Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 10
TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 24, 2016 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: APPELLANTS: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: CEQA: Sally Zamowitz, Planning Manager SZarnowitziilosgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 ITEM NO: 4 19 Highland Avenue (north side of Highland Avenue just east of 15 Highland Avenue) Ed Pearson Ed Pearson Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 %. APN 529-37-033 Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development Review Committee approving the application, if the Planning Commission determines that their direction has been addressed. General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential, 0-1 dwelling units/acre Zoning Designation: FIR-2 1/2 — Hillside Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines 1.04 acres Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use North ; Single Family Residential East Single Family Residential South Single Family Residential West I Single Family Residential General Plan Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Hillside Residential Hillside Residential Zoning R120 R-1:20 HR 2yz_. HR-2V2 An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were completed and adopted in 2010 for the approval of a single-family development application on the site. An Addendum to the MND has ATTACHMENT 10 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 FINDINGS: CONS ID ERA TIONS: ACTION : EXHIBITS : been completed confirming that the proposed project i s in compliance with the adopted MND and the proposed project will be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required . • • • • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. As required by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. The project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan . As required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report: 1. Email s from appellants, received May 11, 2016 Previously received with June 8 , 2016 Staff Report: 2 . Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations 4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages) 5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (three pages) 6 . Town Council Resolution (2001-128) 7 . December 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes (15 pages ) 8. Consulting Architect's Report (three pages), dated February 24, 2016 9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15 , 2010 10. Project Data Sheet 11. Letter from Anthony Badame ( 13 pages), received March 24, 2016 12. March 29, 2016 Development Review Committee Minutes (three pages) 13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages) 14. May 11, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 BACKGROUND: 15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May 27,2016 16. Public comment received through 11 :00 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016 1 7. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016 18. Development plans ( 16 pages), received March 22, 2016 Previously received with June 8, 2016 Addendum Report: 19. Letter from appellant (58 pages), received on June 2, 2016 Previously received with June 8, 2016 Desk Item Report: 20. Revised neighborhood outreach statement (one page), received June 6, 2016 21. Applicant's response to Appellant's letter (five pages), received June 8, 2016 Received at June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting: 22. Communication from appellants (11 pages), received June 8, 2016 23. Presentation by appellants (15 pages), presented June 8 , 2016 24. Communication from applicant ( 5 pages), received June 8, 2016 Received with this Staff Report: 25. Presentation by applicant (37 pages), presented June 8 , 2016 26. Revised Recommended Conditions (10 pages) 27 . Revised Development plans (15 pages), received July 11, 2016 28. Revised Project Data Sheet 29. Consultant Reports ( 10 pages) 30. Addendum to 2010 adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (101 pages), dated August 2016 31. Communication from appellants (23 pages) 32. Communications from applicant (110 pages) 33. Revised Findings On June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Development Review Committee (DRC) approval of the Architecture and Site application to construct a 4,357-square foot single-family residence. The Commission opened the public hearing, asked questions of the appellants and applicant, and continued the matter to July 27, 2016 to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors and consider design modifications. On July 27, 2016 staff and the applicant requested a continuance to August 24 , 2016 in order to review the revised project and prepare an Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 19 Highland A venue/S-15 -077 August 24, 2016 ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site In discussing the project, the Commission r ecommended that the applicant consider: reducing the size, bulk, and mass of the house; increasing the setback from the intermittent tributary to 20 feet; reducing the extent of retaining walls; and aligning