including a 15 foot buffer on either side of the trail alignment, trail segments will be rerouted and include a 15 foot buffer where feasible to avoid significant populations of these plants. If re-routing proves to be infeasible, the County Parks Department would consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine if the special status plants could be relocated.

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. County Parks Staff to schedule plant surveys. Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified consulting biologist will submit report.

Timing: Prior to construction of the project, after preliminary trail alignment has been flagged.

Monitoring: County Parks Staff Impact BIO-2: If trails are present within a creek corridor or adjacent upland habitat, California red legged frog (CRLF), southwestern pond turtle (WPT), and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (woodrat) houses could be disturbed by project activities or by vehicle or human access. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following avoidance measures for WPT, CRLF, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat will be implemented:

1. Preconstruction Surveys

There is low potential for the presence of CRLF at Sanborn, due in part to the presence of bullfrogs and sparse emergent vegetation along most aquatic features. The creeks, “Walden Pond”, and Lake Ranch Reservoir provide only marginal breeding habitat. However, to ensure that CRLF do not occur in the project area, one daytime survey for CRLF will be performed in the two days prior to the start of project implementation activities. The entire work area, including any burrows, rocks and woodpiles that may be disturbed by construction activities, will be inspected for CRLF. If CRLF is detected, work will be delayed and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be contacted for guidance on how to proceed (due to its status as a Federally Threatened species).

If during this survey a WPT is detected, the WPT will be observed to determine if it is moving through the area in which it was detected or if the WPT is occupying the habitat for nesting, foraging, or basking. During construction activities within the immediate area of the WPT detection, an onsite monitor will work with construction crews. If the WPT is relocated during construction activities, the monitor will observe the WPT and alert work crews to delay work if the WPT is within the work area or begins to move toward or into the work area. If the WPT appears to be traveling from upland habitat to a nearby aquatic site such as Lake Ranch Reservoir or vice versa, work shall cease until the WPT has traveled a safe distance from the immediate project site. The monitor shall observe the WPT from a distance to ensure it does not wander back into the work area. If the WPT is relocated and appears to be occupying the habitat within the project footprint for activities such as nesting, basking, or foraging, the County or its

Page 3-39


representatives will contact CDFG for guidance (due to its status as a State Species of Special Concern).

If during this survey a dusky-footed woodrat house is detected, and assuming the house is of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat sub-species, the County will complete one of the following avoidance/minimization measures. These measures are listed in order of priority, where the first measure is the preferred measure to be implemented as it provides the least amount of impact to the woodrat. If the first measure cannot be implemented due to extenuating site conditions, the second shall be implemented and so forth down the list.

a. The trail alignment will be rerouted to avoid the woodrat house by at least 50 feet. b. If the trail cannot be rerouted at least 50 feet from the house, it will be rerouted as far

away from the nest as possible but not closer than 5 feet from the house. Safety and/or silt fencing (for houses downslope) will be erected around all houses within 25 feet of the trail alignment to avoid impacts during construction.

c. If the project footprint must go directly through or within 5 feet of a house, CDFG should be consulted with one of the two following options:

1. If the house appears inactive (e.g. no scat or fresh leaves and twigs), approval will be sought from CDFG to dismantle the house and replace the lost resource by building an artificial house. One artificial house should be built for every one existing inactive house that is dismantled.

2. If the house appears active, approval will be sought from CDFG to 1) trap the occupant(s) of the house, 2) dismantle the house, 3) construct a new artificial house with the materials from the dismantled house, and 4) release the occupant into the new artificial house. The new house should be placed no more than 20 feet from its original location and as far from the project footprint as necessary to be protected from construction activities. If the house is to be moved downslope of the project footprint, extra precautions should be taken, such as a debris barrier, to stop falling/sliding materials from impacting the new house. Houses should only be moved in the early morning during the non-breeding season (October through February). If trapping has occurred for three consecutive nights and no woodrats have been captured, the house should be dismantled and a new house constructed.

2. Employees and Contractor Education Program. An employee education program will be conducted prior to the initiation of project activities. The program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in federally listed and state special status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their protection under state and federal laws; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to CRLF, WPT, and woodrat during project activities. Crews will be instructed that if a CRLF is found, it is to be left alone and the project foreman and County Parks staff must be notified immediately. County Parks Department staff will notify the USFWS. Likewise, if a WPT nest or woodrat house is found in the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should cease. Notify Project site lead

Page 3-40


and County Parks Department staff (if site lead is a contractor) or notify Parks Natural Resource Program Supervisor (NRPS) if Project Lead is parks staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, County natural resource staff, or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF, WPT, woodrat or other wildlife present within the work area. If CRLF, WPT, or woodrat is found, the monitor shall have the authority to halt construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate County Parks Department staff (Natural Resource Program Supervisor or designated staff). If the monitor is County Parks’ natural resource staff, or qualified biologist, they will have the authority to notify the appropriate regulatory agency for guidance on procedure. Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS or CDFG shall be followed. The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any WPT, CRLF, or woodrat are seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no WPT, CRLF or woodrat are on the ground below the vehicle.

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members

Timing: Prior to construction and during construction as specified above Monitoring: County Parks Staff

Impact BIO-3: Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan could impact nesting birds, if present. Activities include trail construction or the removal or trimming of shrubs or trees for trail and bridge construction and trail realignment or obliteration.

During the migratory bird nesting season (March 1 - July 31), as a general rule although dependent upon weather patterns in any given year, or raptor nesting season, which in this part of California is February 1-July 31, as a general rule although dependent upon weather patterns in any given year, implementation of the activities noted above could result in loss of nests, eggs, or individuals. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-3:

Nesting Migratory Birds: All vegetation clearing, including trimming of shrubs or trees will take place outside the migratory bird nesting season (March 1 - July 31). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a survey for nesting migratory birds will occur within five days prior to the start of clearing or construction activities. Every attempt will be made to ensure completion of the vegetation clearing and trimming activities within the five-day period. If more than five days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of construction activities, another nest survey will be conducted. If any active nest(s) are detected, all vegetation clearing activities will be suspended and a 50-foot radius buffer established. All vegetation clearing activities within 50-feet of the active nest(s) will take place after the nest(s)

Page 3-41


are no longer active and chicks have fledged. CDFG generally accepts a 50-foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests; however the County natural resource staff shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances. Nesting Raptors: All vegetation clearing, including trimming of shrubs or trees, and/or construction activities, will take place outside the raptor-nesting season (February 1- July 31). If such activities must occur during the raptor-nesting season, all suitable raptor-nesting habitat within 500 feet of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is located within 500 feet of the construction area, a no-activity buffer of 250 feet will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. Every attempt will be made to protect trees and nests that contain active raptor nests. CDFG generally accepts up to a 250-foot buffer radius for raptors, however, the County natural resource staff, in consultation with CDFG, may have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances such as for nests not within the line of sight of construction activity.

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist

Timing: During the construction phase of the project Monitoring: County Parks Staff

3. Impact a local natural community, such as a fresh water marsh, oak forest or salt water tide land?

Not Significant. One potential impact from project activities to the oak woodlands found

within Sanborn is the spread of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SOD), which is known to occur in the park. Because the mode of spread and the possible vectors of this fungus remain unknown, it is inconclusive whether trail construction and use would contribute to its spread. However, SOD spores are known to prefer wet moist climates, cool temperatures and living plants. The risk of movement is greatest in muddy areas during rainy weather. The California Oak Mortality Task Force provides a list of BMPs and sanitation measures that may aid in reducing the spread of SOD. These BMPs along with posting educational signs for visitors will be implemented and are included in the Project Description. BMPs include keeping equipment, boots and tools clean (i.e. removing mud and any plant material), completing work in the dry season, aligning trails away from areas that are infested, and educating work crews. Equipment and tools will be treated prior to moving into new areas that SOD can potentially spread. 4. Impact a watercourse, aquatic, wetland, or riparian area or habitat? (Subdivision includes or construction within 150 feet.)

Not Significant. The floodplain of any stream or river is an important part of flow

conveyance during periods of high water. In order to analyze these areas, the Trail Suitability Analysis performed by Balance Hydrologics for the Sanborn Trails Plan, established a 30-foot buffer around all minor creeks within the park, a 75-foot buffer around Sanborn Creek, and a 150-foot buffer around Lyndon Creek, and automatically designated these areas as “poorly-suited” on the suitability analysis maps (maps 3 and 4). These riparian buffers in the Sanborn

Page 3-42


Trails Plan should not be considered setbacks or buffer zones precluding development. These buffers provide a useful general guide for trail suitability at a broad scale. Balance Hydrologics evaluated the hydrologic and geologic opportunities and constraints of the site and recommended practical guidelines for trail design in areas where there are multiple constraining physical factors such as these.

In addition, impacts to riparian habitat would be minimized due to existing trail design

and riparian setback policies in effect, which require careful design of trails in or near riparian zones. According to the Countywide Trails Master Plan guideline D - 1.3.3.2, “trails in foothill and mountain accessibility zones (Reference Map G-1: Accessibility Zones) within 100 feet of a riparian zone shall be composed of natural materials or shall be designed (e.g. a bridge or boardwalk) to minimize disturbance and need for drainage structures, and to protect water quality (Reference: Figures G-11 and G-12).”

Any work proposed within the bed, bank or channel of a creek or lake including creek

crossings normally requires the completion of a Streambed Alteration Agreement under section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, any work proposed in a riparian area may require the completion of a 1600 Stream Alteration Agreement with CDFG. This Agreement would specify measures to be incorporated into trail design as well as future management actions that would minimize impacts on riparian habitat.

CDFG Code 1602 states that "An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake...where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake" unless CDFG is notified and a Streambed Alteration Agreement is obtained. Although many of the drainages in Sanborn are located at higher elevations and only convey water during storm events or because of a nearby spring or seep, they still fall under the jurisdiction of CDFG. Currently, separate notification and fee submittal is required for each work site or crossing to be installed. However, if a crossing, such as a bridge, can be installed without disturbing the creek bed, channel, bank, or riparian vegetation, notification is not necessary.

It is estimated that the Sanborn Trails Plan would add 24 drainage crossings and convert

to public use two existing drainage crossings. The drainage crossings are classified into six categories: large bridge (>60 feet), small bridge (15 to 59 feet), puncheon, turnpike, rock crossing and stepping-stones. All bridges would be clear spans. The totals per category are:

• Large bridge = 4 • Small bridge = 6 plus 1 existing now for public use • Puncheon = 7 • Turnpike = 4 • Rock crossing (rock ford) = 1 plus 1 existing now for public use • Stepping stones = 2

It is possible there would be a need for other small drainage crossings not captured in this

master plan effort. It is anticipated that these would be primarily puncheons across seasonal drainages only. There are many areas in Sanborn County Park where flows exist only during

Page 3-43


storm events. However, these areas would need drainage crossings to prevent the trails from washing out.

Of the large bridges, two span Aubry Creek, one spans Sanborn Creek and one spans Trout Creek (Trout Creek Trail - acquisition needed thus placement of bridge undefined). Of the small bridges, one spans Sanborn Creek, two span tributaries to Sanborn Creek, one spans tributary to Aubry Creek, one spans Bonjetti Creek and one spans McElroy Creek or Bonjetti Creek (Pourroy Trail - acquisition needed thus placement of bridge remains undefined). The placement of any new bridges, and construction of planned trails, on lands outside the boundaries of the project were not analyzed as part of this plan and will require separate environmental analysis prior to implementation.

Because the bridges are proposed to be clear spans and not involve construction of footings in the creek channels, nor removal of riparian vegetation, no impacts would occur from the placement of bridges and notification to CDFG is not necessary, although CDFG may be consulted.

As long as final trail alignments adhere to the above guidelines, policies, and regulations, there would be no impact on riparian areas or habitat. Additionally, impacts to any watercourse would not be significant. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are located within areas of the project site where construction activities would take place.

5. Adversely impact unique or heritage trees or a large number of trees over 12" in diameter? Not Significant. The Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Policy states a protected tree consists of: 1) any tree present on property owned or leased by the county that is twelve (12) inches or more in diameter measured at four and one-half feet above the ground, or which exceeds twenty (20) feet in height; 2) any multi-trunk trees totaling 24 inches or more in diameter measured at four and one-half feet above the ground; and 3) any tree designated as heritage by the County Board of Supervisors. Conformance to these policies will ensure that no significant impacts occur. The Tree Preservation and Removal Policy, except in the case of heritage trees, provides certain exceptions to requiring a permit for cutting, removal, destruction, or pruning of a tree. One such exemption includes trees removed or pruned as part of the maintenance of County Parks under established policies and procedures of the County Parks Department. G. TRANSPORTATION

Will the Project: 1. Cause a substantial increase in traffic or traffic congestion in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? (Exceed LOS level ‘D’ in vicinity-GP policy C-TR 12, C-TR(i)6.)

Page 3-44


Not Significant. Short-term local impacts on traffic on Highway 9 and/or Sanborn Road during construction from construction workers would not occur, since most construction workers carpool from County offices. One of the proposed clear span bridges at Aubry Creek is adjacent to Sanborn Road, and therefore construction of this bridge could temporarily use one of the lanes along this road. However, this road does not experience heavy traffic, and because of the short duration of this construction (2-3 days), no impacts are expected. 2. Generate 100 or more peak hour trips? [If yes, a CMA transportation impact analysis must be prepared.]

Not Significant. Park usage at Sanborn at buildout of the Sanborn Trails Plan or 2025 is expected to result in 97,612 user days per year, an increase of 25,467 user days per year from the average total of 72,145 from 1999-2001. Of this total 67% can be attributed to projected population increases in Santa Clara County. Currently only 25,250, or 70 park visitors per day on average, are trail users (See Chapter 2 section on Existing and Projected Park Trail Usage). With the projected population increase of 23%, the total number of trail users at buildout or 2025 is 31,058. Following the completion of the conversion phase improvements, which includes expanded dog on-leash access and the introduction of mountain biking to some trails, trail use would be projected to rise 10%. As the entire trail system expands to full buildout or 2025, use of the park is expected to increase to 39,932 trail user days per year.

