The URL can be used to link to this page

Appendix B - Biological Evaulation Report - 178 Twin Oaks Dr. (PDF) APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT 178 TWIN OAKS DRIVE PROJECT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION LOS GATOS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. Rick Hopkins, Principal and Senior Conservation Biologist/Ecologist Katrina Krakow, M.S., Sr. Project Manager and Staff Ecologist Robert Shields, Field Manager Amy Patten, Project Manager/Staff Ecologist Prepared for Nancy Pham Raney Management 1501 Sports Drive, Suite A Sacramento, CA 95834 May 23, 2025 PN 2931-01 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 3 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 3 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1 PROJECT SITE ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 BIOTIC HABITATS/LAND USES ............................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 California Annual Grassland ................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Ruderal ................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.3 Mixed Oak Woodland ........................................................................................... 7 2.2.4 Ornamental Woodland ......................................................................................... 8 2.2.5 Creek (Ross Creek) ................................................................................................ 8 2.2.6 Drainage with Swales ........................................................................................... 8 2.2.7 Drainage (Seasonal Wetland) ............................................................................... 8 2.2.8 Riparian Woodland ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS..................................................................................... 9 2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ............................................................................. 9 2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS .................................................................................................. 20 3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 21 3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 21 3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS .......................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 22 3.2.2 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Birds of Prey ....................................................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ................................................................... 23 3.2.5 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans ..................................................... 25 3.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION ........................................... 29 3.3.1 Loss of Habitat for Special Status Plants ............................................................ 29 3.3.2 Loss of Habitat for Special Status Animals ......................................................... 30 3.3.3 Disturbance to Active Raptor and Migratory Birds ............................................ 30 3.3.4 California Red-legged Frog ................................................................................. 31 3.3.5 Impacts to Burrowing Owls ................................................................................ 32 3.3.6 Impacts to Roosting Bats .................................................................................... 32 3.3.7 Impacts to San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrats............................................ 33 3.3.8 Impacts to American Badgers ............................................................................ 34 3.3.9 Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors .......................................................... 35 3.3.10 Disturbance to Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ..................................................... 35 3.3.11 Direct Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Sensitive Aquatic Habitats ........... 36 3.3.12 Indirect Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Sensitive Aquatic Habitats ........ 36 3.3.13 Local Policies: Town of Los Gatos Tree Ordinance ............................................. 36 3.3.14 Local Policies: Habitat Conservation Plans ......................................................... 36 ii 4 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 37 1 1 INTRODUCTION Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) has prepared the following report which describes the biotic resources of the proposed approximately 17.55-acre parcel accessed at 178 Twin Oaks Drive (APN 532-16-006; “Project Site”; “site”) and evaluates likely impacts to biological resources resulting from the construction of this project. This report provides an updated assessment of biological resources, as this site was previously evaluated by Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. with data from 2012-2017. The Project Site is located in the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County, California on an undeveloped hillside bordered by residential development to the west, north, and east and an undeveloped parcel to the south (Figure 1) Hillbrook School, a private elementary school, is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project Site. A riparian corridor occurs on the west side of the Project Site and scattered trees are located throughout the Site. The Project Site is located within the Los Gatos U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle and is found within Section 22, Township 8 south, Range 1 west. The Project Site is at the foot of the north slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains and features rolling hills which peak on the southeast side of the parcel. There is an off-site drainage running alongside and to the west of the site. The site is undeveloped with no structures present. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION According to the project plans dated May 31, 2024, the project proposes to subdivide the site into 12 lots which would be developed with 12 single-family residences and access roads connected to Twin Oaks Drive and Cerro Vista Court mainly in the eastern portion of the project site. Th western portion of the site is not currently planned for development. Additionally, Ross Creek and the seasonal wetland will be fully avoided and buffered. Ross Creek will be separated from development by a 100-foot flood easement and the seasonal wetland will also be protected by use of an exclusion fence. The project would impact biological resources within the woodland and annual grassland habitats present on the site. N Project location Location Map Vicinity Map Regional Map See Site Location Map (above) See Vicinity Map (left) Not to scale San Jose San Francisco 1 mile approximate scale 01 mile 17 17 9 85 El Sereno Open Space Sierra Azul Open Space Heintz Open Space Vasona Park Project #Date Figure #1 Site / Vicinity MapTwin OaksHil l TopDrive Project Site LongmeadowDr Ross Crk 2/05/2025 2931-01 Twin Oaks Project 3 1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES The development of land can damage or modify biotic habitats used by sensitive plant and wildlife species. In such cases, site development may be regulated by state or federal agencies, subject to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and/or covered by policies and ordinances of Santa Clara County. This report addresses issues related to: 1) sensitive biotic resources occurring within the Project Site, 2) the federal, state, and local laws regulating such resources, and 3) mitigation measures which may be required to reduce the magnitude of anticipated impacts and/or comply with permit requirements of state and federal resource agencies, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, the objectives of this report are to: • Summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources, based on a review of the literature, a search of species databases, and field surveys conducted by LOA over the entire Project Site; • In addition to species observed to be present within the Project Site, make reasonable inferences about the other biological resources that could occur onsite based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the Project Site to a species’ known range; • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to development of project within the Project Site; • Identify and discuss project impacts to biological resources likely to occur within the Project Site within the context of CEQA or any state or federal laws; and • Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant impact (as identified by CEQA) and are generally consistent with recommendations of the resource agencies for affected biological resources. 