the foundation more closely with the LRDA, in order to fit the house more closely into its natural surroundings. On July 11, 2016, the applicant submitted revised development plans (Exhibit 27) in response to Planning Commission comments made at the appeal hearing. On August 10, 2016, one of the appellants, Lisa Roberts (78 Alpine Avenue), submitted a letter regarding the revised project (Exhibit 31 ). Analysis of the four major Planning Commission recommendations is below in italic type. Reduce the size, bulk, and mass of the house The square footage of the revised project has been reduced by 4 29 square feet, and the building footprint has been reduced by 620 square.feet. By shifting the house location to the south, the bulk of the house is reduced by setting it further into the hillside, especially as viewed.from the driveway on the southern edge of the property. The massing has been reduced by three feet in length overall. Consistent with HDS&G roof standards, the floor plans and associated rooflines have further broken the massing into smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features. Increase the setback from the creek to 20 feet As illustrated on the Site Plan, (Exhibit 27, G2) the revised project sh(fts the house location to the south to maintain a minimum setback/ram the top of bank o.f 20.feet. Please note that the revised project proposes cantilevering a deck and bay on the northern elevation of the house. Reduce the extent of the retaining walls The driveway and fire truck turnaround were redesigned to more closely follow the natural grade and maintain a 10-:.foot setback from the top of bank. These changes and the modification to sh(fi the house location to the south reduced the length of the retaining walls to 21 O.feet, where the project previously proposed 653 feet of retaining walls. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 Aligning the foundation more closely with the Least Restrictive Development Area The Regulatory Constraints Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the available area with slopes less than 30 percent (LRDA), setback from the top of bank, building setbacks, and property lines. The Footprint Comparison Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the reduced size of the revised project footprint. Consistent with the HDS&G D esign objectives, which e ncourage architectural design that is responsive to site constraints and opportunities, while continuing to require building outside of the LRDA, the revised project is set further into the hillside. B. Hillside Development Standards While the HDS&G define exceptions for building height and maximum floor area as major exceptions, any deviation from the standards may be granted after carefully considering the constraints of a particular site. The revised project continues to request consideration of development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Given the constraints of the site and the Commission's direction to reduce the mass of the house; staff believes the revised project is an appropriate development proposal for the subject site. C. Neighborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records , the residences in the area range in size from 680 square feet to 6,249 square feet. The F ARs range from 0.20 to 0.43. As indicated in the cover sheet (Exhibit 27 , A 1.1 ), the revised project proposal is for a 4,031 square-foot home and 617-square foot garage for a total of 4 ,648 square feet on a 45,240-square foot parcel. Per HDS&G Table 1, Reduction of Net Site Area on Sloping Lots, with an average slope of 28. 76 percent, the net lot area is reduced to 19 , 779 square feet. Per HDS&G Table 2, Maximum Allowed Gross Floor Area, the maximum allowable floor area for the lot is 5, l 00 square feet ( 4, 700 square feet for a home, and 400 square feet for a garage). The Neighborhood Analysis table below includes the gross rather than net lot area (lots in the area would be subject to a slope reduction based on topography). While 400 square feet of garage space does not count towards the FAR per the HDS&G, garage square footage is included in County records and is therefore included in the neighborhood analysis below for comparison. The provided floor areas may also include cellars . Addresses have been included on the map in Exhibit 2 for additional reference and site context. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 Neighborhood Analysis Table ADDRESS Living 50 Al pine A venue 3,120 54 Alpine Avenue 4 ,602 58 Alpine Avenue 5,451 66 Alpine A venue 3,779 74 Alpine Avenue 2 ,040 76 Alpine Avenue 3,644 78 Alpine Avenue 4,429 106 Alpine A venue 3,633 118 Alpine Avenue 3,922 15 Highland A venue 3,625 63 Highland A venue 2 ,417 25 Highland A venue 4 ,343 140 Foster Road 4 ,834 1 Highland A venue 2 ,279 48 Jackson Street 4 ,819 52 Jackson Street 680 53 Grove Street 3,489 previous project 19 Highland A venue 4,357 revised project 19 Highland Avenue 4,031 D. Trees Garage 825 858 798 560 416 473 588 677 816 0 734 798 564 580 864 0 540 720 617 Living and garage Lot size FAR 3,945 21 , 168 0.15 5,460 31 ,240 0.15 6,249 23 ,848 0.23 4 ,339 14,922 0.25 2 ,456 25 ,7 62 0.08 4 ,117 8,51 1 0.43 5,017 22 ,151 