The Sanborn Trails Plan at buildout or 2025 is expected to generate an increase of only

7,332 annual trail user days, or 20 more trail users per day by 2025. If typical trends observed in County Parks hold true here, the majority of trail users accessing Sanborn will do so during weekends, thus avoiding impacts to peak hour traffic. If the projected increase in trail user days were weighted in favor of weekend usage to 35 trail user days on weekends on average, with weekdays at an average of only 14 trail user days, the total increase from trail user visitation to potential peak hour trips, assuming all trail users are traveling during peak hours, is only 20% per day or 35 more users on weekends and 14 more users on weekdays. Based on this analysis, the projected increase in the number of peak hour trips is not considered significant. 3. Increase traffic hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles?

No Impact. No new design features, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections are part of the proposed Sanborn Trails Plan. The Sanborn Trails Plan will reconfigure the Indian Rock and Summit Rock Staging Areas, which are both located off Highway 35. Reconfiguring these staging areas will decrease vehicular and pedestrian hazards by making parking lane delineations clearer. Approximately 95 feet of the swale area at the Indian Rock Staging Area will be closed off to the public to protect existing trees and move vehicles out of standing water (large puddles which form from Highway 35 surface sheet flow). The County Parks Department will submit plans for the revised Indian Rock and Summit Rock staging areas to Caltrans for their review and approval, since these areas are adjacent to the Highway 35 (State Route 35) right-of-way.

Two roadway crossings are proposed on Sanborn Road. A pedestrian crossing is

proposed from the Welch-Hurst Trail to the new staging area on Sanborn Road. This crossing would link the Sanborn lands on either side of Sanborn Road. It would be an important crossing

Page 3-45


for Walden West students (See Figure 2). A second crossing is proposed on Sanborn Road in the vicinity of the park entrance. The crossing would link parkland currently closed to the public to the Day Use Area. This crossing would serve the multiple-use Peterson Trail (See Figure 2). The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department has reviewed these two crossings in concept (pers. comm. Peter Hu, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, County Roads and Airports Department). The design of this staging area constitutes a project level review that will not require further environmental work prior to construction.

The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose a crossing design for Highway 35, but identifies a future trail alignment to this location (Partridge Farm Trail) from the County trail system should this crossing be desired in the future. This trail connection would not be constructed unless a crossing was desired and a design approved by all involved agencies. 4. Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?

No Impact. Providing safe pedestrian access is a key component in the Sanborn Trails Plan. No future street rights-of-way are needed to implement the Sanborn Trails Plan. 5. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off-street parking because of inadequate project parking? Not Significant. The lower parking lot at the Visitor Center will be reconfigured to accommodate equestrians, resulting in a loss of 10 parking spaces. However, this is not considered a significant impact as the middle parking lot has a capacity of 104 spaces and the Peterson Grove has a parking capacity of 80 cars. The improvements at the three Staging Areas along Highway 35 will result in a total net increase parking capacity for 19 additional vehicles. 6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. transit, bicycles, walking)?

No Impact. The project will not conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans or facilities related to alternative transportation (bus/train routes or facilities, bicycle routes, etc.), but will enhance alternative transportation opportunities as the regional trail linkages are implemented.

H. POPULATION/HOUSING

Will the Project:

1. Reduce the supply of low-income housing or displace people or businesses?

No Impact. Implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan project will not displace the local population or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. 2. Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?

Page 3-46


No Impact. Implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. No new residential development will occur as a result of the project as the proposed improvements. I. SAFETY/HEALTH Affected Environment

A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. Chemical and physical properties such as toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity, cause a substance to be considered hazardous. These properties are defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 66261.20-66261.24. A “hazardous waste” is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or to be recycled. The criteria that render a material hazardous also make a waste hazardous (California Health and Safety Code, Section 25117). According to this definition, fuels, motor oil, and lubricants in use at a typical construction site and lead built up along roadways could be considered hazardous. Discussion:

Will the Project: 1. Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (including pesticides, herbicides, toxic substances, oil, chemicals or radioactive materials?

Not Significant. The only hazardous materials to be used at the project site during construction are the fuels, oils and lubricants associated with various on-site vehicles and construction machinery. The implementation of BMPs listed in the Project Description would minimize the risk of reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. 2. If yes to #1, be within 1/4 mile of a school [public notice]?

Not Significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within Sanborn. However, there is a Youth Hostel and the Youth Science Institute located within the park. Sanborn surrounds the Walden West Environmental Education Center. It is anticipated that these facilities would be subject to the emissions of typical trail building equipment such as Sweco trail-dozer or trucks, but the impact would be short term and vehicles would move about the Park over time as the Sanborn Trails Plan is implemented. 3. Be located within 200' of a 230KV or above electrical transmission line?

Not Significant. High voltage power lines (230KV) pass through the northeast and

southeast corners of Sanborn. Three trails may cross with 200’ of these transmission lines. These trails include the Stuart Ridge Trail in the northeast and the Faultline Trail and Trout Creek Trail in the southeast. Although these trails may be within 200’ of the transmission lines on the map, the actual distance is much greater due to the steep topography and dense vegetation

Page 3-47


in both of these locations. This greater distance created by the topography, and the temporary nature of trail use, where park visitors move through the landscape, indicate that this use is not significant to power transmission. 4. Create any health hazard?

No Impact. The project does not propose any facilities or uses that would be considered a health hazard. 5. Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards?

Not Significant. The project is located in a seismically active area and visitors to the park would be exposed to seismic and earthquake related hazards. A variety of potential health hazards currently exist at the park such as exposure to mold spores, wild animals, poor air quality on poor air quality days, and exposure to weather. However, implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not significantly increase exposure of people to these types of potential health hazards. 6. Be located in an ALUC Safety Zone?

No Impact. Sanborn is not within an Airport Land Use Commission Safety Zone. 7. Increase fire hazard in an area already involving extreme fire hazard? Not Significant. The proposed project provides additional trail mileage for public access and travel within Sanborn, which has been identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a high fire hazard zone. The Sanborn Trails Plan was developed according to Santa Clara County General Plan Policies C-PR-12 and C-PR-32. Implementing these policies will avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The policies are listed as follows: C-PR 12: Parks and trails in remote areas, fire hazardous areas, and areas with inadequate access should be planned to provide the services or improvements necessary to provide for the safety and support of the public using the parks and to avoid negative impacts on the surrounding areas. C-PR 32: Parks and trails in remote areas, fire hazardous areas, and areas with inadequate access shall be planned to: a. provide the services or improvements necessary to provide for the safety and support of the public using the parks and trails; and b. avoid negative impacts on the surrounding areas. 8. Be located on a cul-de-sac over 800 ft. in length and require secondary access which will be difficult to obtain?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose any new staging areas on any cul-de-sac.

Page 3-48


9. Employ technology which could adversely affect safety in case of a breakdown?

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan would employ minimal technology. There are no elements of the Sanborn Trails Plan that would affect the safety of either humans or the environment with its low-technology equipment and measures. 10. Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?

Not Significant. The improvements to the existing Staging Areas would reduce minor safety hazards that currently exist related to unclearly marked parking spaces. No element of the Sanborn Trails Plan would result in new safety hazards. 11. Provide breeding grounds for vectors?

Not Significant. Potential vectors of disease found within Sanborn include species such as mosquitoes, ticks, and various mammal species. Project activities would likely not increase populations of these species due to the implementation of standard County maintenance practices (e.g. keeping trash containers sealed shut and cleaned out on a regular basis, constructing trails to avoid pooling of water, posting education signs regarding the dangers of ticks). The County Parks Maintenance Division has been installing wildlife-proof trashcans to prevent impact by vectors and wildlife in use areas. J. AIR QUALITY Regulatory Setting

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for air pollution control and setting State ambient air quality standards and allowable emission levels for motor vehicles. The State is divided into air basins governed by districts. The project site is located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD monitors and enforces District, State of California, and Federal air quality standards. Monitored pollutants include Ozone (O3), Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NO2, collectively “Nox”) Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), hydrocarbons, elemental and organic carbon, and various hazardous air pollutant compounds.

The Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. This Air Basin is an

attainment area for all national pollutant standards set forth in the Federal Clean Air Act with the exception of ozone. In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the national 8-hour ozone standard. The region also exceeds State ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The state standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards. All other pollutants are designated as “attainment” or “unclassified” for federal and state standards. Existing Ambient Air Quality

Page 3-49


The BAAQMD operates a network of monitoring sites in the area and maintains a database of air quality data collected from these monitoring locations. The closest monitoring stations to the project site are located in Redwood City and San Jose. Sensitive Receptors

The closest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are the residences that are to the east of the park, within the City of Saratoga. Sensitive receptors in this case are people that may have health problems. The most common air quality effects from construction sites are dust (PM10) and increased emissions from construction vehicles. These effects can be problematic for the young or old or those with asthma or emphysema.

Discussion:

Will the project: 1. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations?

Not Significant. Guidance from the BAAQMD’s CEQA guidelines indicates that the BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions. Instead it requires implementation of effective and comprehensive feasible control measures to reduce PM10 emissions (BAAQMD 1999). Construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors. These construction equipment emissions may affect localized air quality on a short-term basis during construction. However, because the project consists mostly of trail building, construction emissions will not significantly contribute to violation of any air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. General construction emissions have been included in the emission inventory that is the basis for the regional air quality plans and are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1999).

The project will cause carbon monoxide and dust emissions during construction, which

are already included in the emission inventory that is the basis for the regional air quality plans within the BAAQMD. The project is implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan and thus will not result in urban growth or introduce new sources of air pollutants; therefore, the project will not result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.

The project will not result in an increase in population or result in a new source of stationary or ongoing permanent mobile emissions. Given the short duration, the nature of trail construction activities and implementation of BMPs (as listed in the project description of this document) to control dust that are consistent with BAAQMD requirements, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Dust created from trail users during dry summer months is not considered a significant impact. 2. Create objectionable dust or odors?

Page 3-50


Not Significant. No release of odors is expected during either the construction phase or operation of the Sanborn Trails Plan. Dust (PM10) is the other air quality issue related to construction. The BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for construction activities. These measures are listed in the Project Description section of this document. These BMPs, if properly implemented, will ensure that construction-related air quality impacts are minimized. No long-term air quality impacts from the operation of the new trails or new trail users are expected to occur. 3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?

No Impact. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not alter the site’s climate in any way. K. NOISE Affected Environment

Sanborn is located in a rural setting with mainly other open space lands (i.e. Castle Rock

State Park, El Sereno OSP) adjacent to the park boundaries. The only potentially sensitive receptors are a few residences along Sanborn Road. The majority of the trails in Sanborn Trails Plan are situated away from these homes. There are three environmental education centers located within or near to Sanborn – YSI, West Valley College Park Management Program, and Walden West. In addition the Sanborn Youth Hostel is located within Sanborn, northwest of Walden West.

Santa Clara County has a noise ordinance (Chapter VII of the code). Under the ordinance, construction activities are allowed from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. Discussion:

Will the Project: 1. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas during and/or after construction?

Not Significant. There would be temporary and periodic increases in the ambient noise levels at Sanborn resulting from project construction. However, because the noise would be temporary, and would be limited to daytime hours per the County’s noise ordinance, the impact is considered less than significant. Once construction is completed, the project would not affect ambient noise levels.

2. Expose people to high noise or vibration levels generated by the project or from the surrounding area?

Not Significant. Construction noise is considered a less than significant impact because of the temporary nature of the noise and the remoteness of the locations where the construction

Page 3-51


activity would take place. A typical piece of heavy equipment used for trail construction would generate a maximum noise of 70 dBA at 100 feet from the equipment. From 400 feet the noise would be reduced to about 58 dBA, showing a 12 dB noise attenuating effect from the addition of 300 feet distance (the doubling of source to receptor distance). Since the County intends to comply with the Santa Clara County noise ordinance, which limits construction noise to the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm Monday through Saturday, the effect of the machine noise would be less than significant. Construction vibration is considered a less than significant impact because of the temporary nature of the noise and the remoteness of the locations where the construction activity would take place. L. AESTHETICS Environmental Setting

The Skyline Ridge and other portions of the park are visible to adjoining residential and open space areas. Typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the park is characterized by the steep slopes and dense tree growth. Views from the lowest elevations of the park near the park entrance are of the mixed redwood, Douglas fir, and oak woodlands of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west and grasslands in the limited open areas of the lower elevations. Views from the existing trails are limited as the dense trees block most views north and east toward the Santa Clara Valley and views south and west to the upper slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains themselves. The majority of trails form a network along the valley floor off Sanborn Road, providing connections between the Sanborn Youth Hostel, picnic areas, campground and YSI.

Photo 2. Sanborn Youth Hostel. Source: http://www.ysi-ca.org/Sanborn/SBHome.html


http://www.ysi-ca.org/Sanborn/SBHome.html

Page 3-52


Photo 3. Sanborn Park YSI. Source: http://www.ysi-ca.org/Sanborn/SBHome.html

Photo 4. View from upper elevation of the park east toward Santa Clara Valley.

Source: http://redefine.dyndns.org/gallery/sanborn_hike/DSC02890

The Youth Hostel is located in a cabin built in 1913 and is currently on the National Register of Historic Places (Photo 2). The YSI building has a similar rustic cabin look (Photo 3). The Bay Area Ridge Trail follows Skyline Boulevard and is within the uppermost elevations of the park. Views of the valley floor are mostly limited from the Bay Area Ridge Trail by the dense vegetation. Breaks in the trees offer views toward Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley, and areas of the park (Photo 4).


http://www.ysi-ca.org/Sanborn/SBHome.html

http://redefine.dyndns.org/gallery/sanborn_hike/DSC02890

Page 3-53


Discussion: Will the Project: 1. If subject to ASA, be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval? No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan is not subject to ASA. 2. Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

Not Significant. The Sanborn Trails Plan would not involve large amounts of grading and thus would not create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Most new trail routes have been designed to follow or switchback along contour elevations so the majority of trails would be hidden or blocked by down-slope trees or vegetation.