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY The analysis of impacts, as discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, is based on the known and potential biotic resources of the Project Site discussed in Section 2.0. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included: (1) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 4 2025), (2) the Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), and (3) manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the Santa Clara County region. A field survey of the Project Site was conducted on December 19, 2024, by LOA ecologists Robert Shields and Amy Patten. During this site visit, the principal land uses of the site were identified, and the constituent plants and animals were noted. Detailed surveys for sensitive biological resources were not conducted during the site visit. Biological resources were previously evaluated by Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. In 2012 and 2013, Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. conducted three floristic surveys at the Project Site. These surveys were conducted using USFWS survey protocols at times when special-status plants were most likely to be identifiable. These survey results were also considered during LOA’s evaluation of the potential for special-status plants to occur onsite. Other Project documents such as a preliminary wetland delineation prepared by Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. (2012), a jurisdictional determination letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016), and the Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2017) were also considered in assessing aquatic features present within the Project Site. 5 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 PROJECT SITE The Project Site is located in the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County on an undeveloped hillside which is bordered by residential development to the west, north, and east and an undeveloped parcel to the south. An off-site drainage occurs on the west side of the Project Site and scattered trees are located throughout the Site. Three soil types occur onsite: 1. Urban land-Stevenscreek complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Well drained; low runoff; moderately slow permeability). 2. Urban land-Botella complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes (Well drained; low to high runoff; moderately slow permeability). 3. Zeppelin-Alumrock complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes (Well drained; slow permeability; Well drained; moderate permeability above the sandstone) (NRCS Web Soil Survey 2024). None of the soil types are considered hydric. Hydric soils are defined as saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions they support hydrophytic vegetation. Additionally, none of the soils support edaphic conditions such as alkaline or serpentine. 2.2 BIOTIC HABITATS/LAND USES The Project Site consists of eight habitat types: California annual grassland, ruderal, mixed oak woodland, ornamental woodland, creek (Ross Creek), drainage with swales, drainage (seasonal wetland), and riparian woodland. The site is primarily California annual grasslands with stands of mixed oak woodland occurring on the edges of the site and isolated clusters of oaks throughout the parcel (Figure 2). Horticultural trees and shrubs have also been planted throughout the site. 2.2.1 California Annual Grassland A majority of the site consists of grassland dominated by non-native and invasive species, including canary grass (Phalaris minor), slender oat (Avena barbata), and filaree (Erodium sp.). This open grassland provides potential foraging habitat for raptors and other birds. Coyote (Canis latrans) Ross CreekUnderground section of Ross CreekLEGEND Approximate Pro j e c t B o u n d a r y 200' approximate scale 0 100'200 feet Project #Date Figure #2 Habitats / Land Cover 5/22/2025 2931-01 Twin Oaks Project SOURCES:U.S.D.A. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP)Aerial Photo Field Office 8/24/2020 County of Santa Clara Planning Department Santa Clara Valley Water District Approximate Project site Mixed Oak Woodland Ornamental Woodland Riparian Woodland California Annual Grassland Ruderal Creek (Ross Creek) Drainage Drainage Swale Approximate P r o j e c t B o u n d a r y Drainage(Seasonal Wetland) 7 and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) scat were observed. Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were present, which may provide refugia for amphibians and reptiles. 2.2.2 Ruderal Ruderal habitat was observed in the vicinity of the proposed access roads and an old corral structure on the northwest side of the property. This area has been previously graded and cleared and is dominated by non-native weeds such as sourgrass (Oxalis pes-caprae) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). 2.2.3 Mixed Oak Woodland The edges of the property support mixed oak woodland, primarily coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Q. lobata). A stand of blue oak (Q. douglasii) occurs at the top of the hill on the southeast side of the project site. Some oak hybridization may be present. Isolated trees and small stands of oaks are scattered throughout the center of the parcel as well. Wildlife species observed include the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinu psaltria), white- crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and yellow- rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). This habitat supports suitable nesting habitat for these species. Three active San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) nests were observed within the Project Site under the mixed oak woodland canopy. An upland ephemeral swale is present within this habitat, which may flow seasonally downslope from the southern boundary of the Project Site towards the center of the parcel. During the Woods’ 2016 wetland verification, the USACE determined the ephemeral swale did not qualify as a wetland 8 feature. At the time of the LOA site visit, no running or standing water or wetland vegetation was present in the swale. 2.2.4 Ornamental Woodland An isolated stand of horticultural trees is present on the northeast slopes of the project area. This includes incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). The size and density of the stand provide marginal habitat for nesting birds. 2.2.5 Creek (Ross Creek) Ross Creek flows through a drainage and crosses the project boundary in the lower southwest corner of the parcel. A short length of the creek supports the surface flow on the Project Site, then flows into an underground culvert (Figure 2). The stream channel is approximately six feet wide and was extremely shallow with low flows at the time of the survey. 2.2.6 Drainage with Swales An intermittent ephemeral drainage with swales traverses the southwestern portion of the project site. Vegetation within this drainage and swales is consistent with the vegetation in the adjacent California annual grassland habitat. Much of this area likely only holds water during and just after rain events. Wildlife occurring in adjacent habitats are likely to occur in this habitat. 2.2.7 Drainage (Seasonal Wetland) In the northwest corner of the Project Site adjacent to the Project Site boundary with Hillbrook School, a drainage leading to a storm drain inlet and culvert are present. This feature was verified as a jurisdictional wetland feature by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2016 (Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2017), and we expect it is still a jurisdictional wetland feature. At the time of the survey, wetland vegetation or standing water was absent. Wildlife occurring in adjacent habitats are likely to occur in this habitat. 9 2.2.8 Riparian Woodland Although no distinctive riparian vegetation is present, the presence of Ross Creek qualifies its surrounding vegetation as a riparian corridor. Overstory vegetation with canopies overlapping the reach of Ross Creek supporting surface flow within the Project Site are defined as riparian woodland. Typical wetland and riparian understory vegetation is absent from the stream channel. The overstory is consistent with the surrounding mixed oak woodland, aside from a few sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and elderberries (Sambucus nigra) located on the bank approximately 30 feet from the creek channel. Planted horticultural trees such as fan palm (Hedera helix), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and privet (Ligustrum sp.) are present on the upper banks. South of the Project Site’s boundaries, the creek flows through a narrow channel heavily modified and lined by rock and wood abutments surrounded by residential developments. 