0.20 4,310 20,037 0.18 4 ,738 20,036 0.20 3,625 18 ,763 0 .19 3, 151 128,485 0.02 5,141 67,879 0.06 5,398 220,936 0.02 2,859 111 ,427 0.02 5,683 20,006 0.24 680 11 ,550 0 .06 4,029 39,526 0.09 5,077 45,240 0.10 4,648 45,240 0.09 The revised project proposes to remove seven, rather than 15 protected on-site trees. The tree protection measures within the 2010 arborist report (Exhibit 9), are included in the recommended conditions of approval. The applicant commissioned revisions to their May 10, 2016 arborist' s report to reflect the revised project (Exhibit 32). While the revised project proposes saving several trees adjacent to the main floor and retaining wall excavation on the south side of the house, the revised project will continue to be required to provide canopy replacement pursuant to Town Code standards for any trees required to be removed as part of the improvements. The applicant is working with a landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings and will work with staff to provide species and locations appropriate for the site, in conformance with the HDS&G. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 In response to the appellants ' concern that the proposed removal of a single large coast live oak in poor condition could affect habitat for special status bats, a Biological Evaluation Peer Review was completed by Live Oak Associates, Inc. on July 21, 2016. While the peer review confirmed , consistent with the 2010 MND, that the removal would not represent a significant loss of bat roosting habitat, the peer review did outline a two-step tree removal condition for the tree , which the applicant has agreed to , in order to address any remaining concerns regarding common bat species. E. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5) when the project was approved on December 8, 2010. The current application includes minor modifications to the original approved project, and an Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30) has been prepared, including a brief explanation of why a subsequent MND, pursuant to 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, is not required. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The applicant has revised the proposed project design to address the June 8 , 2016 Planning Commission concerns and has met with the appellants . The revised project reduces the size, bulk and mass ; increases setbacks from the creek; and reduces the length of retaining walls. The revised project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and the HDS&G, with the exception of the request for consideration of development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction provided at the June 8, 2016 meeting, the Commission can make the findings to approve the Architecture and Site application as outlined in the recommendation section below. B. Recommendation The following actions are needed to approve the Architecture and Site application: 1. Make the CEQA finding that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010 (Exhibit 33); and Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8 19 Highland Avenue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 2. Make the finding that the LRDA exception is appropriate and the project otherwise complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 33); and 3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 33); and 4. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 33); and 5. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 with the revised recommended conditions (Exhibit 26) and revised development plans (Exhibit 27), ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Commission can: (275 1. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revisions; or 2. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 26 as deemed appropriate; or 3, Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for desired revisions; or 4. Grant the appeal and deny the Architecture and Site application. Gc Prepared by: Sally Zarnowitz, AIA Planning Manager JP:SZ:cg Approved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director cc: Ed Pearson, 239 Thurston Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Lisa Roberts, 78 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Theresa Spalding, 15 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dede Smullen, 25 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Anthony Badame, 1 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS \20161Highland-19-appeal-8-24-16 doc 8/17/2016 Pearson Residence 19 Highland Avenue June 8th Planning Commission Meeting 3TubICT+IniC LOli ON CEQA / Environmental Review/Agency feedback Multiple analysis and reports have been conducted and peer reviewed, stating that there is no negative impact to the creek or site. The proposed project substantially conforms to the assumptions and findings made in the initial study and is supported by multiple agencies. Bess wiersema Studio Three Design, Architect Bart Hechtman Malteona O'Laughlin & Hechtman Lawyers. Land Use Attorney Veiimir Sulic Peoples Associates. Civil Engineers Ginger Bolen HT Harvey Ecological Consulting Patrick Boursier HT Harvey Ecological Consulting Chris