Existing scenic outlooks at higher elevations such as from Highway 35 or ridge outlooks

toward San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley would not change as a result of implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan. With an overall increase in trail mileage at the park, the number of opportunities for recreationalists to view scenic vistas would increase. 3. Visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities, be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor? Not Significant. Implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan would not substantially damage scenic visual and aesthetic resources. Trails within the Sanborn Trails Plan would be limited to 12 feet in width, and many new trails would be narrower, single-track trails. Because Sanborn is heavily wooded, and because of the lack of sensitive receptors that have views into the park, new trails would not be readily visible. The three proposed pole barn structures are small and would be constructed of rustic materials, thus they would fit in with the visual character of the wooded park.

A portion of Highway 9 between Highway 17 and Highway 35 is an officially state designated scenic highway. The park entrance at Sanborn Road is located a mile from the intersection of Highway 9 and Sanborn Road. The only parkland adjacent to Highway 9 is located at the intersection of Sanborn Road. As stated in the Project Description, informal parking for five or six cars is available on pavement along Sanborn Road near the access to the Sanborn Narrows Trail. There are no plans to modify this parking area. No other project improvements are planned along Highway 9 that would affect scenic resources within the scenic highway corridor. Highway 9 is heavily forested on either side.

Highway 35 south of the intersection with Highway 9 is eligible for designation as a state

scenic highway, however it is not officially designated. No improvements are planned within the corridor besides upgrading the existing Summit Rock and Sunnyvale Mountain staging areas. These changes would not change the rural wooded character of the area, which affects the route’s eligibility as a state scenic highway.

Page 3-54


4. Obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, public lands, public water body or roads? No Impact. Implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan would not obstruct scenic views from existing areas. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose to construct any structure that would obstruct any view. 5. Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the valley floor? Not Significant. While Sanborn includes acreage that is along the ridgeline, the Sanborn Trails Plan focuses construction of trails and three small pole barn structures within the heavily wooded areas, thus these elements would not be visible from the valley floor. The Staging Areas that are located on the ridgeline adjacent to Highway 35 would not be visible from the valley floor. 6. Adversely affect the architectural appearance of an established neighborhood? No Impact. The implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not adversely affect the architectural appearance of an established neighborhood. Sanborn is located outside the Town of Saratoga, in a rural wooded area of the Santa Cruz Mountains. No elements of the Sanborn Trails Plan would be considered architectural. 7. Generate new light or glare? No Impact. There are no facilities proposed in the Sanborn Trails Plan that would generate a new source of light or glare, including at the staging areas. New day or nighttime lighting is not proposed. No facilities of highly reflective materials are to be constructed. M. ENERGY Will the Project: 1. Use non-renewable resources in large quantities or in a wasteful manner? No Impact. The small Sweco trail-dozer for trail construction would use Diesel fuel, a non-renewable resource. Bulldozers and trucks would be used to reconfigure and expand the Staging Areas. However, this equipment would be only used once, during the construction phase, so large quantities of fuels would not be used. No other non-renewable resources would be used. The County Parks Department will establish designated fueling locations during the project, and will have spill kits on-site when in backcountry locations. 2. Involve the removal of vegetation capable of providing summer shade to a building or significantly affect solar access to adjacent property? No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not contain provisions to remove trees adjacent to buildings. Sanborn is heavily wooded. While there may be a few trees removed for

Page 3-55


trail construction, this removal would not significantly affect solar access to any adjacent properties. N. HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL Cultural Resources

The Sanborn area has a rich cultural history. Probably the first Native American visitors to Sanborn were the Ohlone Indians, who were hunter-gatherers, dependent upon what they could harvest. A number of bedrock mortars and associated settlement sites are scattered throughout the park. The first Euro-American settlers in the Sanborn area probably arrived in the early 1860’s. The lands were cleared for farming or used for the harvesting of tanbark oak or timber. The park still contains remains of an old logging camp. In the 1900’s vast estates were purchased including those by Judge James Welch and H.P. Dyer. Their homes are still in use today. The Sanborn Youth Hostel, a member of the American Youth Hostels, Inc. operates out of the historic Welch-Hurst house (ca 1913), and the YSI operates out of the historic Dyer house (ca. 1915). The Welch property was later sold to Vernon Pick; remnants of his facilities such as the Pick Labs Residence remain.

In order to determine if the project could potentially impact known and unknown historic

and cultural resources, Holman & Associates (Archaeological consulting firm) conducted an initial cultural resources study in January 2007. The study included a document review of all archaeological reports and site records provided by the County Parks Department and from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, and a preliminary field visit by the archaeologists. The NWIC indicated that there were four recorded and one reported archaeological resources in the project area; No alterations to these sites are proposed

The intent of the initial cultural resources study by Holman & Associates was to review a

number of the known cultural resources and to gain an understanding of where the proposed trails system would be located in relation to known historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. Other areas not containing recorded cultural resources, such as Indian Rock, were also visited to understand the sensitivity of the areas where future trails were proposed.

Historic and/or prehistoric cultural resource locations viewed during the initial cultural

resources study included the Germaine Pourroy House, former Pick Residence, Welch-Hurst House, the bedrock mortar complex off Sanborn Road, and the stone bridge abutments near the bedrock mortar complex. With the exception of the Welch-Hurst house (CA-SCL-393H) these resources have not been formally recorded and/or evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Places (CRHP) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The study and subsequent report did not attempt to search for, survey or record additional historic or prehistoric cultural resources during the field visit.

Following completion of the data review and field visit, a report summarizing the historic

and prehistoric cultural resources was prepared, and is included as Appendix A. Known historic and prehistoric archaeological sites were compared to Sanborn Trails Plan trails location maps in order to determine the proximity and potential impacts to these resource areas.

Page 3-56


While a comprehensive evaluation and recordation of known historic resources has not been completed, the preliminary research and known information were used to identify mitigations that will avoid or mitigate any adverse effects as the Project is implemented. Based on the existing record and on historical information known about the area, it can be assumed that the park has the potential to contain unknown historic, pre-historic, or paleontological resources. Ground disturbing activities related to implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan, may unearth unknown historic, pre-historic, or paleontological resources potentially resulting in impacts. Will the project:

1. Disturb potential archaeological or paleontological resources? 2. Disturb a historic resource or cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?

Response to 1) and 2): Significant Unless Mitigations Incorporated. Without additional cultural resource evaluations, trail construction and other ground disturbing activities have the potential to disturb known and unknown cultural resources at Sanborn. Therefore, the following mitigations measures are proposed: Impact CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5: Trail Construction and other ground disturbing activities as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan could result in disturbance of known or unknown historic, pre-historic, and paleontological resources. Less than Significant with Mitigations Incorporated. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Develop and implement a historic, pre-historic, and paleontological resource training program for construction personnel. Implementation: Contractor, County Parks Staff Timing: Prior to delineation of trail alignment Monitoring: County Parks Staff Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Design and site planned trails to avoid historic and pre-historic sites. In some cases trails will be routed to historic or pre-historic sites for interpretive purposes. Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: Prior to construction Monitoring: County Parks Staff

If significant resources are identified and if impacts to the site cannot be avoided through routing the trail away from the site, evaluation of the site would be performed consistent with professional archeological standards and State and County requirements. These may include formal recordation of the site and mapping showing the extent of the deposit area. If it is determined that materials are of a prehistoric nature, procedures outlined in the State Public Resources Code pertaining to the protection of Native American remains and associated goods will be implemented and most likely descendant will be notified.

Page 3-57


Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Where ground disturbing work will occur in locations where prehistoric or historic sites have been previously documented, evaluation of the site would be performed consistent with professional archeological standards and State and County requirements. An appropriate treatment plan will be developed and implemented to evaluate affected archaeological sites that are determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and cannot be avoided by construction. Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: After delineation of trail alignment, prior to construction Monitoring: County Parks Staff Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Where ground disturbing work will occur in locations where historic, pre-historic, or paleontological sites have been determined to have a high probability of occurring, field surveys will be conducted within the vicinity of the proposed final trail alignments. Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: After delineation of trail alignment, prior to construction Monitoring: County Parks Staff In the event previously undocumented pre-historic resources are discovered during project construction (including but not limited to dark soil containing shellfish, bone, or groundstone) work within the immediate vicinity of the find will be halted until procedures outlined in the County Ordinance Relating to Indian Burial Grounds (County of Santa Clara, 1987) and State Public Resources Code can be implemented and most likely descendant notified. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If historic, pre-historic, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, then the priority will be to relocate the trail to avoid and/or minimize impacts. If the trail cannot be rerouted and impacts cannot be avoided, then work will cease in the area until the archaeological evaluation and treatment plan has been completed. Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: County Parks Staff

3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g., New Almaden Historic Area)? No Impact. Sanborn is not located in a Historic District. O. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Affected Environment

The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement and patrol support, which augments patrols by Santa Clara County Park Rangers. Park Rangers are considered

Page 3-58


peace officers (as identified in the Penal Code) as they can issue tickets; however they are not sworn deputies authorized to carry firearms. One Senior Park Ranger and four permanent full-time park rangers are responsible for patrolling Sanborn, Stevens Creek and Upper Stevens Creek, and portions of Rancho San Antonio County Parks. Their current area of patrol is about 6,000 acres (J. Falkowski, pers. comm. Jan 2007).

Fire stations within five miles of Sanborn include Santa Clara County Fire Department (Quito, Los Gatos, Redwood, and West Valley Fire Stations), Saratoga Fire Department Station, and California Department of Forestry (CDF) and Fire Protection (Stevens Creek, Saratoga Summit, Alma, and Sky Londa Forest Fire Stations). In addition, the Alma Station also maintains a helitack (helicopter) base that supports aerial fire suppression. Main access for emergency services would be at the park’s lowest elevations off Sanborn Road. Much of the western boundary of the park abuts SR 35/Skyline Boulevard. This boundary could be accessed at virtually any point along the road, though steep slopes probably limit most access into the park to areas within 0.25 miles of the road. Currently, the San Andreas Trail and the Sanborn Trail provide access from Skyline Blvd. to the main activity area off Sanborn Road. In addition, a service road extends from Black Road past Lake Ranch to Sanborn Road (See Map 2).

The densely wooded mountainside creates a high to very high wildfire threat area, though fog and rainfall may decrease the incidence of fire. Average high temperatures range from the high-50s to mid-80s. Average low temperatures range from the high-30s to mid-50s. Annual average rainfall is 40-50 inches (Castle Rock State Park General Plan).

Santa Clara County General Plan Policy C-PR 12 states that parks and trails in remote areas, fire hazardous areas, and areas with inadequate access should be planned to provide the services or improvements necessary to provide for the safety and support of the public using the parks and to avoid negative impacts on the surrounding areas. Policy C-PR 32 also states: “Parks and trails in remote areas, fire hazardous areas, and areas with inadequate access will be planned to: a. provide the services or improvements necessary to provide for the safety and support of the public using the parks and trails; and b. avoid negative impacts on the surrounding areas.” While many of the planned trails are too narrow to allow for vehicular access, they are close to existing public and park service roads. In addition as part of the existing operation, helicopter landing zones have been defined within the park. A seismic event could cause localized flooding as a result of dam failure at Lake Ranch Reservoir (refer to Geologic section). Localized flooding of trail crossings is also possible during heavy storms (refer to Water Supply/Drainage/Flooding section). Will the Project: 1. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? (Growth inducing?)

No Impact. Implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. No new residential development will occur as a result of the project’s proposed improvements.

Page 3-59


2. Employ equipment which could interfere with existing communications or broadcast systems? No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not employ any equipment that would interfere with existing communications or broadcast systems in the plan implementation. 3. Have an effect upon or increase the need for or alter services in any of the following areas: a. Fire Protection

Not Significant. The Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts requiring new or physical alterations to existing governmental fire protection facilities. While most of the new trails in the Sanborn Trails Plan are not wide enough for vehicular access for fire protection purposes, the increase in walk-in access to areas of the park that currently have no trail access will enhance fire protection efforts.

b. Police Protection

Not Significant. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not require the provision or alteration of any police protection facilities but it will require the need to hire additional park rangers. The Sanborn Trails Plan recommended a new full-time Park Ranger position be added to the Sanborn/Stevens Creek Unit upon full build-out of the plan. The County Board of Supervisors has approved this position and it has been budgeted, but not yet staffed, by the County Parks Department. The addition of this position now will satisfy the recommendation in the Sanborn Trails Plan for additional Ranger staffing at Sanborn.

c. School Facilities

No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new housing units or induce population growth and therefore would not increase the need for additional schools. Walden West, an Environmental Education facility operated by the Santa Clara County Office of Education, is located within Sanborn and utilizes trails at the park to enhance the educational mission of the institution. The upgrades to the trail system will have a direct benefit to this facility and its students.

d. Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads

Not Significant. The redesign of staging areas at Sanborn has been planned to increase the efficiency of parking spaces that will maximize the carrying capacity of several parking lots. A significant benefit will result from the improved parking areas along Skyline Blvd. due to the increases in parking capacity for 19 additional vehicles, through more efficient parking configurations and expansion. The increased parking will account for the expected increases in public use of the park as described in Chapter 2 of this document. Following completion of the Phase 1 Development Priorities of the

Page 3-60


Sanborn Trails Plan, additional maintenance staff should be considered for the Sanborn/Stevens Creek Unit.

e. Other Government Services

Not Significant. It is expected that hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, and dog walkers will find the planned Sanborn trail system worthy of visitation. Visitation would likely increase as more trails are constructed. The Sanborn Trails Plan will be implemented over many years as future acquisition, easement and construction funding is secured. Thus, park visitation may increase slightly more than anticipated because of the trail system improvements. The increased visitation combined with the inter-park connections planned for the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail may impact other adjacent parks and open space preserves. Where these regional trails leave Sanborn and pass into other agencies jurisdictions, signage will be erected related to changes in permissible trail uses and regulations. This will help to inform park visitors that access of certain user groups may be restricted in the adjoining jurisdiction. This coordination will help to reduce visitor confusion and keep the impacts to less than signficant levels for the adjacent jurisdictions law enforcement officers.