2.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS Wildlife movement corridors are areas where regional wildlife populations regularly and predictably move during dispersal or migration. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines. Regional movement is also facilitated along existing linear features such as ditches, canals, farm roads, and creeks. The Project Site is not within a local linkage or known wildlife corridor. However, local urban species currently crossing the site for regular and dispersal movements would still be expected to cross the site post-build-out. 2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations and/or limited distributions. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.2, state and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally 10 designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as candidates for such a listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2025). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species”. A number of special status plants and animals could occur in the vicinity of the Project Site. These species, and their potential to occur in the Project Site, are listed in Table 1 in the following pages. Sources of information for this table include California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern (Thomson et.al. 2016), California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardalli 2008), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2025), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2025), Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (CDFW 2025), and The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025). This information was used to evaluate the potential for special status plant and animal species to occur within the Project Site. It is important to note that the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is a volunteer database. A search of published accounts for all of the relevant special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Los Gatos USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles within which the Project Site is located, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles (Cupertino, San Jose West, San Jose East, Castle Rock Ridge, Santa Teresa Hills, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta) using the California Natural Diversity Data Base (Rarefind 5, 2025). Edaphic soil conditions including serpentine soils, sandy soils, derived from the Zayante formation, mesic, and alkaline soils are absent from the site, therefore, special-status plant species requiring these edaphic soils will not occur on the project site (e.g. Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens), Loma Prieta Hoita (Hoita strobalina), and smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata). Special status plant species with ranges outside of the project site or well above or below the site’s elevation of approximately 413-639 feet have also omitted from the tables below, as they would be expected to be absent from the site. These species include Dudley’s 11 lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), Scotts Valley polygonum (Polygonum hickmanii), and Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue (Penstemon rattanii var. kleei). 12 TABLE 1A: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Robust spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta FE, CRPR 1B Habitat: Occurs in sandy or gravelly soils within cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 3-300 m. Blooms: Annual herb; April- September. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. There are no observations of this species within three miles of the site (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE, CRPR 1B Habitat: Vernal pools and mesic areas within cismontane woodland, alkaline playas, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation: 0-470 m. Blooms: Annual herb; March- June. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species, as there are no mesic areas (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). San Francisco popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus CE, CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal prairie and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation: 60-360 m. Blooms: Annual herb; March- June. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. Additionally, there are no recorded observations of this species within three miles of the site (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). 13 TABLE 1B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025) Other special status plants listed by the CDFW and CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley, and foothill grassland. Elevation: 3-500 m. Blooms: Annual herb; March- June. Unlikely. Woodlands of the site are not likely to support this species. However, a marginally suitable habitat in the form of foothill grassland slopes is present. Anderson’s manzanita Arctostaphylos andersonii CRPR 1B Habitat: Occurs in openings and at edges of broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, and North Coast coniferous forest. Elevation: 60-730 meters. Blooms: Evergreen shrub; November–May. Absent. Manzanita species are absent from the project site. Additionally, there are no recorded observations of this species within three miles of the site (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). Big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, cismontane woodlands, valley and foothill grasslands (sometimes on serpentine) Elevation: 90-1400 m. Blooms: Perennial herb; March-June Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and cismontane woodland in sandy or gravelly, openings. Elevation: 305-1105 m. Blooms: Annual herb; May-July Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of sandy soil habitat is absent from the site for this species. Additionally, there are no recorded observations of this species within three miles of the site (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa CRPR 4 Habitat: Chaparral and cismontane woodland, on slopes and near drainages. Elevation: 90-1500 m. Blooms: Annual herb; April- July. Unlikely. Woodlands of the site are not likely to support this species, as rock outcrops, slopes, road cuts, or edge habitats are absent. Tear drop moss Dacryophyllum falcifolium CRPR 1B Habitat: Carbonate soils in North Coast coniferous forest. Elevation: 50-275 Blooms: Moss. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis CRPR 1B Habitat: Broadleaved upland forest, coniferous forest, riparian habitats, and chaparrals. Elevation: 50-395 m. Blooms: Deciduous shrub; January-April Absent. Woodlands of the site are not of sufficient structure or moisture regime to support this species. Western leatherwood would have been identifiable at the time of the survey and was not detected. Minute pocket moss Fissidens pauperculus CRPR 1B Habitat: Damp soils within the North Coast coniferous forest. Elevation: 10-100 m. Blooms: Moss Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea CRPR 1B Habitat: Occurs on clay soils within coastal prairie, scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, often on serpentine. Absent. Suitable clay soils and moisture regimes are absent from the site for this species. 14 TABLE 1B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025) Other special status plants listed by the CDFW and CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Elevation: 3-410 m. Blooms: Bulbiferous; February-April Arcuate bush mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus CRPR 1B Habitat: Occurs on gravelly soils within chaparral. Elevation: 15-355 meters. Blooms: Evergreen shrub; April-September. Absent. This species would have been identifiable at the time of the survey and no bushmallows were detected during surveys. Additionally, suitable soils and chaparral habitat is absent from the site for this species. Hall’s bush mallow Malacothamnus hallii CRPR 1B Habitat: Occurs within chaparral and coastal scrub. Elevation: 10-760 meters. Blooms: Evergreen shrub; May-October. Absent. This species would have been identifiable at the time of the survey and no bushmallows were detected during surveys. Northern curly-leaved monardella Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens CRPR 1B Habitat: Sandy soils within ponderosa pine sandhills, coastal scrub, dunes, and chaparral. Elevation: 0-300 m. Blooms: Annual herb; April-September. Absent. Suitable sandy soils are absent from the site for this species. White-flowered rein orchid Piperia candida CRPR 1B Habitat: Broadleaved upland forest and coniferous forests, sometimes on serpentine. Elevation: 30-1,310 m. Blooms: Perennial herb; May- September. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the site for this species. Additionally, there are no recorded observations of this species within three miles of the site (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). Choris’ popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus CRPR 1B Habitat: Mesic soils in chaparral, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 15-100 m. Blooms: March-June. Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of mesic soils is absent from the site. 15 TABLE 2A: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and USFWS 2025) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In California, inhabits open grassland and scrub habitats of the southern 2/3 of California. Historically in but largely extirpated from the Central Valley. Flight period for queens is late February to late October peaking in April and July; flight period for males and workers is March through September peaking in early July. Constructs nests underground in animal burrows. Overwintering sites are likely in soft soils or in debris or leaf litter Absent. Suitable habitat and nectar plants for this species are absent from the site. The nearest recorded observation of this species is more than three miles from the site (CDFW 2025). Western bumble bee Bombus occidentali CCE In California, it mainly occurs within the coastal and Sierra Nevada ranges, within meadows and grasslands and some natural areas within urban environments. Indication of recent population potentially being restricted to high elevation and coastal areas. Historically occurred from the Channel Islands to the northern California border. The flight period is February to late November, peaking in late June and late September. Tends to construct nests underground in animal burrows on west and south- west facing slopes. Overwintering sites are likely in friable soils or in debris or leaf litter. Absent. Suitable habitat and nectar plants for this species are absent from the site. The nearest recorded observation of this species is more than three miles from the site (CDFW 2025). California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT, CT Breeds in stagnant pools with continuous inundation for a minimum of three months, which may include vernal pools and stock ponds of central California; adults aestivate in grassland habitats adjacent to the breeding sites. Absent. Suitable breeding pools and upland habitat are absent from the site for this species. The closest recorded location is more than three miles from the site (CDFW 2025). Foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) Rana boylii FPT, CE Occurs in swiftly flowing streams and rivers with rocky substrate with open, sunny banks in forest, chaparral, and woodland habitats, and Absent. Ross Creek does not support sufficient depth, flows, or egg attachment sites to support FYLF breeding. The closest presumed extant record is from 2000 approximately three and a 16 TABLE 2A: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and USFWS 2025) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area can sometimes be found in isolated pools and ponds. half miles southeast in the Guadalupe Creek watershed (CDFW 2025). California red-legged frog (CRLF) Rana draytonii FT, CSC Dense, shrubby riparian vegetation such as arroyo willow, cattails, and bulrushes with still or slow-moving water. Perennial streams or ponds are preferred, and a salinity of no more than 4.5% Possible. Although Ross Creek does not support sufficient water depth or vegetation structure to provide breeding habitat, the creek channel may be suitable for dispersal or foraging. The closest recorded observation is generally mapped as the vicinity of Los Gatos Creek, which is approximately one mile to the west of the site with dense urban development between the creek and the site. Additional records occur at Lexington Reservoir more than two miles to the southwest of the site. (CDFW 2025). Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsonii CT Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting rodent populations. Unlikely. Poor habitat for nesting is present onsite, however, the only known pair breeding in Santa Clara County breeds annually near the intersection of Bailey Avenue and Highway 101, which is more than 15 miles to the southeast of the site (CDFW 2025). However, Swainson’s hawk has been documented crossing over the Santa Cruz Mountains and potential foraging habitat is present in the open grassland. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia CC Frequently open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low growing vegetation. Dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel, for nest burrows. Unlikely. The site lacks suitable burrows for nesting and refugia during migration, however open grassland habitat for foraging is present. While limited occurrences have been reported in the vicinity of Los Gatos, they mainly occur in the region along the southern edge of the San Francisco Bay and to the southeast in Coyote Valley. Although unlikely to breed on the site, this species may overwinter onsite. Out of an abundance of caution, although unlikely to occur onsite, we recommend preconstruction surveys for this species. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, CSC Breeds near fresh water, primarily emergent wetlands, with tall thickets. Forages in grassland and cropland habitats. Absent. Suitable breeding and roosting habitat is absent from the site for this species. 17 TABLE 2B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and USFWS 2025) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Santa Cruz black salamander Aneides niger CSC Occurs in deciduous woodland, coniferous forests, and coastal grasslands around the Santa Cruz Mountains and foothills. This species is also known to occur on the developed flats in pockets within older developments. They can be found under rocks near streams, in talus, under damp logs, rotting wood, and other objects. Absent. Open oak woodlands of the site are not likely to support this species, and suitable rocky substrates are absent. The closest recorded observation is generally mapped to Los Gatos and was likely observed elsewhere in the Los Gatos Creek watershed or its tributaries (CDFW 2025). California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus CSC Wet coastal forests near streams and lakes. Larvae occur in cold, clear streams or occasionally in ponds and lakes. Adults are found under rocks and logs in wet forests near streams and lakes. Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is absent from the site and its immediate vicinity. Additionally, the closest recorded location of this species is more than three miles to the south of the site (CDFW 2025). Northern California legless lizard Aniela pulchra CSC The NCLL (previously called silvery legless lizard) occurs mostly underground in warm moist areas with loose soil and substrate. The NCLL occurs in habitats including sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Absent. The site is not within the range of the northern California legless lizard and soils of the site are not suitable for this species. Northwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata FC, CSC Intermittent and permanent waterways include streams, marshes, rivers, ponds, and lakes. Open slow-moving water of rivers and creeks of central California with rocks and logs for basking. Absent. Ross Creek does not support sufficient basking or foraging sites to support northwestern pond turtle, and the highly developed residential areas surrounding the creek do not provide suitable nesting habitat. Additionally, the site is not hydrologically connected to the closest documented record at Vasona Lake, more than a mile from the site, which is separated from the site by dense urban development (CDFW 2025). 