Hundemer C2 Earth Geotechnology, Soils Engineer Richard Lessner Monarch Consulting ArborisS Mark Thomas Ecotone Landscape Design You've received a letter from an environmental consultant hired by the neighbors contending that t the 2010 mitigated negative declaration is inadequate and can't be used for this house because there's a new owner I think the town attorney would twit you tf asked that a mitigated negative declaration that is not challenged wrthln 30 days of approval is legally deemed adequate for the project studied, regardless of who owns the property, and that the CEQA review of the current plan is limited to a review of the changes from the prior plan to determine if those changes create new environmental impacts Town staff did that review, and as described in the staff report, the changes actually reduce environmental impacts compared / to the prior plan " / -Bart Hechtman, Land Use Attorney EXIEDBIT 2 5 1 8/17/2016 History of 19 Highland Avenue * First subdivision was Created 1886. A resubdivision was completed June 12t'' 1978. Recorded at Book 420 of maps at page 8. (Info, from Peoples Associates) ? Since then, surrounding neighbors have used this as their private park. 'Note bench is located an Roberts Properly viewing Pearson Property *Lot was for sale 0512612012 through 0611812016 when purchased by Ed Pearson. Ed prefers a more modern -rustic aesthetic than the original facade of the 2010 application, which also better conforms to the Hillside Guidelines. A redesign commenced. Important to note that the current proposal maintains the same LRDA, setbacks, orientation, majority of the footprint, overall ftoorplan and is comparable in square footage to the approved plan. History of 19 Highland Avenue Planning Commission Decisions 1998 Application: 5,222 S.F. with Detached Garage 2001 Application: 5,144 S.F. with Detached Garage Denied Denied 2010 Application: 4,133 S.F. with Attached Garage (588 S.F.) t Approved. F016 Application: 4,357 S.F. with Attached Garage (720 S.F.) Approved Ill DRC 2 8/17/2016 Creek location / LRDA The appellants imply that modifications to the creek have been made, and negatively impact the project. The facts conclusively show that this is not true. Actual top of bank markers were set by HT Harvey and surveyed as well. Please note that the 1996 survey was submitted and on file 12/17/1997. 1996 Survey by Westfall Engineers 2015 Survey by Peoples Associates 1996 Survey by Westfall Engineers 2015 Survey by Peoples Associates 3 8/17/2016 Grading, Fire Turnaround, Driveway, Retaining Walls During the redesign, great effort was taken to reduce the overall grading, as well as the retaining wall heights on the site, The building plate heights were reduced, extensive decking was reduced, and the spot elevations of the placement of the house were lowered. The rear yard area was also modified to reduce the number of retaining walls. Previous Grading Proposed Grading 342 Cut 272 Cut 385 Fill 351 Fill 40 Import 0 Import 0 Export 0 Export Retaining Walls Previous Retaining Wall Heights Previousty Approved 1 Proposed Retaining Wall Heights Maximum Proposed COLOR WALL LINEAR %OF TOTAL CODE HEIGHT FEET WALL LENGTH 0-2 280 42.9% 2'-3' 108 16.5% 3' 139 21.3% 4' 126 19.3% TOTAL WALL LENGTH 653 100% RETAINING WALL HEIGHT & LENGTH EXHIBIT 4 8/17/2016 Immediate Neighbor Retaining Walls 73 A one Ave/Robert Average Wa3 Harght +/. 11.5' Immediate Neighbor Retaining Walls ?S Highland Ave/Serullen Ave age Wall Hetg5t:./• 5' 15 HighGnd Ave/Spalding wnil !Might: tf- 5' P fiou Height 12' Setbacks + Orientation Setbacks match the 2010 proposal and have not been altered. The Town has confirmed these setbacks. Front setbacks are also established by the point of access to the property, shape of the lot and street frontage. A common practice is to locate the frontage at the short side of a lot. This is consistent with the neighborhood. FThe "Road" is not a public street, rather a private easement access road for the Smullen's use only, stating that it is a road is inaccurate and misleading Neighborhood Setback Diagram , 5 8/17/2016 Setbacks + Orientation The LRDA has been established per guidelines and the home placement is nearly identical to the 2010 approval, but actually reduces the envelop from 107' x 35' to 103' x 35'. The siting of the house meets the Hillside Guidelines: ✓ Located in a manner to minimize the need for grading and preserve natural features ✓ Avoid high retaining walls ✓ Graded areas shall not be larger than the area of the footprint plus what is needed to accommodate access 1.977 S.F. 1,015S.F. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSE FOOTPRINT OUTSIDE OF LRDA Setbacks + Orientation Pulled furthe. from cree Pulled further Pulled further `".. from creek from creek PF O) CURRENI PLAN 7 6 8/17/2016 Floor Area r Town Code allows, with slope reduction per Hillside Guidelines 14,700 S.FTJ ri010 proposal was for 4,133 S.F. plus 588 S.F. garage = 4,721 S.F. K.Nwfw.a. 1-Ploys .�. i.. ,�- 4 i....• .� .—r-- MOO. 11046S .iin1. V111 .t$fl t7AL rIe.