4. Increase the need for new systems or supplies, or cause substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or Natural Gas

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not contain new facilities that would use electricity or natural gas.

b. Local or Regional Water Treatment or Distribution Facilities

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not propose additional facilities that would generate water requiring water treatment or distribution facilities.

c. Local or Regional Water Supplies

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not contemplate new water fountains that would affect Sanborn water entitlements.

d. Sewage Disposal

No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not contain proposed improvements

that would involve any growth-inducing elements that would necessitate new public facilities such as restrooms.

e. Storm Water Drainage

Page 3-61


No Impact. The Sanborn Trails Plan would not create large areas of impervious surfaces that would impact local storm water drainage facilities. Thus, implementing the Sanborn Trails Plan would not result in constructing new stormwater treatment facilities.

f. Solid waste or litter (Would a recycling facility be appropriate?)

No Impact. Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan would not affect the ability of the local landfill to serve Sanborn. The County Parks Maintenance Division has been installing wildlife-proof trashcans to prevent impact by vectors and wildlife in use areas.

P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Will the Project: a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

No. The mitigation measures listed in this document will ensure that the project does not substantially degrade the quality of the environment or sensitive habitats or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)

No. The project will not have environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable because it does not cause any long-term or growth-related impacts.

c. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects.

No. BMPs (Chapter 2) and mitigation measures (Chapter 3) contained in this document will avoid significant impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels. d. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

No. BMPs (Chapter 2) and mitigation measures (Chapter 3) contained in this document will avoid significant impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels.

Page 4-1


IV. References Abraham, Kera. Interactions Between Dogs and Wildlife in Parks on the Berkeley Marina UC Berkeley, Senior Research Seminar - Investing the Environment: Research for Environmental Management, 2001 Banks, Peter B., and Bryant, Jessica V. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters, The Royal Society 2005. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999. CEQA Guidelines. December. California Department of Fish and Game. California Natural Diversity Database Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, February 8, 2008. Commercial Version. Accessed on February 18, 2008. California Oak Mortality Task Force. Website Accessed: January 23, 2007 at {http://nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/index.html} California State Parks. Castle Rock State Park General Plan, 2000. Canright, Anne. Sharing Space with Wild Animals – Access/Wildlife-Where’s the Balance? California Coast & Ocean, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 3-12 Cochrane, Tom. California Native Plant Society, personal communication. August 2006. Corelli and Chandik. 1995. The Rare and Endangered Plants of San Mateo and Santa Clara County. Published by Monocot Press, Half Moon Bay, California. Crooks, Kevin R. Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation. Conservation Biology, Volume 16, No. 2 (April 2002) pp. 488-502 Forrest, Andrew and St. Clair, Colleen Cassady. Effects of dog leash laws and habitat type on avian and small mammal communities in urban parks. Urban Ecosystems Vol. 9 (2006) pp. 51-66 Holman & Associates. Initial Cultural Resources Study of Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan. Letter dated January, 2007. Johnston, Dave. California Department of Fish and Game, personal communication on January 24, 2007. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

Page 4-2


Lenth, Benjamin, Brennan, Mark, and Knight, Richard L. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks and Recreation (2006) Miller, Scott G., Knight, Richard L., and Miller, Clinton K. Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 124-132 Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Tigas, Lorraine A., Van Vuren, Dirk H. and Sauvajot, Raymond M. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation, Volume 108, Issue 3, December 2002, Pages 299-306 United States Geological Survey. 2005. Earthquake Trail, Sanborn County Park. A geology hike along the San Andreas Fault in Sanborn County Park, Santa Clara County, California. Page 66. Available via website at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1127/chapter6.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2008. Document Preparers Santa Clara County Staff: John Falkowski, Project Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Antoinette Romeo, Planner Kim Brosseau, Planner Don Rocha, Natural Resources Program Supervisor Master Planning Consultant: Jana Sokale, Principal Newark, California Environmental Consultant: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. Menlo Park, California

Christine Schneider Victoria Harris Christina Lau Terese Kastner Sara Krier Sandy Ho

Subconsultant: Holman & Associates San Francisco, California Miley Holman

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1127/chapter6.pdf.%20Accessed%20March%2031

Page 5-1


V. Figures/Maps Figure 1. Staging Area and Crossing at Sanborn Road Connecting Western Regions of the Park

to Sanborn Creek and Aubry Creek Confluence Figure 2. Sanborn Road Crossing, Trial Access and Staging Area Modifications in the Day Use

Area Figure 3. Indian Rock Staging Area Improvements Figure 4. Summit Rock Staging Area Reconfiguration Figure 5. Sunnyvale Mountain Staging Area Development Map 1. Regional Setting Map Map 2. Sanborn Park Existing Trail System Map Map 3. North Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 4. South Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 5. Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Map Map 6. Sanborn County Park Day Use Area Trail Map Map 7. Sanborn County Park Hiking Access Map Map 8. Sanborn County Park Equestrian Access Map Map 9. Sanborn County Park Mountain Biking Access Map Map 10. Sanborn County Park Trail Abandonment Map

Page 5-2


Figure 1. Staging Area and Crossing at Sanborn Road Connecting Western Regions of the Park to Sanborn Creek and Aubry Creek Confluence


Page 5-3


Figure 2. Sanborn Road Crossing, Trial Access and Staging Area Modifications in the Day Use Area


Page 5-4


Figure 3. Indian Rock Staging Area Improvements


Page 5-5


Figure 4. Summit Rock Staging Area Reconfiguration


Page 5-6


Figure 5. Sunnyvale Mountain Staging Area Development


Page 5-7


Map 1. Regional Setting Map Map 2. Sanborn Park Existing Trail System Map Map 3. North Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 4. South Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map Map 5. Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Map Map 6. Sanborn County Park Day Use Area Trail Map Map 7. Sanborn County Park Hiking Access Map Map 8. Sanborn County Park Equestrian Access Map Map 9. Sanborn County Park Mountain Biking Access Map Map 10. Sanborn County Park Trail Abandonment Map The maps listed above are available for download on the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Website (www.parkhere.org) under the file names listed below: STMP ISMND Maps 1 to 5.pdf STMP ISMND Maps 6 to 10.pdf

Page 6-1


VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

The following Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), has been prepared for this project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. According to the Guidelines:

“In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented, the Lead Agency, Santa Clara County (County) shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” (§15097(a))

“The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on

mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.” (§15097 (c))

The MMRP lists the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Timing of the Mitigation

Measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the Sanborn County Trails Master Plan project. The responsibility for ensuring that the mitigation measure has been implemented would be the responsibility of the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Department. All of the mitigation measures listed in the MMRP would be implemented by the County or by its appointees.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a) (2), “Mitigation measures must be

fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments.” Therefore, all mitigation measures listed in this MMRP would be adopted by the County when the project is approved.

Page 6-2

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility & Timing

Monitoring Responsibility Verified Implementation

BIOLOGY Impact: Trail construction could affect populations or individual plants, listed by CNPS as rare, threatened or endangered. The listing covers three plants that could occur at Sanborn County Park: King’s Mountain manzanita, Santa Cruz Mountains Manzanita, and round-headed coyote-mint.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If a trail alignment is within suitable habitat for any of the three plant species, preconstruction plant surveys will occur after the preliminary trail alignment has been flagged. If any special status plant species are found within the affected area including a 15 foot buffer on either side of the trail alignment, trail segments will be rerouted and include a 15 foot buffer where feasible to avoid significant populations of these plants. If re-routing proves to be infeasible, the County Parks Department would consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine if the special status plants could be relocated.

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. County Parks Staff to schedule plant surveys. Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified consulting biologist will submit report. Timing: Prior to construction of the project, after preliminary trail alignment has been flagged.

Monitoring: County Parks Staff

Initials Date


Page 6-3




Impact: If trails are present within a creek corridor or adjacent upland habitat, California red legged frog (CRLF), southwestern pond turtle (WPT), and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests could be disturbed by project activities or by vehicle or human access.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following avoidance measures for WPT, CRLF, and dusky-footed woodrat shall be implemented: 1. Preconstruction Surveys

There is low potential for the presence of CRLF at Sanborn, due in part to the presence of bullfrogs and sparse emergent vegetation along most aquatic features. The creeks, “Walden Pond”, and Lake Ranch Reservoir provide only marginal breeding habitat. However, to ensure that CRLF do not occur in the project area, one daytime survey for CRLF will be performed in the two days prior to the start of project implementation activities. The entire work area, including any burrows, rocks and woodpiles that may be disturbed by construction activities, will be inspected for CRLF. If CRLF is detected, work will be delayed and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be contacted for guidance on how to proceed (due to its status as a Federally Threatened species).

If during this survey a WPT is detected, the WPT will be observed to determine if it is moving through the area in which it was detected or if the WPT is occupying the habitat for nesting, foraging, or basking. During construction activities within the immediate area of the WPT detection, an onsite monitor will work with construction crews. If the WPT is relocated during construction activities, the monitor will observe the WPT and alert work crews to delay work if the WPT is within the work area or begins to move toward or into the work area. If the WPT appears to be traveling from upland habitat to a nearby aquatic site such as Lake Ranch Reservoir or vice versa, work shall cease until the WPT has traveled a safe distance from the immediate project site. The monitor shall observe the WPT from a distance to ensure it does not wander back into the work area. If the WPT is relocated and appears to be occupying the habitat within the project footprint for activities such as nesting, basking, or foraging,

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. project supervisor and project crew members (a) consulting biologist or county natural resource staff to submit a letter report of survey results. (b) Project crew to sign a sheet for receipt of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat training. Sign-in sheet held by project supervisor. (c) Biological monitor to report daily to project supervisor. (d) Project supervisor to enforce speed limit and parked vehicle check. Timing: Prior to and during construction as specified in previous column


Initials Date


Page 6-4




the County or its representatives will contact CDFG for guidance (due to its status as a State Species of Special Concern).

If during this survey a dusky-footed woodrat house is detected, and assuming the house is of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat sub-species, the County will complete one of the following avoidance/minimization measures. These measures are listed in order of priority, where the first measure is the preferred measure to be implemented as it provides the least amount of impact to the woodrat. If the first measure cannot be implemented due to extenuating site conditions, the second shall be implemented and so forth down the list.

a. The trail alignment will be rerouted to avoid the woodrat house by at least 50 feet.

b. If the trail cannot be rerouted at least 50 feet from the house, it will be rerouted as far away from the nest as possible but not closer than 5 feet from the house. Safety and/or silt fencing (for houses downslope) will be erected around all houses within 25 feet of the trail alignment to avoid impacts during construction.

c. If the project footprint must go directly through or within 5 feet of a house, CDFG should be consulted with one of the two following options:

1. If the house appears inactive (e.g. no scat or fresh leaves and twigs), approval will be sought from CDFG to dismantle the house and replace the lost resource by building an artificial house. One artificial house should be built for every one existing inactive house that is dismantled.

2. If the house appears active, approval will be sought from CDFG to 1) trap


Page 6-5




the occupant(s) of the house, 2) dismantle the house, 3) construct a new artificial house with the materials from the dismantled house, and 4) release the occupant into the new artificial house. The new house should be placed no more than 20 feet from its original location and as far from the project footprint as necessary to be protected from construction activities. If the house is to be moved downslope of the project footprint, extra precautions should be taken, such as a debris barrier, to stop falling/sliding materials from impacting the new house. Houses should only be moved in the early morning during the non-breeding season (October through February). If trapping has occurred for three consecutive nights and no woodrats have been captured, the house should be dismantled and a new house constructed.

2. Employees and Contractor Education Program. An employee education program will be conducted prior to the initiation of project activities. The program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in federally listed and state special status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their protection under state and federal laws; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to CRLF, WPT, and woodrat during project activities. Crews


Page 6-6




will be instructed that if a CRLF is found, it is to be left alone and the project foreman and County Parks staff must be notified immediately. County Parks Department staff will notify the USFWS. Likewise, if a WPT nest or woodrat house is found in the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should cease. Notify Project site lead and County Parks Department staff (if site lead is a contractor) or notify Parks Natural Resource Program Supervisor (NRPS) if Project Lead is parks staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, County natural resource staff, or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF, WPT, woodrat or other wildlife present within the work area. If CRLF, WPT, or woodrat is found, the monitor shall have the authority to halt construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate County Parks Department staff (Natural Resource Program Supervisor or designated staff). If the monitor is County Parks natural resource staff, or qualified biologist, they will have the authority to notify the appropriate regulatory agency for guidance on procedure. Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS or CDFG shall be followed. The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any WPT, CRLF, or woodrat are seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no WPT, CRLF or woodrat are on the ground below the vehicle.