18 TABLE 2B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and USFWS 2025) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks & river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Prefers open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. Possible. Suitable foraging habitat in the form of grassy, open hillsides are present throughout the site and suitable trees for nesting occur on the margins of the site. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and deserts. Prefers cliff-walled canyons or large trees for providing nesting and forages in open areas. Possible. Open areas for foraging are present in the middle of the site, however, the site supports marginally suitable breeding habitat. A suitable breeding habitat with large trees is near to the south of the site in the Santa Cruz Mountains, nesting on the site is unlikely. Purple martin Progne subis CSC Inhabits woodlands, low elevation coniferous forest of Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and Monterey pine. Nests in old woodpecker cavities, also in human- made structures and nests widely in human-made birdhouses. Nests are often located in tall, isolated trees or snags. Possible. Tree cavities and appropriate bird houses suitable for this species are absent from the site, however grassy edges near woodland may be suitable for foraging. Purple martin occurs in the vicinity of Los Gatos in small numbers with higher—suitable habitat to the south in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC Occurs in grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and forests; most common in dry rocky open areas providing roosting opportunities. Roost sites include caves, mines, rock crevices, and large cavities of trees. Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is present in grassland edge habitat, and trees within the mixed oak woodland t contain potential roosting cavities. The closest recorded location of this species was observed roosting in a barn in oak savannah and rural residential habitat approximately two and a half miles to the east of the site (CDFW 2025). Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CSC Primarily a cave-dwelling bat that may also roost in buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees. Occurs in a variety of habitats. Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is present in grassland edge habitat, and trees within the mixed oak woodland contain potential roosting cavities. The closest recorded location of this species is approximately four miles southwest of the site below Lexington Reservoir, where it was observed using an abandoned building prior to its demolition (CDFW 2025). San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens CSC Found in hardwood forests, oak riparian and shrub habitats. Present. Woodrat nests were recorded in the oak woodland understory on the north side of the site. They are likely to occur in woodland or riparian understory onsite. 19 TABLE 2B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and USFWS 2025) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area American badger Taxidea taxus CSC Found in drier open stages of most shrubs, forest and herbaceous habitats with friable soils, specifically grassland environments. Natal dens occur on slopes. Possible. Suitable grassland habitat is present throughout the site. Although urban development exists to the west of the site and rural residential exists to the north of the site, this species may occur onsite. The nearest recorded occurrence is at least two and a half miles to the southwest of the site on Alma Bridge Road off Highway 17 (CDFW 2025). *Explanation of Occurrence Designations and Status Codes Present: Species observed within the Project Site at time of field surveys or during recent past. Likely: Species not observed within the Project Site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis. Possible: Species not observed within the Project Site, but it could occur there from time to time. Unlikely: Species not observed within the Project Site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient. Absent: Species not observed within the Project Site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met. STATUS CODES FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CR California Rare FC Federal Candidate CP California Fully Protected CSC California Species of Special Concern CC California Candidate CNPS California Native Plant Society Listing 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 3 Plants about which we need more 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in information – a review list California and elsewhere 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 20 2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS Jurisdictional waters include rivers, creeks, and drainages that have a defined bed and bank and which, at the very least, carry ephemeral flows. Jurisdictional waters also include lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Such waters may be subject to the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). See Section 3.2.4 of this report for additional discussion of these agencies’ roles and responsibilities. Background: In the time since the Draft EIR was released for public review in August 2015, the project applicant received correspondence from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) confirming the jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. regulated by the USACE. The Draft EIR assumed the ephemeral swale that traverses the western portion of the site would be jurisdictional waters. Following a site visit by USACE personnel in June 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers prepared a letter stating the extent of the jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. consisted of a 342-square foot (0.008-acre) concrete-lined drainage area in the northwestern corner of the site. The ephemeral swale was determined not be jurisdictional Waters of the U.S (Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2017). Current. The current conditions of these aquatic features are consistent with descriptions within the previous Draft EIR and wetland delineation with some small changes to the intermittent ephemeral drainage. 21 3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment before they are constructed. For example, site development may require the removal of some or all of its existing vegetation. Animals associated with this vegetation could be destroyed or displaced. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, pets, etc., may replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals that are state and/or federally listed as threatened or endangered may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed. These impacts may be considered significant. According to 2024 CEQA Status and Guidelines (2024), “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest. Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered “significant” if they will: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 22 • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided the CDFW and USFWS with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the take of a listed species. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the state of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFW and the USFWS are responding agencies under CEQA. Both agencies review CEQA documents to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project- specific recommendations for their conservation. 3.2.2 Migratory Birds State and federal laws also protect most bird species. The State of California signed Assembly Bill 454 into law in 2019, which clarifies native bird protection and increases protections where California law previously deferred to Federal law. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. 23 3.2.3 Birds of Prey Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW. Additionally, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C., sec. 668-668c) prohibits anyone from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, unless authorized under a federal permit. The act prohibits any disturbance that directly affects an eagle or an active eagle nest as well as any disturbance caused by humans around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present such that it agitates or bothers an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. 3.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §1344), defined in the CWA as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). The CWA does not supply a definition for waters of the U.S., and that has been the subject of considerable debate since the CWA’s passage in 1972. A variety of regulatory definitions have been promulgated by the two federal agencies responsible for implementing the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. These definitions have been interpreted, and in some cases, invalidated, by federal courts. Waters of the U.S. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’s joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), with certain interpretive modifications imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. These waters include: 24 • Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. • The territorial seas. • Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands. • Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition. • Tributaries to other waters of the U.S. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water. • Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters. The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the U.S., many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include: • Waste treatment systems. • Prior converted cropland. • Ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. • Certain artificial features, e.g., irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas. • Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater 25 in the State of California (“waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders. Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the U.S. require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into waters of the State that are not also waters of the U.S. require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a water of the U.S. may require a NPDES permit. CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question. 3.2.5 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. The Town has updated the Tree Protection ordinance (Chapter 29, Article I, Division 2 of the municipal code). The Tree Protection ordinance defines Heritage Trees as: “Heritage tree” means a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, upon the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, that possess 26 exceptional aesthetic, biological, cultural, or historic value and is expected to have a continuing contribution to the community”. The Tree Protection ordinance identifies protected trees as: “(1) All trees which have a twelve-inch or greater diameter (thirty-seven and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eighteen inches or greater diameter (fifty-six and one-half-inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property. (2) All trees which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eight inches or greater diameter (twenty-five- inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed Hillside residential property. (3) All trees of the following species which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii); Black Oak (Quercus kellogii); California Buckeye (Aesculus californica); Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii). (4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. (5) Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (6) of this section (e.g., landscape or site plans). (6) Any tree that was required by the Town to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development application, building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree removal permit or code enforcement action. 27 (7) All trees, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on property other than developed residential property. (8) All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a public right-of-way easement, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk. (9) protected trees shall also include a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand. (10) The following trees shall also be considered protected trees and shall be subject to the pruning permit requirements set forth in section 29.10.0982 and the public noticing procedures set forth in section 20.10.0994: • Heritage trees; • Large, protected trees.” This definition includes exceptions: The following trees are excepted from the provisions of this division and may be removed or severely pruned without Town approval or issuance of a tree removal permit: (1) A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference). (2) Any of the following trees that are less than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter (seventy-five (75) inches in circumference): • Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) • Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) • Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Blue Gum Eucalyptus (E. globulus) • Red Gum Eucalyptus (E. camaldulensis) • Other Eucalyptus (E. spp.)-Hillsides only 28 • Palm (except Phoenix canariensis) • Privet (Ligustrum lucidum) (3) Any removal or maintenance of a tree to conform with the implementation and maintenance of Defensible Space per Chapter 9 - Fire Prevention and Protection with the exception of any tree listed in subcategories (3) and (10) of Section 29.10.0960 - Scope of Protected Trees. The Town requires a permit with a fee for any protected tree to be removed. Replacement standards are in Table 2 below. TABLE 3. TOWN OF LOS GATOS TREE REPLACEMENT STANDARDS Canopy Size of Removed Tree1 Replacement Requirement2, 4 Single Family Residential Replacement Option3, 4 10 feet or less Two 24-inch box trees Two 15-gallon trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24-inch box trees Three 15-gallon trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24-inch box trees; or Two 36-inch box trees Four 15-gallon trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24-inch box trees; or Three 36-inch box trees Not Available Greater than 55 feet Ten 24-inch box trees; or Five 36-inch box trees Not Available See the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance for the full text. Town of Los Gatos Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. The Town of Los Gatos has adopted a set of Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams developed by Valley Water (Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative 2005). The Standards and Guidelines indicate that the development of single residences should provide a minimum Slope Stability Protection Area based on the type of stream (i.e., ephemeral, or perennial) and based on the steepness of the stream banks. However, the guidelines also indicate that an exception to the minimum setbacks may be granted if the applicant is able to provide a site-specific technical report that confirms that a lesser setback will not result in either compromised slope stability or in potential damage to the structure. According to the Guidelines, “improvements are to be located outside a slope stability protection area which is: (i) 20 feet inward from the top of bank for lots 10,000 square feet or less and 25 feet for lots greater than 10,000 (for creeks 10 feet deep or less)”. 29 According to the Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams, native riparian vegetation is not allowed to be removed unless there is a threat to public health and safety including an imminent danger of induced flooding and/or a biologist/arborist confirms that it will improve the stream ecology or habitat. If vegetation is proposed for removal in conjunction with a development project, mitigation will be provided as defined through the CEQA process and as agreed to by the local agencies and appropriate regulatory agencies. Additionally, non-native vegetation should not be planted within the riparian corridor. Appropriate setbacks of 20-25 feet should be implemented around the open-channel segment of Ross Creek depending on the size of adjacent lots, and appropriate vegetation removal and planting guidelines should be followed. See the Town’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams for the full text. Habitat Conservation Plans. The Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP Study Area does not cover the Town of Los Gatos, and there are no other HCPs or NCCPs known to cover the area. 3.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION The project involves the conversion of California annual grassland and mixed oak woodland habitat land into 12 townhomes. Potentially significant project impacts to biological resources and mitigations are discussed below. 3.3.1 Loss of Habitat for Special Status Plants Potential Impacts. Of the 17 special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site, 15 are considered to be absent. The remaining two species, Santa Clara red-ribbons and bent- flowered fiddleneck, are unlikely to occur onsite as the site supports only marginally suitable habitat for these species. Three-season floristic surveys were previously conducted in 2012-2013 and no special-status plant species were observed (Wood Biological Consulting, Inc., 2013). As these species were not observed in past rare plant surveys and all species assessed are either considered to be absent or unlikely to occur onsite, the project will result in a less-than-significant impact on special status plant species. Mitigation. None warranted. 