-+n%.. ix�'la....l ..x #mMwu", -ro,. s.s .aariur au {TI .MAMA. • MAC p *% --booriano Pa qmocortor_ aortic... S Yelo.kokk fYstrieg 4Ma ookm). ,.A N000to, salaam .. rower.. We f Current proposal is for 4,357 S.F. plus 320 S.F. garage = (garage reduction 720 — 400) 4,677 S.F. (Reduced by 44 S.F.) Floor Area The home is not the largest home in the neighborhood, and has a significantly reduced FAR compared to adjacent homes. -.. TOs wryly ttri .Isw Iii A 'Nu ..sr W16.60106 raw...►. a 3121,..400 a i% 4 VV... b4mA+ Yw_4. -, 1.4. . !CIO .4. aA4erl.r alw,si... 'ae Atrx.. nw — r amnri../ , , ,. / 1 4 / / iSb Y... or Om M 1.1N1..a. t A . r ♦s~sovaw~. 111111111*-- epiur..... M.M. ti xsi--- '�' ,f 'J iS7IG iTii� '� 74tiu n..y w M oh 1'.' %. (WA/ on. w,r 4/,� r7 , 'sews. P-4... r""Nt EliaA+A. E. .1 /1gw A..4w 7CA, rztti / iA ev II ...ma 129, tom Jr uri y{i4i. p w R:OYI W nisi= k7=.4rw... .�I rA4.uw :to .slaw... • i[Ir. 4(0 afartoom W.a rr 1 r r..4. 7 8/17/2016 Trees + Landscape Elements Per the arborist's report from Monarch, there are 91 trees of 10 different species. The proposal is to remove 14 trees. most of which are in "fair" condition only. 85°/0 of the trees inventoried will be retained! The majority of the trees requested to be removed have already been approved per the previous application, Pre. Waled r rhn moon mMw vof r+N aeriLL rrJ4! lwelme !VI ra 6!i anypnaq N4+'Jr 61 Trees + Landscape Elements LEd Pearson has made several gestures to maintain specific trees per the appellants requests as, well as offered to provide additional landscaping per their specification (at his cost). A landscape plan by a certified landscape professional has been developed to provide privacy to both the home -owner and surrounding properties specifying native plantings that are sensitive to the surroundings. This plan provides requested screening along the private road to the Smullen's property, the driveway turnaround, and the views from Roberts properties. Landscape Screening Plan 8 8/17/2016 Trees + Landscape Elements Growth Characteristics, of Proposed Screening Plantings .ar 11.11111 Itnages.Rl, PrOP0041 Sctcening PI3 S1nOS CMt+i• 4.:40e4,1e4M Neighborhood Socialization Met (and attempted to meet) with adjacent neighbors. Total of 7 meetings, many of which were unattended. Made the following modifications and adjustments to the project: • Changed color to deeper earth tones v/' Added more wood siding throughout Lowered shed roofs at certain locations Added landscaping at road, driveway and turnaround • Fearrr+h a'••1.4•1101•A*a hotaM....MvT ry �•. ...L .• • .s.Y..1 WwR a. gum • wu..Mar•.••+Wa.•.wJ.yws aw^+•FM wer..w•.• n.w.a.,• a•.•..+a wrG..aa..•.* -a•4.•. .. .w. va: ♦ ..rw r....a. •i+nr6w.+rr..••..w*.mow wedr..•r w. wr•...t••aaM:...• .a+•••••• • • «..a : .... w.a . w.< 1wa•avuaN... */*!.H...yaw. �.A •Gmaa..�•p,a+•aTMk•+ wk•++*..r•eY arw0.are's W.a•.ur•m, ..*•*)+•Well •,S** aeaa• w•..—"•.•+wm.x .•• vu I Arn .. , •*....a1Ww.......... �-... _-.,..--...,•. «.e•1w .:a�:.:�:.:.. r•iI.......„+ madwel...a...1. esa.r ..w... 9 Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V Section A · Design Objectives While the applicant has elected to maintain the majority of the footprint and overall floor plan of the originally approved project, greater care has been taken to blend the new home into the natural landscape as well as conform directly with Hillside Design Guidelines V, satisfying section A overall design objectives by being sited appropriately along the topography lines, the materials and colors are respectful of the natural surroundings , the overall style is reflective of the rural character. and placement is compatible and respectful to both the creek and the neighbors . .../ 1. In harmony and visually blends with the natural environment .../ 2. Responsive to site constraints and opportunities .../ 3 . Compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors .../ 4 . Respectful of the rural character of the hillsides Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section A· Design Objectives The major difference between this house and the previous approval is the arch itectural style. T h e proposed design has been reviewed by COG I Larry Canon , the Town's consulting architect. Only two recommendations were provided and the applicant has incorporated both recommendations into the project: * Extend landscaping along road ... see landscape plan for extensive landscap ing along the road * use one roofing matenal!or tne enttre nouse ... a dart< oronze metal roottnat ts non- reflectiv e, fire safe, and com patible with the modem rustic style of the home has been selected. 8/17/2016 J 10 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section B - Design to be Neighbor Friendly ✓ Decks and balconies are tucked into the staggered building footprint and do not create a privacy issue to any neighbor ✓ Landscape screening is provided along the road, at the driveway turnaround and as much of the natural vegetation is maintained ✓ Windows are oriented to maximize privacy both for the project and neighbors ✓ The main floor level of the home sits below the grade of the road Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section B - Design to be Neighbor Friendly 190' 37' ' 29' 7 _i ._.1---7 ) ___11,, _61 ' . 28' ' ,. 24' ` . 