Page 6-7




Impact: Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Plan could impact nesting birds, if present. Activities include trail construction or the removal or trimming of shrubs or trees for trail and bridge construction and trail realignment or obliteration.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Nesting Migratory Birds: All vegetation clearing, including trimming of shrubs or trees will take place outside the migratory bird nesting season (March 1 - July 31). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a survey for nesting migratory birds will occur within five days prior to the start of clearing or construction activities. Every attempt will be made to ensure completion of the vegetation clearing and trimming activities within the five-day period. If more than five days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of construction activities, another nest survey will be conducted. If any active nest(s) are detected, all vegetation clearing activities will be suspended and a 50-foot radius buffer established. All vegetation clearing activities within 50-feet of the active nest(s) will take place after the nest(s) are no longer active and chicks have fledged. CDFG generally accepts a 50-foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests; however the County natural resource staff shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances. Nesting Raptors: All vegetation clearing, including trimming of shrubs or trees, and/or construction activities, will take place outside the raptor-nesting season (February 1- July 31). If such activities must occur during the raptor-nesting season, all suitable raptor-nesting habitat within 500 feet of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is located within 500 feet of the construction area, a no-activity buffer of 250 feet will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. Every attempt will be made to protect trees and nests that contain active raptor nests. CDFG generally accepts up to a 250-foot buffer radius for raptors, however, the County natural resource staff, in consultation with CDFG, may have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances such as for nests not within the line of sight of construction activity.

Implementation: Qualified County Natural Resource Staff or Qualified Biologist. County Parks staff to schedule removal and/or trimming outside of nesting season. If not feasible, County Parks staff shall ensure that removal/trimming is completed within five days of the completion of nest surveys. If nests are found, County Parks staff or biologist would ensure that buffer is maintained until chicks have fledged, and provide a memo report on the results of the nest survey. Timing: During the construction phase of the project


Initials Date


Page 6-8




Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Develop and implement a historic, pre-historic, and paleontological resource training program for construction personnel.

Implementation: Contractor, County Parks Staff Timing: Prior to delineation of trail alignment


Initials Date

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Design and site planned trails to avoid historic and pre-historic sites. In some cases trails will be routed to historic or pre-historic sites for interpretive purposes.

Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: Prior to construction


Initials Date

Impact: Trail construction and other ground disturbing activities as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan could result in disturbance of known or unknown historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Where ground disturbing work will occur in locations where prehistoric or historic sites have been previously documented, evaluation of the site would be performed consistent with professional archeological standards and State and County requirements. An appropriate treatment plan will be developed and implemented to evaluate affected archaeological sites that are determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and cannot be avoided by construction.

Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: After delineation of trail alignment, prior to construction


Initials Date


Page 6-9




Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Where ground disturbing work will occur in locations where historic, pre-historic, or paleontological sites have been determined to have a high probability of occurring, field surveys will be conducted within the vicinity of the proposed final trail alignments. In the event previously undocumented pre-historic resources are discovered during the project construction (including but not limited to dark soil containing shellfish, bone or groundstone) work within the immediate vicinity of the find will be halted until procedures outlined in the County Ordinance Relating to Indian Burial Grounds (County of Santa Clara, 1987) and State Public Resources Code can be implemented and most likely descendants notified.

Implementation: County Parks Staff Timing: After delineation of trail alignment, prior to construction


Initials Date

Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If historic, pre-historic, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, then the priority will be to relocate the trail to avoid and/or minimize impacts. If the trail cannot be rerouted and impacts cannot be avoided, then work will cease in the area until the archaeological evaluation and treatment plan has been completed.

Implementation: County parks staff. Timing: During construction

Monitoring: County Parks Staff.

Initials Date


Page 7-1

VII. List of Comments Received

List of Comments Received on the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan and associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse 2. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Bill Dall (Oral Comment) 3. Miles Standish 4. Miles Standish 5. Blair Glenn 6. Blair Glenn 7. Bay Area Ridge Trail Council Bern Smith, South Bay Trail Director 8. Ted Stroll 9. Ted Stroll 10. Jean-Yves Bancilhon 11. Dinna Myers 12. Art Levit 13. Mike Vandeman, Ph. D. 14. Carlo V. Gardin 15. Jim Lemezis 16. Jim Lemezis 17. Joan S. Weaver 18. Terri Alvillar 19. Bob McMahon 20. Jo Barrett 21. Stuart Langdoc 22. Stuart Langdoc

Summary of Oral Comments Received at the following meetings:

23. Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Public Meeting May 13, 2008

Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan September 2008 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments

Page 8-1

VIII. Master Responses to Comments

Master Response to Comments Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Introduction The following Master Responses address the major issues raised by multiple commenters. The commenters are referred to the appropriate Master Response. Master Response 1: Staffing Impacts/ Law Enforcement (Comment Numbers: 3-9, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 4-1, 4-5, 12-5, 17-2, 23F-1, 23G-2) Enforcement of Park Regulations in General Park ranger staff will be increased by one full-time staff person, which represents a 20% increase in staffing for the park unit. The County Board of Supervisors has approved this position and it has been budgeted, but not yet staffed, by the County Parks Department. The Sanborn Unit, which totals roughly 6,000 acres, is comprised of Sanborn, Stevens Creek, Upper Stevens Creek, and the Diocese property at Rancho San Antonio County Park. The addition of park ranger staff will increase the enforcement capabilities of the park. In addition to County Park Rangers, volunteer patrols aid in the patrol presence in the park, and the County Sheriff’s Office is under contract with the County Parks Department to provide dedicated enforcement, including being the primary responder during off-hours. Speed Management on Trails The Geologic and Hydrologic BMPs on pg. 2-29 of the IS/MND provide design guidelines to mitigate for potential speeding on trails. Trail design guidelines incorporate rolling dips, grade reversals, gentle rises as they approach junctions with other trails, and sinuous routes which moderate speed by varying trail slopes and the lines of sight. In so far as comments related to speed by mountain bicyclists that may increase impacts to trails, the addition of ranger staff will increase the enforcement capabilities of the park, and all Park Rangers are trained and certified in the use of radar to enforce speed regulations. Impacts on Adjacent Enforcement Resources Local agencies such as the County and the State operate under the California Standard Mutual Aid Agreement and Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan (2006 Edition) of the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. An agency’s decision to provide mutual aid is authorized by the local agencies’ policy under the Master Mutual Aid Agreement. Neither CalFire nor State Parks submitted comments indicating an impact posed by the project analyzed in this IS/MND. See comments 1-1, 2-1. This comment does not provide evidence or quantitative data to support the assertion that completed trail developments will significantly impact these affected resources.


Page 8-2

Master Response 2: Mountain Bicycle Uses (Comment Numbers: 3-11, 12-2, 12-5, 17-2, 17-5, 20-2, 23G-2) Policy The Sanborn Trails Plan proposes expanding mountain bicycle uses from zero to 23 miles of trails, as part of a policy implementation. Cyclists will share trails with hikers, hikers with dogs on leash, and equestrians. This expanded trail use meets the project objectives for the Sanborn Trails Plan and is consistent with the County Parks Department’s implementation of other Board-approved policies and priorities identified in the Santa Clara County General Plan, Countywide Trails Master Plan and Strategic Plan. The Countywide Trails Master Plan approved the use of mountain bikes in County Parks as a compatible trail use and activity. Specifically, routes R1-A, R5-A, and C13 were approved by the Board of Supervisors for hiking, cycling, and equestrian access through Sanborn. Route R5-A, named the Skyline Trail at Sanborn and Castle Rock State Park, is an interjurisdictional alignment of planned multiple-uses that the Bay Area Ridge Trail, endorsed with support from the State Legislature in their funding of the project. See Master Response 5 regarding additional meetings held to discuss the expansion of use on the Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment and other interjurisdictional issues. Environmental Impacts The Countywide Trails Master Plan provides trail width guidelines (Figure G-3) for mountain bike use on shared use routes in mountain areas where the optimum width range is 4 to 6 feet. The County Parks Department has considered the potential for differing types and levels of impacts between different users on the trails and on the environment through extensive trail assessment and fieldwork, as well as environmental site analyses which identified suitable terrain for each of the multiple user groups, including hikers, hikers with dogs on-leash, equestrians, and mountain bicyclists. The Sanborn Trails Plan considers these differences in trail users and proposes alternate trail route options that would avoid significant impacts to both the environment and trail users. In addition, the Trail Design Guidelines in the Sanborn Trails Plan, the BMPs in the IS/MND, and other provisions will be used in developing the specific trail routes in order to avoid site-specific impacts both at time of construction and as public use is implemented. Speed Management on Trails The County Parks Department did not revise the Sanborn Trails Plan previously considered by the Board of Supervisors, but completed further evaluation of potential environmental impacts and provided additional analysis for public review. The revised IS/MND also outlines the MMRP in more detail and greater clarity. The design of the planned trails and the public use of those routes were agreed upon following extensive outreach with the public and with a technical advisory committee (TAC) comprised of stakeholders that included various park use advocacy groups and neighbors. Based on the Trails Master Plan goals established in the planning process, the balance achieved in this plan will fairly serve all park users. Master Response 3: Erosion (Comment Numbers: 12-3, 12-7, 14-1, 17-4, 17-5, 21-5, 22-5) Considering the planned increase in construction of new and improved trail and maintenance needs, the Sanborn Trails Plan recommends that additional staffing for the maintenance division


Page 8-3

in the unit be considered following implementation of the Phase 1 development priorities. The BMPs at the end of Chapter II of the IS/MND, specifically the Geologic and Hydrologic BMPs, describe practices to be used in trail design and construction and in operations and maintenance of the trails that will reduce impacts from the trail construction and use to less than significant levels. Implementation by the County Parks Department of the trail design guidelines in the Sanborn Trails Plan and the BMPs identified in the IS/MND will ensure the minimization of potential erosion. Thirty-eight miles of trails are planned as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan. The total footprint of existing and proposed trails (Trail Length x Trail Width) represents approximately 28 acres of trail development within the roughly 3,600-acre park. Approximately 16 acres of existing trails are proposed for inclusion in the trail plan and approximately 12 acres of new trails are proposed for development. In addition, approximately 2 acres of existing trails will be closed and rehabilitated as part of the planned abandonment of trails identified in Table 3 and shown in Map 10 of the IS/MND. When the Sanborn Trails Plan is fully implemented, trails will comprise a land area that is less than 1% of the total park acreage. The 12 acres of proposed development will be dispersed throughout the park over the 20-year implementation cycle of this plan. To reduce the potential for erosion, most of the future trails are planned to be 2 to 6 feet in width, which is significantly narrower than many trails in the existing system. In addition the reduction in trail width has benefits that increase with hillslope by reducing the amount of backslope exposed to potential erosion. With the diversity of habitats and hydrologic situations in mind, BMPs were developed to guide the implemention of this plan during the construction and operational phases. The following techniques were inserted as BMPs into Chapter II, Page 30 of the IS/MND:

Where deemed beneficial by County Parks Department Staff, reapplication of the forest duff layer, peeled back from the site at the beginning of construction, will be used on top of the new trailbed to help reduce erosion. As trails approach one another they should rise gently to the junction with other trails, which will reduce water collection at the junction, and moderate the speed of trail users.

In response to public comment, the BMPs regarding the removal of volunteer trails. These new BMPs will aid in the appropriate remediation of volunteer trails, which often do not meet County Parks Department design guidelines and consequently may contribute disproportionately to erosion. More information on the new Abandoned Trail Obliteration and Restoration BMPs can be found in Master Response 4. Master Response 4: Volunteer Trails (Comment Numbers: 3-12, 12-8, 14-2) A list of volunteer trails proposed for abandonment can be found in Table 3 and Map 10 of the IS/MND. The total footprint of the trails proposed for abandonment is approximately 2 acres. Other volunteer trails not included in Table 3, which may be either game trails or caused by human activities, will continue to be monitored to determine if they have become a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users. This monitoring activity is


Page 8-4

consistent with Countywide Trails Master Plan Policy PR-TS(i)4.A. Closure of any of these trails will be conducted following the BMPs set forth in Chapter II of the IS/MND. Hiking is currently allowed off trail, so trail users are not prohibited from exploring features of the park on foot, including rock formations. Currently there is no prohibition on rock climbing, so rock climbers currently access rock formations at Sanborn. New BMPs to address closure protocols of volunteer trails are listed below and will be included in the IS/MND Chapter II, Section M. Permits and Approvals Required. The following additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into Section M and referenced in Section J. Trails Proposed for Abandonment and Trail Bed Restoration. Abandoned Trail Obliteration and Restoration - BMPs

1. If a volunteer trail has been determined to be a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users, the volunteer trail shall be blocked with local native vegetation materials such as limbs, logs, rocks and brush. These items should be placed in such a way as to create obstacles for the volunteer trail user. If suitable native materials are not readily available or not effective, then safety railing or fencing can be installed to block off the volunteer trail.

2. Rehabilitation of a disturbed area will include the transplanting and seeding of native

plant species typically found in the vicinity or seeded with native species common to the surrounding area. Such revegetation will be placed, as they would grow naturally. The County Parks Department’s Natural Resource Program shall pre-approve plans.

3. Transplanted vegetation will be selected and harvested from areas abundant with desired

species (upon pre-approval from the Natural Resource Program, and attaining all necessary permits, as they apply). Harvested areas shall be left in a natural condition. The same access point should not be used when gathering vegetation, as this may lead to the creation of further volunteer trails.

4. The trail bed of the volunteer trail should also be rehabilitated, especially on volunteer

trails with high historic usage. Entrenched trails must be filled and reshaped to the natural contours. If soil compaction has occurred, the soil must be scarified and aerated.

5. Once the obliteration and restoration has been completed, the volunteer trail should be


6. In all cases, the obliterated trail shall be posted as ‘not a trail’ and ‘habitat restoration

taking place’. In addition, the Countywide Trails Master Plan includes management guidelines related to volunteer trails:

M - 3.7 Brush should be used to cover bootleg trails, abandoned trails or shortcuts to discourage use until natural vegetation returns


Page 8-5

M - 4.0 Trail Reclamation. Should there be an event that necessitates the permanent closure of a countywide trail, a management program to rehabilitate the trailway will be developed. Such a program shall include disking and replanting the former trail to a natural condition, and/or sufficiently blocking the trail with barriers to effectively prohibit use. Noxious plants (e.g. Yellow Star Thistle) shall be controlled along the trail.