30 3.3.2 Loss of Habitat for Special Status Animals Potential Impacts. Of the 19 special-status animal species potentially occurring in the region, 11 species would be absent or unlikely to occur within the Project Site due to unsuitable habitat conditions. These include Crotch’s bumble bee, western bumble bee, California tiger salamander, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, northern California legless lizard, northwestern pond turtle, and burrowing owl. Construction of the project would have no effect on loss of habitat for these species because there is little or no likelihood that they are present. An additional eight species may regularly or occasionally utilize the Project Site for foraging, including the California red-legged frog, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, purple martin, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and American badger, . However, the Project Site does not provide regionally important foraging habitat for these species. Therefore, development of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on these species. Although impacts to habitat for these species are not significant, impacts to individuals of these species would be potentially significant. Mitigation. For species that are subject to potentially significant impacts to individuals due to construction of the project, mitigation measures are identified below for each as follows: raptors and migratory birds (Section 3.3.3); California red-legged frogs (Section 3.3.4), burrowing owls (Section 3.3.5), roosting bats (Section 3.3.6); San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Section 3.3.7); and American badger (Section 3.3.8). 3.3.3 Disturbance to Active Raptor and Migratory Birds Potential Impacts. In addition to the white-tailed kite, golden eagle, and purple martin, several other raptor species, specifically, great-horned owls may nest in oak or other mixed woodland trees onsite or adjacent to the site. Additionally, the Project Site could provide overwintering habitat for burrowing owl (discussed further in Section 3.3.5) and nesting habitat for a number of migratory bird species. Nearly all native bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors or result in mortality of 31 individual birds constitute a violation of state and federal laws (see Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3) and would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation. To minimize construction disturbance to active raptors and other birds, the following measure(s) will be followed: Mitigation 3.3.3a (Pre-construction surveys). If tree removal, vegetation removal, site preparation, grading, or construction is planned to occur within the nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for active nests of migratory birds (including burrowing owl) within seven days prior to onset of these activities. If construction activity is planned to commence outside the nesting season, no pre- construction surveys are required for nesting birds and raptors. Mitigation 3.3.3b (Establish Buffers). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged. The buffer distance will be determined by the biologist onsite based on the species, level of disturbance activity, location of the nest, and topography between the nest and the construction activity with a minimum starting distance of 250 feet for raptors and 25 feet for other birds. 3.3.4 California Red-legged Frog Potential Impacts. Ross Creek contains aquatic habitat which is a potential movement corridor for the California red-legged frog. Project activities could result in direct or indirect harm or mortality or degrade aquatic habitat by causing erosion, spills, or removing vegetation surrounding Ross Creek. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures prior to the construction of the project will reduce impacts to California red-legged frog from direct mortality to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3.4a A qualified biologist will survey the project site within 50 feet of Ross Creek within 48 hours prior to start of construction activities, including any initial ground disturbance or vegetation clearing or other periods during construction, as necessary. 32 Mitigation Measure 3.3.4b If a CRLF is encountered during construction work, activities will cease until the animal moves out of the work area on its own or relocated by a permitted qualified biologist to a suitable location onsite. Mitigation Measure 3.3.4c Fiber netting such as silt fence or similar material shall be used for erosion control where appropriate throughout the project site and within 50 feet of Ross Creek to ensure that California red-legged frogs do not get trapped. 3.3.5 Impacts to Burrowing Owls Potential Impacts. Although this species is unlikely to occur on the project site, moderate-poor habitat exists in the ruderal area of the site, and as this species is a sensitive species, to be prudent, to reduce the potential to result in a significant impact to burrowing owls, the below surveys should be conducted. Mitigations. Implementation of the following measures prior to the construction of the project will reduce impacts to burrowing owls from direct mortality to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5a (Pre-construction Surveys). A qualified biologist would conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls following the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, or most recent guidelines, which includes two surveys, one within 14 days prior to the start of construction and the second within 24 hours prior to the start of construction. Mitigation Measure 3.3.5b (Avoidance and Monitoring). Identified burrowing owls should be avoided and active burrowing owl burrows should be avoided with a 250-foot no-disturbance buffer until the burrow has been abandoned. The project biologist will conduct a weekly check-in to confirm the buffer is still intact and confirm the current activity of that burrow. 3.3.6 Impacts to Roosting Bats Potential Impacts. The mixed oak woodland around the edges of the Project Site features suitable roosting cavities. Bats may forage throughout the site. Loss of roosting sites for bats or direct mortality may occur due to tree removal and construction activities, therefore, the below mitigation should be implemented to reduce impacts to roosting bats to a less-than-significant impact. 33 Mitigation. The following measures shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 3.3.6a (Habitat Assessment). A habitat assessment should be conducted to identify trees which support potentially suitable roosting habitat for bats. This can be conducted at any time of year and we recommend it is completed well in advance of the construction start date. Mitigation Measure 3.3.6b (Pre-construction surveys). a. A preconstruction survey should be conducted within seven days prior to start of construction. This may occur in daylight any time of year if all cavities can be visually surveyed, however, if all cavities cannot be visually surveyed, a night-time emergence survey should be conducted prior to removal of any trees and shrubs onsite. b. Night-time emergence surveys can only be reliably conducted on fair-weather nights from March 1-October 15. c. If a non-breeding bat colony is discovered, the individuals should be humanely evicted via two-step removal under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that no harm or “take” would occur to any bats as a result of tree removal or structure demolition activities. Two-step removal can only occur during March 1-April 15 and September 1-October 15 to avoid harm to maternity and overwintering colonies. d. If a maternity colony is detected, then a construction-free buffer should be established around the tree and remain in place until it has been that the nursery is no longer active. Tree removal should preferably be done between March 1 and April 15 or August 15 and October 15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery. Mitigation would not be required for the loss of roosting or foraging habitat for bats, as such habitat is abundantly available regionally. 3.3.7 Impacts to San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrats Potential Impacts. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests have been documented in the mixed oak woodland on the Project Site. Therefore, the project has the potential to result in direct mortality or a significant impact to their nesting and foraging habitat if vegetation is removed. 34 Mitigations. Implementation of the following measures prior to the construction of the project will reduce impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats from direct mortality to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3.7a (Pre-construction Surveys). A qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests between 30 and 14 days prior to start of construction to allow enough time for any action should a woodrat be observed during the survey. The survey would be limited to within the wooded area of the site if work is occurring within the wooded area. If work is not occurring within the wooded area, the survey would only need to extend 25 feet into the wooded area from the impact area. Mitigation Measure 3.3.7b (Avoidance and Monitoring). Woodrat nests should be avoided, where possible and buffered by a minimum of 20 feet. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) should be manually deconstructed and rebuilt when helpless young are not present, typically during the non-breeding season (October through January). If it is determined that young may be present during the nest deconstruction, a suitable buffer of a minimum of 20 feet should be established around the nest until the young are independent enough to successfully move on their own from the nest to be deconstructed. Approximate age of the juveniles would be recorded when observed and appropriate time extrapolated out to when they would be independent from their parents, then the deconstruction can continue after the biologist first confirms that the young are not present in the nest at the time. 3.3.8 Impacts to American Badgers Potential Impacts. American badgers have the potential to move onto the site. Therefore, the project construction has the potential to result in direct mortality or a significant impact to individuals. Mitigations. Implementation of the following measures prior to the construction of the project will reduce impacts to the American badger from direct mortality to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3.8a (Pre-construction Surveys). During the preconstruction surveys for other species, a qualified biologist shall also determine the presence or absence of badgers prior 35 to the start of construction. If badgers are found to be absent, no other mitigations for the protection of badgers shall be warranted. Mitigation Measure 3.3.8b (Avoidance and Monitoring). If an active badger den is identified during preconstruction surveys within or immediately adjacent to an area subject to construction, a construction-free buffer of up to 300 feet shall be established around the den. Once the biologist has determined the badger has vacated the burrow, the burrow can be collapsed or excavated and ground disturbance can proceed. Should the burrow be determined to be a natal or reproductive den, and because badgers are known to use multiple burrows in a breeding burrow complex, a biological monitor shall be present onsite during construction activities in the vicinity of the burrows to ensure the buffer is adequate to avoid direct impact to individuals or natal/reproductive den abandonment. The monitor will be required to be present until it is determined that young are of an independent age and construction activities would not harm individual badgers. 3.3.9 Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors Potential Impacts. Local urban species currently traversing the site for regular and dispersal movements would still be expected to cross the site post-build-out and the project is not within a known regional landscape linkage or other wildlife corridor. Therefore, wildlife currently using the Project Site for movement is expected to continue to use the Project Site post build-out and impacts to movement corridors for local wildlife are less-than- significant. Mitigations. Mitigation for impacts to wildlife movements is not warranted. 3.3.10 Disturbance to Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Potential Impacts. There is no aquatic habitat associated with the Project Site which could provide nursery sites for native wildlife. Measures are already listed above for potential impacts to nesting birds, roosting bats, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests, and American badgers. Therefore, potential impacts to wildlife nursery sites would be less-than-significant. Mitigation. No mitigation is warranted. 36 3.3.11 Direct Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Sensitive Aquatic Habitats Potential Impacts. According to project plans dated May 31, 2024, the proposed project will not directly impact Ross Creek, the intermittent ephemeral drainage, or the seasonal wetland drainage feature. Therefore, the project will not result in impacts to waters or sensitive habitat under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB. Mitigation. None warranted. 3.3.12 Indirect Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Sensitive Aquatic Habitats Potential Impacts. Properties within 50 feet of the top of bank of Creeks are subject to review by the Town of Los Gatos under Valley Water’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. The Town requires a 25-foot riparian setback from the top of bank from creeks. While, according to the project plans dated May 31, 2024, the proposed project will not directly impact Ross Creek or the seasonal wetland drainage feature, these features will be buffered as well, therefore, indirect impacts will also be avoided. Ross Creek will be separated from development by a 100-foot flood easement and the seasonal wetland will also be protected by use of an exclusion fence. Mitigation. None warranted. 3.3.13 Local Policies: Town of Los Gatos Tree Ordinance Potential Impacts. Ordinance-sized trees likely occur on the site. An arborist inventory should be conducted to appropriately identify the number, species, and size of protected trees which need to be mitigated for. The project would obtain and adhere to tree removal permits as well as replacement requirements from the Town of Los Gatos. Mitigation. No mitigations are warranted other than complying with the Town’s Tree Ordinance. 3.3.14 Local Policies: Habitat Conservation Plans Potential Impacts. The site is not within the Plan Area of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan nor is it within the plan area of any other HCP/NCCP. Mitigation. No mitigations are warranted. 37 4 LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. California Fish and Game Code. Gould Publications. Binghamton, NY. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025. Annual report on the status of California state listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. California Natural Diversity Database. 2025. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (online). eBird. 2021. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: January 2025)Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. Vol. 2. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2017. Surrey Farm Estates (170 Twin Oaks Drive) Project: Wetland Impact Assessment. January 31. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2017. Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, SURREY FARM ESTATES, 170 TWIN OAKS DRIVE, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA (PD-10-006). Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2025. Web Soil Survey. Shuford, W. David and Thomas Gardall eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern. Western Field Orinthologists and California Department of Fish and Game. Thomson, Robert C., Amber N. Wright, and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. California Department of Wildlife. University of California Press. Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code. 2025. U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Department of the Army. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 38 Wetland Training Insitute, Inc. 1991. Federal Wetland Regulation Reference Manual. B.N. Goode and R.J. Pierce (eds.) WTI 90-1. 281pp Wood Biological Consulting, Inc., 2012. Request for Jurisdictional Determination, Surrey Farm Estates, Los Gatos. Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wood Biological Consulting, Inc., 2013. Floristic Analysis for the Proposed Surrey Farm Estates Residential Subdivision, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Town of Los Gatos.