29' 11 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section B - Design to be Neighbor Friendly REV MO Roberts Smullen Pearson NEIGHBOR ELEVATION DIAGRAM Badame Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section C & D - Design for Sustainability & Fire Safety Sensitive to solar exposure on certain facades with windows placement and overhangs ✓ Materials selections that meet and/or exceed W IJI requirements 1 Current green score is 95 points (previous approved plan was 92) 12 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section E — Building Height Standards The home meets the height limits as set forth in the Hillside Guidelines. 0 25' 35' The height along the private road ranges from 1©'to 1T-3" Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section E — Building Height Standards 1,,/ The home meets the height limits as set forth in the Hillside Guidelines. LAME 13 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section E - Building Height Standards The home is not a 3 story home. The multi levels step along the slope, per Hillside Guidelines. There is no place were the 3 levels stack directly upon one another. garage private road upper level Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F - Minimize Building Bulk & Mass 1 Undulating facade on all elevations provides interest and minimizes the effect of the sheer walls in the vertical direction. Light and shadow are increased by providing varying overhangs, shed roofs and vaned elevations 1 Not prominently visible from a distance as well as surrounding properties urr n 11,4 r.:.01., virsatufwo 14 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F — Minimize Building Bulk & Mass View from Badame Driveway Story Poles (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) View from Badame Driveway Rendering (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F — Minimize Building Bulk & Mass View from Smullen Driveway Story Poles (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) View from Smullen Driveway Rendering (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) 15 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F - Minimize Building Bulk & Mass View from Roberts Yard Story Poles (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) View from Roberts Yard Rendering (proposed house not visible from neighbors house) Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F - Minimize Building Bulk & Mass ,i Building is parallel with the contours 16 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section F — Minimize Building Bulk & Mass ✓ Building forms are simple and the architecture style blends with the landscape 1 Vaulted ceilings are used to increase volume on the interior while keeping plate heights reduced Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section G — Roofs ✓ Rooflines have been broken up, with multiple plate heights, to stagger along with the building footprint. ✓ The slope of the roof is oriented in the same direction as the slope 17 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section H — Architectural Elements ✓ The proposed home utilizes architectural detailing on all sides of the home: a mix of quality materials is maintained on all facades, repeated throughout. Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section H — Architectural Elements ✓ The proposed home utilizes architectural detailing on all sides of the home: a mix of quality materials is maintained on all facades, repeated throughout. 18 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section H — Architectural Elements ✓ All exposed structure is enclosed by a natural slatted wood system that coordinates with the wood siding on the home. Wood screen @ exposed deck structure ✓ All lighting is dark sky compliant and also meets the Hillside Design Guidelines VI, Section D. Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section I — Materials & Colors ✓ Materials proposed are a mix of dark tan smooth stucco, natural wood siding, and natural stacked slate stone in a coordinating color, dark bronze standing seam roof, dark bronze clad windows and lighting. 7 All building materials meet or exceed the LRV of 30 (main building material is 24), are non -reflective and blend with the natural landscape. ✓ A blend of stucco, horizontal wood siding, and stacked stone has been integrated throughout to break up the massing of the home. Foundations and roof forms are simple, and broken up, and elevations and plate height vary. ✓ The contract between the building and the natural surroundings is minimized 19 8/17/2016 Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section I — Materials & Colors Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines VI Section A, B and C ✓ Section A: no fences are proposed Section B: no gates at driveway entrance lighting is "dark -sky compliant" ✓ Section C: retaining walls have been minimized and meet the height requirements planters have been added for additional landscape buffer 20 Rebuttal The neighbors intent? TO B L OCK THE PROJECT NO MATTER WHAT Unfortunately, at the most recent meeting on 5/18/2016, only the Smullens showed. Mr. Pearson preferred to not have to bring this project to the Planning Commission, rather resolve any outstanding items wi th his neighbors and move forward in an honest