Master Response 5: Interjurisdictional Boundaries (Comment Numbers: 3-7, 3-18, 20-4) The issue of interjurisdictional boundaries is not an environmental impact but an issue that came up during the public comment period and that staff has chosen to address. Two spur trails off the Skyline Trail, which were identified as missing from the maps and the Sanborn Trails Plan, are considered part of the Skyline Trail and planned for full multiple-use access. These trails will retain their current names: the Service Road Trail (south of the Summit Rock Parking Area) and the Connector Trail (north of the Indian Rock Parking Area). However, the public use of these trails will be designated to match the corresponding uses of the connecting trails in Castle Rock State Park. Therefore, as of the acceptance of this IS/MND, both trails will be limited to hiking access only. If Castle Rock State Park revises the public use of these trails on the segments in their jurisdiction, then the County will consider a change to the public use of Sanborn’s segments of these trails to be consistent with the adjacent jurisdiction. However, any future modifications would be limited only up to the planned maximum use of the trail as described in the Sanborn Trails Plan. Per the IS/MND, where Sanborn Trails Plan implementation creates or modifies inter-park crossings, the County will erect signs, within the Park’s boundaries, informing the public of changes in trail uses and regulations as they leave one jurisdiction and enter another. The Park’s signage program will follow the signage guidelines established in the Countywide Trails Master Plan, including M - 1.3.1 which recommends appropriate signage, discouraging unauthorized use, be placed where trail use is restricted to a particular type of user. It is acknowledged that Castle Rock State Park currently disallows bicycles on its trails. However, the County Parks Department has discussed with State Parks their concerns regarding potential “spill over [problems] onto State Park property” as a result of the proposed trail uses being considered within Sanborn. In May 2007, the County Parks Department addressed State Parks’ concerns regarding implementation of the Trails Master Plan during the project’s conversion phase and future phases by coordinating park boundary discussions and trail signage changes, dissemination of public information about the trail use changes and enforcement of the policy changes. Both CalFire and State Parks were given the opportunity to review the IS/MND. Neither agency has indicated a concern as to potential spill over impacts. (See Comment 1-1 and 2-1). Where appropriate, stiles will be installed per Countywide Trails Master Plan Use and Management Guideline M – 1.3.1 to reinforce public awareness that the use of the trail has changed when exiting one jurisdiction and entering another. With respect to the differing policies between the County and its direct neighbors at Sanborn, those jurisdictions were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, but they did


Page 8-6

not submit comments for a number of reasons (See 1-1 and 2-1). A representative from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) served on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the project and participated in discussions on the Trails Plan, including where to allow dog on-leash access within the park. State Parks was invited to participate in the TAC, but the invitation was declined. To address any last minute concerns with the Sanborn Trails Plan and the first IS/MND (released in May 2007), a teleconference was conducted in May of 2007 with State Parks to discuss areas of mutual interest and concern. Lastly a meeting was held on October 24, 2008 with staff from the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, MROSD, State Parks, and the County Parks Department to discuss areas of mutual concern, and address multiple planned uses on the Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment, which is shared by all four agencies. Master Response 6: Impacts of Dogs On-leash (Comment Numbers: 3-4, 3-6, 3-8, 20-2, 21-1, 21-2, 21-6, 22-1, 22-2, 22-6, 22-7, 23D-1) Evaluation of suitability of each trail for a given use was conducted during the planning process. Through that trail suitability evaluation it was determined that access by dogs on-leash was compatible within all trails at Sanborn, and will be introduced to the park following adoption by the Board of Supervisors of this IS/MND. The literature review conducted by County Parks Department Staff is inconclusive – some studies suggest some level of impact by dogs on-leash and off-leash, while other studies show either positive results from the presence of dogs or no impact of dogs in parks. In accordance to Countywide Trails Master Plan Policy D-1.3.2, the County Parks Department practices the avoidance of known special status plant and animal habitat areas in locating trails for public access, such that on-leash dog uses and human access would not be located within special status species habitat areas and resources in these areas are ensured protection. In addition, the Department exercises considerable experience in the management of parklands that allow dog on-leash access throughout its 28 regional parks. Based on the combined avoidance measures, resource management experience, and enforcement of ordinances related to pets in parks, the Parks Department considers the potential impact of a dog on-leash walking with a hiker on a trail as minimal and to be at less than significant levels. Santa Clara County Ordinance Code Section B14-34.1 (2) states that dogs and other animals shall be controlled by a leash, which is not more than six feet in length. B14-34.1 (4) states it is the dog owners’ responsibility or that of the individual who has the custody or care of the dog or other animal to ensure that their animal does not interfere with, bother, harass or harm park users, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife or park resources. B14-34.1 (5)(c) states that a person shall, in the event that his or her dog defecates on park property, remove the animal waste from the park and/or place it in a proper receptacle. Research by Lenth, Brennan, and Knight (2006) suggests that the presence of a dog off-leash can have an impact upon wildlife. Lenth, Brennan, and Knight (2006) did not study the impact upon wildlife by dogs on-leash. Though based upon their review of other studies, the effects are lessened when the nature of the disturbance is predictable, such as when a dog is on-leash and under command of its owner. Data suggests that marking by dogs may increase the presence of fox and coyote and decrease the presence of bobcats. As noted, dogs have been allowed in some areas of Sanborn County Park for some time. Observation by County Parks Department Staff at


Page 8-7

Sanborn and other County parks where dogs are allowed suggests that bobcats habituate to the presence and predictability of park visitor use, which may include dogs on-leash, as bobcats are regularly sighted in the Sanborn Day Use Area despite the persistent presence of dogs on-leash in that area for many years. Deer are also regularly sighted in this area, giving further credence to the theory that park visitor use, which may include dogs on-leash, is a predictable behavior that wild animals adapt to. The risk to wildlife by dogs on-leash and under control of their owners cannot be eliminated, but the risk is less than significant given the small wandering area a six-foot leash provides. See Chapter IV. References, of the IS/MND for additional references regarding the impacts of dogs on-leash on trails. Ranger staff will be increased by one full-time staff person, which represents a 20% increase in staffing for the park unit. The County Board of Supervisors has approved this position and it has been budgeted, but not yet staffed, by the County Parks Department. The addition of park ranger staff will increase enforcement capabilities of the park. The Sanborn Unit, which totals roughly 6,000 acres, is comprised of Sanborn, Stevens Creek, Upper Stevens Creek, and a small area at Rancho San Antonio County Parks. In addition to County Park Rangers, volunteer patrols and contract deputies from the County Sheriff’s Office offer patrol assistance at the park. The Sanborn Trails Plan recommends that additional staffing for the maintenance division in the Sanborn Unit be considered following implementation of the Phase 1 development priorities. Master Response 7: General Planning Approaches - Mission/vision statements, park classification, wilderness areas (Comment Numbers: 3-20, 3-21, 12-3, 20-3, 20-5) The issue of a mission/vision statement is not an environmental impact but an issue that came up during the public comment period and that staff has chosen to address. The asserted “lack of [planning] direction” in Comment 3-20 is not an environmental impact. However, the County Parks Department disagrees with this comment. The County Parks Strategic Plan identifies common Mission and Vision Statements for the current and future expansion, development, management, and operations of the 28 parks within the County’s regional parks and recreation system. The Board-approved Mission and Vision Statements provide the basic framework for developing future goals, objectives and action priorities for park master plans, trails master plans and other long-range planning efforts. Comment 3-21: “Failing to have a definitive mission statement means that there is no standard by which to judge environmental impacts.” According to the CEQA statutes, there is no legal basis or requirement for a lead agency to use a “definitive” mission statement as a standard, threshold or baseline for evaluating potential environmental impacts of a project. As per CEQA Guidelines sec. 15063(f) and Appendix G of the Guidelines, the County Parks Department relies on the Initial Study Checklist as the basis for identifying and evaluating potential environmental impacts of a project and possible levels of environmental effects. The Parks Department is not required by state law, the County General Plan, nor the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ Ordinances to develop a specific mission statement for Sanborn. State Parks, which is required to provide a Declaration of Purpose for each state park unit under Public Resources Code, Section 5002.2(b), “…setting forth specific long-range management objectives for the park consistent with the park’s classification,” is appropriate to develop for a park system with parks distributed throughout such a diverse state.


Page 8-8

The County Parks Department does not develop separate Mission and Vision statements for each of the parks as part of a trails master planning process. The County Parks Department’s mission “…to provide, protect, and preserve regional parklands for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future generations” applies to each and every one of the regional parks. The Sanborn Trails Plan refers to this common Mission and Vision for the Department and offers 11 goals that guided the planning process and analysis of the proposed trail routes for the park. Under this overall direction provided by the Department’s Mission, Vision and Trails Master Plan goals, staff was able to develop a long-range trails master plan that responded to the outdoor recreational needs of the residents and changing demographics within Santa Clara County. If the Parks Department were to undertake a master planning effort for the entire park, the County Parks Department would discuss the park’s future role and its park classification based upon the Strategic Plan’s Regional Park Classification system. This classification system describes the future intent and uses, land management and resource management considerations, as well as future development opportunities, for that County Park. The County Parks Department would apply this type of Regional Park Classification system in master planning an entire park unit, not for a trails planning process. Therefore, this classification discussion was not intended to be part of the trails planning process and thus was not included in the Sanborn Trails Plan. Comments assert that the IS/MND characterizes the park as “wilderness.” In using the term “wilderness” with reference to Sanborn, the County Parks Department refers to an effort to provide a “wilderness experience”; the park itself is neither a State-classified nor a federally designated “Wilderness Area” under the California Wilderness Act or the Federal Wilderness Act of 1964. The County Parks Department does not classify any of the County Parks as “wilderness areas,” since the regional parklands do not offer this level of resources for land conservation and management. Master Response 8: Social Interactions – multiple uses on trails (Comment Numbers: 3-10, 3-11, 12-8, 14-4, 18-1, 20-1, 22-8, 23H-1)

The term 'multiple-use' refers to three primary user groups: hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. In the 1995 Countywide Trails Master Plan, management guideline M - 1.2 Trails and Trail Users states, "Shared use on trails is encouraged". In that document 'shared use' is defined as a trail managed for all types of users. As part of the 1995 Countywide Trails Master Plan, three shared use trails were identified within Sanborn. To additionally further the goals of the Countywide Trails Master Plan, the Strategic Plan specifically directed the Department to evaluate and consider expanded multiple-uses within the existing trail system at three County Parks – Sanborn County Park, Calero County Park and Mt Madonna County Park – as part of the Department’s implementation of the countywide trails action plan priority and General Plan policies. The County Parks Department has significant experience managing parks with trail uses similar to those proposed at Sanborn. Almaden Quicksilver, Joseph D. Grant, Santa Teresa, Coyote Lake – Harvey Bear Ranch, and Upper Stevens Creek County Parks allow public use of all of the shared uses planned at Sanborn. The County Parks Department’s professional judgment and experience provided sufficient guidance to recommend a similar level of use at Sanborn.


Page 8-9

Social Interaction Incidents on Trails The County Parks Department notes the anecdotal evidence provided relative to a small number of incidents involving equestrians and bicycles that have occurred in the State of California. No such incidents are known to have occurred in the regional parks under the operation of the County Parks Department. Given the lack of known incidents within the jurisdiction of the County, the potential future impacts to staff resources do not prompt an increase in park ranger staff to address this issue. Regarding Comment 22-8, horses and hikers have been allowed on this section of the Sanborn Trail for decades without incident. The introduction of dogs on-leash to the trail does not pose a significant increase in use nor will it require alteration of the trail. The Lower Madrone Trail, a to-be-renamed section of the San Andreas Trail will be closed following construction of the Welch-Hurst Trail to Sanborn Road. A loop in the currently named San Andreas Trail will be closed and revegetated to remove a duplicate route and less than desirable drop in a switchback. Park Rangers will address future concerns about visitor safety. See Table 3 and Map 10 of the IS/MND for further information on those sections proposed for closure in this area. The trail widths of the Skyline Trail in Sanborn are planned to be 4 ft.-6 ft. in most cases, and in many areas the trail currently does and will continue to exceed 8 ft. in width. The trail, as it is planned, meets the design guidelines established in the Countywide Trails Master Plan for shared use trails in mountain areas (see Figure G-3 in the Countywide Trails Master Plan).


Page 9-1

IX. Responses to Written and Oral Comments This chapter presents each written or oral comment received by both individuals and agencies on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department during the 30-day public review period of the IS/MND between April 30, 2008 and June 2, 2008. Each comment letter is followed by the corresponding draft responses. The numbering of the responses to comment corresponds to the comment number in the margins of the comment letters.


Comment Letter 1 Response 1-1 This is an acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the project

has complied with their requirements for CEQA documents and that no State agencies submitted comments through the Clearinghouse. This letter does not require a response.


Comment Letter 2 Response 2-1 California State Parks will not submit any comments on the IS/MND on this

project. The impacts implied by commenters to this IS/MND with regards to impacts to State Parks as an organization and Castle Rock State Park in particular were not validated by State Parks.


Comment Letter 3 Response 3-1 Comment Noted Response 3-2 Attendance of Miles Standish at the Public Meeting held on May 13, 2008 is

acknowledged. In regards to the new IS/MND, the revised document includes substantial information where 22 pages were added and Chapter II was edited in its entirety for clarification purposes. There were also substantial edits to Chapter III, focused on sections E, F, N, and O.

Response 3-3 Comment Noted. The County Parks Department acknowledge that while

the various methods to conduct capacity analysis are valid, they are not required methodology for evaluating impacts to resources as a result of a proposed increase in trails and trail uses. The purpose of developing a Trails Master Plan for a County Park is to provide recreational and open space access to County residents and other visitors. In this regard, the proposed expansion of and improvements to the existing trails system at Sanborn County Park is responsive to the needs and projections of growth as analyzed and disclosed in the County General Plan and Strategic Plan. In addition, the County Parks Department used the recommended Initial Study checklist, as required by CEQA Guidelines sec. 15063, and the project’s goals developed during the planning process to evaluate potential environmental effects of the project.

Response 3-4 See Master Response 6 Response 3-5 Comment Noted. The County Parks Department enforces ordinance B14-

34.1 (5)(c) that states that a person shall, in the event that his or her dog defecates on park property, remove the animal waste from the park and/or place it in a proper receptacle.

Response 3-6 See Master Response 6 Response 3-7 See Master Response 5 Response 3-8 See Master Response 6 Response 3-9 See Master Response 1 Response 3-10 See Master Response 8 Response 3-11 See Master Responses 2 and 8 Response 3-12 See Master Response 4 Response 3-13 See Master Response 1


Response 3-14 See Master Response 1 Response 3-15 See Master Response 1 Response 3-16 See Master Response 1 Response 3-17 The comment provides anecdotal information relative to one incident of the

public’s confusion regarding jurisdictional boundaries. As part of the future trail improvements of the Sanborn Trail Plan, the County Parks Department will implement a signage program that will inform park users of the allowed uses on any given trail and the park boundaries at Sanborn.

Response 3-18 See Master Comment 5 Response 3-19 State Park boundary data was downloaded from the State website and used

to generate the maps for this project. The boundary errors in the Sanborn County Park Guide Map were corrected.

Response 3-20 See Master Comment 7 Response 3-21 See Master Comment 7 Response 3-22 This IS/MDN is a stand-alone environmental analysis so comments on other

documents do not relate or transfer.


Comment Letter 4 Response 4-1 See Master Response 1 Response 4-2 The nesting pair of Peregrine Falcons has been confirmed to be breeding in

a cleft of Summit Rock. County Parks Department Staff followed CDFG protocols for the protection of the nesting raptors by closing the trail leading to Summit Rock and signing the area appropriately. Sanborn Park Rangers were notified of the violation and will continue to provide patrol and enforcement in the area. See Mitigation Measure BIO-3 for specific language on the mitigation proposed in this IS/MND to address this circumstance.

Response 4-3 See 1-1 and 2-1 Response 4-4 Comment Noted Response 4-5 See Master Response 1 and response 4-2


Comment Letter 5 Response 5-1 Commenter does not make it clear how the proposed changes worsen or

contribute to this situation. Complaint forwarded to Sanborn Park Rangers.


Comment Letter 6 Response 6-1 Comment is describing potential environmental impacts from adjacent

private property use; the comment is not directed at the project’s potential environmental impacts analyzed in this IS/MND.


Comment Letter 7 Response 7-1 Comment Noted. The County Parks Department will collaborate with the

Bay Area Ridge Trail Council on the development of new signage for the park.


Comment Letter 8 Response 8-1 The County Parks Department did not revise the Sanborn Trails Plan

previously considered by the Board of Supervisors, but completed further evaluation of potential environmental impacts and provided additional analysis for public review. The revised IS/MND also outlines the MMRP in more detail and greater clarity. The design of the planned trails and the public use of those routes were agreed upon following extensive outreach with the public and with a technical advisory committee (TAC) comprised of stakeholders that included various park use advocacy groups and neighbors. Based on the Sanborn Trails Plan goals established in the planning process, the balance achieved in this plan will fairly serve all park users.

Response 8-2 See 8-1 Response 8-3 Trails of this sort are not planned as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan. Input

regarding mountain bicycling uses at Sanborn County Park was provided by a representative of the Responsible Organized Mountain Peddlers (ROMP) who served on the Sanborn Trails Plan TAC and the general public at community meetings.

Response 8-4 See 8-1 Response 8-5 See 8-1


Comment Letter 9 Response 9-1 Comment Noted





Comment Letter 11 Response 11-1 The County Fire Marshal’s Office requires a minimum width for any safety

corridor for Shady Shakespeare events. Park users are allowed to utilize this corridor and pass through the event.


Comment Letter 12 Response 12-1 Comment Noted Response 12-2 See Master Responses 2 and 8 Response 12-3 See Master Responses 3 and 7 Response 12-4 Comment Noted Response 12-5 See Master Responses 1 and 2 Response 12-6 Thirty-eight miles of trails are planned as part of the Sanborn Trails Plan.

The general total footprint of existing and proposed trails (Trail Length x Trail Width) represents approximately 28 acres of trail development within the roughly 3,600-acre park. Approximately 16 acres of existing trails are proposed for inclusion in the trail plan and approximately 12 acres of new trails are proposed for development. In addition, approximately 2 acres of existing trails will be closed and rehabilitated as part of the planned abandonment of trails identified in Table 3 and shown in Map 10 of the IS/MND. When the trail plan is fully implemented trails will comprise a land area that is less than 1% of the total park acreage. The width of the proposed trails are generally in the 4’-6’ range, which presents a shorter distance for wildlife to cross than some of the 10’ wide fire roads that exist in the park. The MMRP includes guidelines to avoid and protect listed species during the construction of trails.

Response 12-7 See Master Response 3 Response 12-8 See Master Response 2


Comment Letter 13 Response 13-1 County Ordinance (Division B14 Parks and Recreation, Section B14-42.2

Bicycle Trails) allows bicycle use in designated areas of parks subject to certain rules and limitations. Park users are responsible for understanding and following applicable rules. The ordinance is enforced by County Parks staff. At future build-out, the Sanborn Trails Plan proposes approximately 38 miles of total trails, available to hikers, equestrians, and bicyclists. Over 11 miles of trails will be reserved for hikers only and 3 miles will be available for hiker/ bicycle use only. Five miles of trails are planned for hiking/equestrian use, and 20 miles for multiple-use access. The Sanborn Trails Plan does not include any recommendation to modify the current County ordinance regarding bicycle use in parks at this time.


Comment Letter 14 Response 14-1 See Master Response 3 Response 14-2 See Master Response 4 Response 14-3 Comment Noted Response 14-4 See Master Response 8 Response 14-5 Comment Noted


Comment Letter 15 Response 15-1 The short-term conversion phase could begin after the IS/MND is adopted

by the Board in September as scheduled. The County Parks Department will recommend funding to complete the first trail, a section of the John Nicholas Trail between Lake Ranch and Sunnyvale Mountain, as part of the Parks Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2010. Upon the Board’s approval of the FY 2010 recommended budget, the County Parks Department could implement the John Nicholas Trails as early as the fall of 2009. Following construction of the John Nicholas Trail, the Skyline and Summit Rock Loop Trails will open to biking.


Comment Letter 16 Response 16-1 The opening of biking on the existing John Nicholas Trail from Black Road

to Sanborn Road, without any additional connecting mountain biking trails would present too limited an area for mountain biking. The introduction of mountain biking was closely tied to the construction of the John Nicholas Trail during the conversion phase to provide a more extensive system of trails open to mountain bikers. See also 15-1.


Comment Letter 17 Response 17-1 Comment Noted Response 17-2 See Master Responses 1 and 2 Response 17-3 There is no evidence that the noise from bicycles is significant enough to

potentially impact wildlife. Response 17-4 See Master Response 3 Response 17-5 See Master Responses 2 and 3


Comment Letter 18 Response 18-1 See Master Response 8 Response 18-2 Comment Noted Response 18-3 Comment Noted




Comment Letter 20 Response 20-1 See Master Response 8 Response 20-2 See Master Responses 2 and 6 Response 20-3 See Master Response 7 Response 20-4 See Master Response 5 Response 20-5 See Master Response 7


Comment Letter 21 Response 21-1 See Master Response 6 Response 21-2 See Master Response 6 Response 21-3 Comment Noted Response 21-4 Comment Noted Response 21-5 See Master Response 3 Response 21-6 See Master Response 6


Comment Letter 22 Response 22-1 See Master Response 6 Response 22-2 See Master Response 6 Response 22-3 Comment Noted Response 22-4 Comment Noted Response 22-5 See Master Response 3 Response 22-6 See Master Response 6 Response 22-7 See Master Response 6 Response 22-8 See Master Response 8


Comment Letter 23 Response 23A-1 The Tier 1 Trails to be implemented include the following: Valley Vista

Trail, San Andreas Fault Trail, Vernon J. Pick Trail, Wood Rat Trail, Wood Rat Connector Trail, San Andreas Fault Connector, McElroy Ridge Trail, Welch-Hurst Trail, Peterson Trail, Sanborn Creek Loop and Ohlone Trail, Springboard Trail, Sanborn Trail, Todd Creek Redwoods Trail, Native Garden Trail. The tiers referred to in the plan were intended to prioritize trail development, but in some cases, trails will need easements and/or acquisitions from willing sellers before construction can begin. Given this fact, it is anticipated that trails from lower tiers may be built earlier than trails from higher tiers. Further information on the implementation plan can be found in Chapter 4 - Implementation of the Sanborn Trails Master Plan.

Response 23A-2 Comment Noted Response 23A-3 Comment Noted Response 23A-4 Comment Noted Response 23A-5 See 15-1 and 16-1 Response 23B-1 See 15-1 Response 23B-2 See 8-1 Response 23C-1 See 23A-1 Response 23C-2 Comment Noted Response 23D-1 See Master Response 6 Response 23D-2 Comment Noted Response 23D-3 Comment Noted Response 23E-1 Comment Noted Response 23F-1 See Master Response 1 Response 23G-1 See 3-3 Response 23G-2 See Master Responses 1 and 2 Response 23H-1 See Master Response 8


Response 23I-1 Park use is restricted to posted hours, currently 8am to sunset, and subject to Santa Clara County Ordinance Code Section B14-14.1.

Response 23J-1 Comment Noted Response 23K-1 Comment Noted Response 23L-1 Comment Noted Response 23M-1 Comment Noted Response 23N-1 Alignments from the Countywide Trails Master Plan proposed for changes

in the Sanborn Trails Plan will be updated in the next County General Plan Update.

Response 23N-2 A signage program informing visitors of park use etiquette, boundary

identification, and changes in allowed trail uses is discussed in the IS/MND for implementation.

Page 10-1

X. Summary of Edits to the Initial Study and Trails Master Plan Where the responses indicate additions or deletions to the text of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, additions are indicated in underline and deletions are indicated in strikethrough. IS/MND Page iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ALUC..............................................Airport Land Use Commission BAAQMD.......................................Bay Area Air Quality Management District BARTC ...........................................Bay Area Ridge Trail Council BMP ................................................Best Management Practices Board...............................................Board of Supervisors Caltrans ...........................................California Department of Transportation CARB..............................................California Air Resources Board CCR.................................................California Code of Regulations CDFG..............................................California Department of Fish and Game CEQA..............................................California Environmental Quality Act County Parks Department ...............Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Countywide Trails Master Plan ......1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan

Update IS/MND...........................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP.............................................Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MROSD ..........................................Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District OSP .................................................Open Space Preserve Sanborn ...........................................Sanborn County Park Sanborn Trails Plan.........................Sanborn County Park Trails Master Plan State of California Department of Parks and Recreation ................State Parks Strategic Plan ..................................Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and

Recreation System Trail Guidelines ..............................Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and

Management Guidelines VTA ................................................Valley Transportation Authority

Amendments to IS/MND (Page 2-17) and Sanborn Trails Plan (Page 34)

Skyline Trail (#30) – provides a northeast to southwest route along the ridgeline. This route is the highest point in the park and offers views of Monterey Bay. Serves as Bay Area Ridge Trail and Saratoga to Sanborn Trail alignment. Two spur trails off the Skyline Trail are considered part of the Skyline Trail and planned for full multiple-use


Page 10-2

access. These trails will retain their current names: the Service Road Trail (south of the Summit Rock Parking Area) and the Connector Trail (north of the Indian Rock Parking Area). The public use of these trails will be designated to match the corresponding uses of the connecting trails in Castle Rock State Park. If Castle Rock State Park revises the public use of these trails on the segments in their jurisdiction, then the County will consider a change to the public use of Sanborn’s segments of these trails to be consistent with the adjacent jurisdiction. However, any future modifications would be limited only up to the planned maximum use of the trail as described in the Sanborn Trails Plan.

IS/MND Page 2-20 Best Management Practices for volunteer trail abandonment and trailbed restoration can be found in Section M. Other volunteer trails not included in Table 3, which may be either game trails or caused by human activities, will continue to be monitored to determine if they have become a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users. IS/MND Pages 2-29 through 2-31 Geologic BMPs

2) Trails should not follow the fall line of a slope; they should contour along side slopes. Fall-line trails become watercourses, erode easily and then are difficult to maintain. Even low-slope (less than 10 percent) fall-line trails usually become the preferential flow path for water. Trails following the contour along side slopes, versus fall-line trails, help to moderate the speed of trail users.

4) Frequent rolling dips should be built into a trail (as a backup to out-sloping), to avoid

water flow along a trail. These should be placed to enhance natural grade dips. Rolling grade dips are long and gentle features (12 to 20 feet long) that avoid the short and abrupt style of traditional “water bars” (Klein, 2003; Riter and Riter, 2005). Having the outside bend of a trail at a relative high point helps reduce erosion; this is achieved because the upslope naturally slows a bicycle rider, which reduces the need to brake or skid.

The following BMPs would be incorporated during the construction and operational phase as appropriate:

6) Where deemed beneficial by County Parks Department Staff, reapplication of the forest duff layer, peeled back from the site at the beginning of construction, will be used on top of the new trailbed to help reduce erosion.

7) As trails approach one another they should rise gently to the junction with other trails,

which will reduce water collection at the junction, and moderate the speed of trail users.