and neighborly manner. Afte r making such modifications to the plans as color, style, materials, new landscape efforts. additional biological , creek and civil work as well as additional arborist studies, 3 0 models, etc., Mr. Pearson and his team were told by the appellants that their inten t was to appeal. no matter what efforts have been made (unless "the size of the home was sign ificantly reduced, and made single story"), that they are supporting one another in continuing the appeal to Town Council should the Commission uphold the Planning Department's and DRC approval of the proposed project. This relentless and un-neighborly approach requiring Mr. Pearson to spend sign ifica nt extra money and time on specialists to continue to prove and re-prove that the project is consistent with Town and State guidelines on both technical and design fronts it fra nk ly abhorrent. The proposed project is compliant with Hillside Guidelines. and efforts have been made to take into account neighbors needs and concerns. The applicant respectfully requests that th e Planning Commission once again uphold the approval by the DRC. with limited, if any, conditions. Rebutt al T he neighbors are neighborly and are participating in the process appropriately? T he applicant has made many attempts to socialize the plans with the neighbors, as well as hear a nd accommodate their concerns and feedback. Mr. Pearson has made multiple emails, phone calls. and meetings with most of the neighbors over the past severa l months in a neighborly fashion . A brief itemization of the contact has been written by the owner. Mr. Pearson i s b affled by the continued efforts of some of the neighbors to block this previously approved project from moving forward, especially as multiple attempts have been made to satisfy their concerns . While there are some neighbors contesting the project. there are also neighbors in support of this d evelopment and their acknowledgement letters are also attached. Roberts-Rohen letter dated 12/712010, they end their letter of onginal support with a paragra ph stating the following : ·eandid/y, there wt/1 always be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant wooded lot fn their neighborhood to the construction o f another home. Such a view does a temble disservice not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home to live in, it creates the impression that the planning and building standards of the communi/y are alway s subject to, and can be disregarded by, the will of a few neighbors who would utilize the publiC planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding. While the Commission can and should listen to all those interested in the application, we h ope the Commission approves the application because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable addition to the neighborhood a nd our community. • 8/1 7/2016 21 8/17/2016 Rebuttal The neighbors want to protect the creek? -See Desk Item from HT Harvey disputing the report tumed in late by Smullen -See Desk Item from C2 Earth Geotech "small stream seasonal" �.Ow.e. ram 1: e... frW.6pw.lale01011MMIs AMMOW .1 Rebuttal sistinU Discharge Pipes From Neighbors into Creek 1 Higi,land AvelSodame 71 Alpine Am/RnbBr 15 HysMlar:d Aue/5r/ n& Other Yeighbori 25 %hiand A.ie/Smulrn 22 8/17/2016 Rebuttal Photo of dry co: • Crum 15 Highland Jun.: 6th 2016 y .. I'hetoof dry ertxk from tree, 13 June 6th 2016 D!y Creek Photoi Photo of dry creek froni a 3 Ju 6th 2016 Photo of dry cask upstream tram r A _ ,bridge at 130 Foster rd June l+th 20161 Rebuttal The neighbors are concerned about the SF of the proposed home? $.E 224 +:`Rts AV!al.# AOK Y•.!n u.aattue. lovo Yap INA f en Iwo "Lt a�L V1 T: ; at L7if5 larnA[u. 4i r. xan 23 8/17/2016 Rebuttal The neighbors are concerned about the SF of the proposed home? o_vi=isw sr, F- 145,00ES F:lFR1f= SA ';bF <ry 7p saw�serr w� cis, . um, aat« iie le a«irq t✓4.. Y. .?YJ..Ys rt W n. A to t. M Rebuttal The neighbors are concerned about the SF of the proposed home? klDhi 4.,hiut YIAT y1I� t I r K'qr, J1YI[fk1� al:s1 Ya Mu—n.sMMr�w.«• r.rY tl/�kt.�tlalW W% 24 8/17/2016 Rebuttal The neighbors are concerned about the SF of the or000sed home? .,r, C Mi I.'l46 yc.r� Fx4 t �A TP:iidCiS AKPruf NL+r )T IY ammatamalIalamaaAael, NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 19 Highland Ave -Attachment #14 SOURC PROJECT ADDRESS: 19 Highland Ave. oak Awa..a A Field Guide to American Houses 25 8/17/2016 NEIGHBDRHOODANALYSIS AIDORESs AM. Of OtlUsE 1,o5L 1..01%.141 SA;ADE MATERIALS MIRO IGANIL OMI PEN ROOF SIATERNILS ACCESS° IMr BIJILINNO ACCESSORY SLIMING MOM IMO ONO SOMA t mane NEIGHBORIKNIDANALYSTS sr .,,`..=1:fs, met= w=1=°"'"""'"'-' -....-1 ........ ..:i".. ACCESSORY MOLDS.. NOME TEM MOLT AI .2.1u IAN 51.O.NORI Onn ONN.I.O.1 NA. NO ...---..,...... 26 8/17/2016 NEMBORRMANALYPIS Fl.•••• ••• NIAOS Of NOUSE MOO SE OP PI LOT WM ISM sl/ SPACE WI PAOSOP EOPTULPALS 'FL= Fr•CT n•F, POOP IMAT•IPLF.LS ACC:,SSO SPAL0•00 SOCESSOPPY MALEC. MAGA NA kd FIN FN. SA -won 1.1GH8OFt11000MIALTliti SOPPLASS mill LISFYOLISE WYSE OPIFf .' .. or, ''''''''' GPACEPTEn "C''''''..."*. .4.••=F7:47, Fss•o• ‘F•F•44„, ''''X''''' Fsy ALAFILSONS •LFILD000 %WI •••• &OLT ...144pneAve • II ,M1I le. SOS SP CA. m.o.. ' IS, VS. SAP•re 11 • . Al . u PP. A.