Page 10-3

IS/MND Page 2-33 Abandoned Trail Obliteration and Restoration - BMPs

1) If a volunteer trail has been determined to be a significant risk to the health of the park resources or safety of the park users, the volunteer trail shall be blocked with local native vegetation materials such as limbs, logs, rocks and brush. These items should be placed in such a way as to create obstacles for the volunteer trail user. If suitable native materials are not readily available or not effective, then safety railing or fencing can be installed to block off the volunteer trail.

2) Rehabilitation of a disturbed area will include the transplanting and seeding of native

plant species typically found in the area. Such revegetation will be placed, as they would grow naturally. The County Parks Departments Natural Resource Program shall pre-approve plans.

3) Transplanted vegetation will be selected and harvested from areas abundant with desired

species (upon pre-approval from Natural Resource Program, and attaining all necessary permits, as they apply). Harvested areas shall be left in a natural condition. Do not repeatedly use the same access point when gathering vegetation, as this creates way trails.

4) The trail bed of the volunteer trail should also be rehabilitated, especially with historic

volunteer trails with high historic usage. Entrenched trail must be filled and reshaped to the natural contours. If soil compaction has occurred, the soil must be scarified and aerated. The volunteer tread must be revegetated by planting native vegetation, transplanted from the vicinity, or seeded with native species found in the area.

5) Once the obliteration and restoration has been completed, the volunteer trail should be


6) In all cases, the obliterated trail shall be posted as ‘not a trail’ and ‘habitat restoration

taking place’. IS/MND Chapter IV Abraham, Kera. Interactions Between Dogs and Wildlife in Parks on the Berkeley Marina UC Berkeley, Senior Research Seminar - Investing the Environment: Research for Environmental Management, 2001 Banks, Peter B., and Bryant, Jessica V. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters, The Royal Society 2005. Canright, Anne. Sharing Space with Wild Animals – Access/Wildlife-Where’s the Balance? California Coast & Ocean, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 3-12


Page 10-4

Crooks, Kevin R. Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation. Conservation Biology, Volume 16, No. 2 (April 2002) pp. 488-502 Forrest, Andrew and St. Clair, Colleen Cassady. Effects of dog leash laws and habitat type on avian and small mammal communities in urban parks. Urban Ecosystems Vol. 9 (2006) pp. 51-66 Lenth, Benjamin, Brennan, Mark, and Knight, Richard L. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks and Recreation (2006) Miller, Scott G., Knight, Richard L., and Miller, Clinton K. Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 124-132 Tigas, Lorraine A., Van Vuren, Dirk H. and Sauvajot, Raymond M. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation, Volume 108, Issue 3, December 2002, Pages 299-306


APPENDIX A ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE SEARCH REPORT PREPARED BY HOLMAN ASSOCIATES, JANUARY 2007

INITIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY OF THE SANBORN COUNTY PARK TRAILS MASTER PLAN PRESENTED TO: TRA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, INC. 545 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, SUITE 201 MENLO PARK, CA 94025

On January 18th, 2007, Holman & Associates completed a field visit of Sanborn Park in the company of Mr. John Falkowski of the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, which allowed us to complete essential parts of the scope of services presented to your firm by myself on June 14, 2007. The following report summarizes our findings and makes recommendations regarding the need to conduct further cultural resource research inside the park to respond to the proposed Trails Master Plan. 1. DOCUMENT REVIEW: Review documents provided to the County Parks by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) and conduct a second literature review at the NWIC if it appeared that documents had been omitted for confidentiality reasons; review any cultural resources materials in the hands of the Parks Department itself. 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY: Conduct a field visit to re-locate recorded resources, assess the need to perform additional site recording, and determine how much of the park may need to be surveyed or re-surveyed for cultural resources. 3. REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Complete a report of recommendations discussing the need to re-record existing cultural resources, and to complete a more thorough inspection of the park for additional cultural resources which may be impacted directly by the trail program or indirectly by the introduction of the public into areas previously not accessible.

2

DOCUMENT REVIEW Archaeological document review included a copy of all archaeological reports and site records received by the Parks or sent directly to Holman & Associates from the NWIC based upon the August 31, 2005 response of the NWIC (file no. 05-108). A second document review was done at the NWIC by this author on January 2, 2007 (file no. 06-503) to insure that no reports had been omitted from the 2005 document review. In the summer of 2006 and again on January 18th, 2007, Holman & Associates received a list of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites located inside the park and mapped onto a Preliminary Trails Concept map by Mr. John Falkowski of the Parks Department. Dated June 30, 2006, there has been at least one addition to this list and map, the stone bridge abutments found near the entrance of the park. Other than verifying that all data (with the exception of archaeological site forms in some cases) at the NWIC has been made available to the Parks Department, my 2007 archival review confirmed that very little of the park has been systematically surveyed by professional archaeologists: those sites recorded on NWIC maps (such as Scl-320, 205 and 208) were recorded as part of small archaeological field studies–there has never been a systematic survey of the park itself. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY For a variety of reasons, the actual archaeological inventory of the park was delayed until January 18th, when a day long field visit was arranged for this author, Mr. Matthew Clark and Mr. Richard Montgomery of Holman & Associates in the company of Mr. John Falkowski. The intent of this visit was to provide Holman & Associates with access to a number of the cultural resources recorded by outside researchers and/or the Parks Department over the years and to gain an understanding of where the proposed trail systems will run in relation to known historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. Other areas not containing recorded cultural resources, such as Indian Rock, were also visited to gain an appreciation of where future trails are planned. In all, a total of 6 specific historic and/or prehistoric cultural resource locations were visited. These are listed below: 1. The Germaine Pourroy House 2. Pick Labs Residence 3. Welch-Hurst House 4. Mortar holes behind house 5. The bedrock mortar complex at the entrance to the park 6. The stone bridge abutments located near the bedrock mortar complex No attempt was made to search for or record additional historic or prehistoric cultural resources during the field visit. At each of the 6 sites visited, the discussion centered on the need for additional research to be done at each of the locations. According to Mr. Falkowski, archival research and actual recording of sites has been completed to some degree at all of the locations

3

(including 33 sites not visited on January 18th) listed on the park inventory, which includes all those sites recorded at the NWIC. DISCUSSION: The January 18th visit to the park answered many of the concerns I had initially when I produced by 2005 scope of services. These are summarized below: • Would the actual construction of trails lead to direct or indirect impacts to historic or

prehistoric cultural resources? • Are existing historic and archaeological sites adequately recorded and understood to a

degree which would allow an assessment of direct or indirect impacts the park trail program may cause?

• Would a standard archaeological field inspection of the proposed trails guarantee that any

potentially significant historic or prehistoric resources would be recognized without the benefit of in-depth historical research of land uses, (something which is not commonly done as part of a phase I archaeological field study)?

• How should future cultural resources studies be done in the park to identify and assess

impacts (direct or indirect) to historic and prehistoric resource areas? Is it possible (given the terrain and vegetation constraints) to conduct productive visual inspections of the trail routes?

COULD THERE BE DIRECT IMPACTS TO RESOURCES? At least four of the locations visited on January 18th, the Pourroy House, Pick Labs Residence, the bedrock mortar complex and the entrance to the park and the stone bridge abutments nearby could be impacted either directly or indirectly by the introduction of trail systems into these areas. Damage would occur from casual use and from deliberate removal of historic and/or prehistoric materials from the areas. ARE EXISTING HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC SITES ADEQUATELY RECORDED? With the exception of those structures already on the National Register and currently being used for park programs, none of the prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic structures have been formally recorded to a degree which would allow researchers to comment on potential effects the trails may have, or to observe the effects over time that the trails may cause to them by introducing the public into areas formally inaccessible. Photographic records showing the current state of preservation are not available for most resource areas, and no attempt has been made at the one archaeological site visited by Holman & Associates to identify the aerial extent of subsurface deposits which may be associated with it. Likewise, no formal attempt has been made to locate potential historic deposits at former settlements inside the park.

4

WOULD STANDARD ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INSPECTIONS BE USEFUL? A standard archaeological field study of the proposed trail system would consist of the archival review at the NWIC, after which a mixed strategy general and intuitive field inspection would be done of the trail alignments to search for prehistoric and/or historic resources. In practice this type of study would not result in a 100% visual inspection of the trail alignments–areas of extreme terrain, impassable vegetation and areas considered to have low archaeological sensitivity would be dropped from the actual survey. The focus would be on areas of exposed bedrock (locations of bedrock mortars and rock art), former trail corridors (found normally along ridge tops in the Santa Cruz mountains), riparian zones and clearings which could have supported prehistoric camp and/or village locations and which did support historic settlements. Research conducted by the Parks Department to date has fortunately turned up information about historic land use practices in the park which could lead to the discovery of additional archaeological and historical architectural discoveries which would not be apparent to the archaeologist conducting the standard Phase I inventory of the park. Two specific historic uses of the park were discussed by Mr. Falkowski, who has begun the process of developing historic land use maps: logging activities have occurred episodically in the park since the mid 19th Century–activities which have left behind remnant haul roads and which could also have left behind additional historical architectural features, landscape alterations, historic debris and perhaps camp sites associated with this activity. The second activity which has left its mark on the park is the 19th through 20th Century development of vineyards: the Pourroy compound, also a former winery location, is a prime example of this type of use. Associated with it are former vineyards and perhaps orchards which are identifiable by the vegetation which replaced them after abandonment. These locations, primarily growing sites, could also contain historic archaeological trash deposits and remnants of camp or other special use areas. HOW SHOULD FUTURE RESOURCE STUDIES BE DONE? The proposed trail system has the potential of causing direct and indirect impacts to known and unknown prehistoric and historic cultural resources. The issue of updating the current inventory of resources to a useful level and the need for additional site survey inside the park will be discussed below in the recommendations section. RECOMMENDATIONS: Prehistoric resource areas: Only one prehistoric site, the mortar complex at the entrance to the park, was visited on January 18th. Additional prehistoric sites have been recorded inside the park, but according to Mr. Falkowski, will not be impacted by any of the proposed trails. The bedrock mortar complex however is slated to be further developed for day use, which could result in the damage of archaeological soils associated with the complex itself.

5

All the currently known prehistoric archaeological sites inside the park have the potential of containing subsurface components of archaeological soils (midden). It is recommended that a program of mechanical subsurface testing (hand augering) be completed at all sites which will be located on or near the proposed trail system and/or which will be made accessible by the new trails to search for midden components. If midden components are discovered, the sites should be formally re-recorded and maps produced showing the extent of the deposit area. Park improvements, such as picnic tables, fire pits, trails and other activities which require earthmoving should be eliminated from designated midden areas. In some cases these types of resources will have very visible evidence in the form of stone, bone and shellfish concentrations, artifacts of these materials and evidence of burning (ash, charcoal, fire affected earth or rock) which may tempt visitors to collect from the surface or actually dig for materials. It is recommended that a base line study be done of all prehistoric sites through photo-documentation so that follow-up assessments (on an annual basis) be done to determine if public access has lead to opportunistic or deliberate vandalism and destruction of the resource. Some archaeological sites do not have a highly visible surface component, and are thus spared deliberate destruction over time. Others are much more conducive to destruction, and may require more active measures to protect them. Additional survey: A focused field survey should be conducted in those portions of the park near future trail alignments to locate unrecorded prehistoric site locations, based mainly upon the existence of accessible bedrock, proximity to possible trail alignments, and accessibility to water, either creeks or springs. Historic resource areas: Most of the historic resources, such as the Pick Labs Residence and the Pourroy complex and the historic bridge abutments near the entrance to the park have not been formally recorded and/or evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places. These evaluations, along with the formal recording of these resources, should be completed before any of the proposed trails are finalized to eliminate and/or minimize impacts to them caused by direct or indirect impacts. Additionally, photodocumentation of the current condition of each research should be done to allow for an annual re-assessment of impacts caused by the public to allow for the implementation of more pro-active protective measures (adaptive management) if necessary. Additional Survey:

6

Additional survey for historic resources can be restricted to those trails and areas adjacent to them which have been or will be identified by the Parks Department as areas which have seen land alteration (lumbering and/or agricultural) since the middle 19th Century and which may therefore contain architectural elements or historic archaeological deposits. Traditionally, the cultural resources study for a Master Plan such as this would take place at one time, producing a report which would inventory all the resources which may be affected by the plan. It is understood that the current plan will lead to the development of trails over the next seven years or more, ample time in which to consider a more phased and cost effective approach to the identification, evaluation and mitigation of impacts to the prehistoric and historic resources found in the park. If it is at all possible, this report recommends that a program be developed with a local college or university archaeology program to provide the needed professional input to the trail planning process for the park: West Valley College, Cabrillo College and San Jose State University and the University of Santa Clara all have archaeology programs which train students in archival research, archaeological survey and recording. Opportunities are constantly sought for in-field training, which can be abundantly supplied by Sanborn Park and its proposal trail master plan. The County Parks Department currently possesses sufficient information about historical and prehistoric site locations to implement the first part of the recommendations listed above: that of formally recording and evaluating for the California Register and National Register those prehistoric and historic resources known inside the park. Professionally directed student labor could also be used to provide the photodocumentation needed to provide a baseline conditions study of each resource, and to conduct future annual studies of impacts caused after the trails are in place to decide if adaptive management measures should be undertaken. All decisions regarding the need to conduct additional surveys of trail alignments and adjacent areas which may contain resources which could be impacted should be made based upon the extant and under development historical archival research and oral interviews being conducted by the Parks Department in conjunction with a professional archaeologist. Actual field survey and site recording could be accomplished by student interns under the direction of a professional archaeologist. Actual evaluation of resources for inclusion on the California Register or National Register should be undertaken by professional archaeologists with experience in both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources; architectural resources should be evaluated for eligibility by a qualified architectural historian.

7

Sanborn County Park Trails Master PlanLIST OF MAPS Map 1. Regional Setting Map Map 2. Sanborn Park Existing Trail System Map Map 3. North Sanborn County Park Trail Suitability Map

Documents