- A ••• . NA F OF I Po, vs• FL. FA. P 27 8/17/2016 CreagiUSDPDAKYSIS MADE OF MUSE ROUSE RIPE LOT S. SPLA"C'S'SFI MATE.. srelet'orZ To, ROOF ASSES., rITO I SIZRE D..1•110. Knwigl.q.4990NAL:T5IP., MOO. 1.10.1.1pw One ISAMT.Aw .139.11ms Ane MOSSO TYRE LOT RIRE SPADE ISE, EASAOR MAIDAORS ETOI RoadOEIFTTA/nat 1.1 IFA-T ROOF MATERIALS TOTTOTTRA COTROTITO al• 28 8/17/2016 Pg IGI'_e_AMMINALX$18 ADORE. 1•I•GE IV NMI. '''''" ''' Lo:sr ,,=,,, mign.t. 4...-5,,,,... e.V1 ...."-- '''" .... ,L,,,„, Accessom, ou,...a.or ',EAR WO 11111C r..'''..... 431!-: Yeett 1 11EIGIMAJJADBORHOO S .1411.11 11.0E 0,..SI Nouse ..e moat .1•....0. IMAM it, ,,,. 1,5 ...K.... 1111- 11.311, ". '''''' • . AM 29 8/17/2016 ogiiNgivis ADDRESS MAWS OP HOUSE NOUSE INA 0 LOt SZE 11/114 Lmmo .00...1.0 FACALK KAIERALS N01.0.1.10 Coicv LYVAA111111,EA ROOF MATERIALS AC°".. RV SURD,. ACCESSORY 1101RARRO 0... SCAR ...., M. PCA N x MR ADORERS 0.0. OF HOUSE G HOUSE 'NAT ICH WI WI ,,...p. .„.., .1„, .K.. MATERIALS :=7:14 CIA NIA.. .... . PROPC2.0 ROME IMAM MOION 0 LIVISS .... ,..,„ - Architectural Plans — Cover Sheet 4z, r. Al . 1 30 8/17/2016 Architectural Plans — Floor Plans 31 8/17/2016 Architectural Plans — Exterior Elevations Architectural Plans — Exterior Elevations 32 8/ 17/2016 Architectural Plans - Building Sections RAMS FORM( S MIR .=74=-", 8/17/2016 Civil Plans - Site Plan 34 8/17/2016 Civil Plans — Grading + Drainage Plan • 17. Civil Plans — Tree Inventory 35 8/17/2016 Civil Plans - Details + Sections Civil Plans - Erosion Control Plan 36 8/17/2016 Landscape Plan 37 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Augus t 24, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yz. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER! APPLICANT: Ed Pearson TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans . Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval (August 24, 2018) unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 4 . EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 5 . DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder 's Office that requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Developme nt Standards & Guidelines. 6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town 's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report , dated February 15 , 2010, on file in the community Development Department, except as otherwise noted. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. a. The removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible. A pre- construction tree survey shall be conducted prior to any grading or construction work to determine if any trees planned to be substantially trimmed or removed are identified as protected trees. b. If tree remo va l, pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are necessary, s uch activities shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., between September I and January 31 ), to avoid impacts to nesting birds . 1. If tree removal , pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are scheduled to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February I and August 31 ), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. The preconstruction survey shall include the project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer, access and sight-lines permitting. If no active nests of migratory birds are found , work may proceed without restriction and no further measures are necessary. If work is del ayed more than two weeks, EXHIBIT 2 6 the preconstruction survey shall be repeated , if determined necessary by the project biologist. 11. If active nests (i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present, or hosting an actively breeding adult pair) of special-status or migratory birds are detected, the project biologist shall designate non-disturbance buffers at a distance suffi cient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance. nt. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young have fledged , as determined by a qualified biologist. The appropriate buffer size shall be determined in cooperation with the CDFW and/or the USFWS. If, despite the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer it is determined that project activities are res ulting in nest di sturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS s hall be contacted for further guidance. tv. If project activities must occur within the non-disturbance buffer, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that no take of the nest (i.e., nest fai lure) will re s ult. If it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance. c. Tree number 56 shall be removed via a two-step process over two consecutive days outside of the bat winter torpor season, i.e. outs ide of the time period fro m mid-October through end of March, under supervis ion of a qualified biologist. The afternoon of the first day, limbs would be removed using chainsaws and chipped on site. The tree would then be removed the second day, with no biologist supervision required. 7 . CREEK SETBACK: The proposed residence shall maintain a minimum setback of20 feet from the creek/drainage course. 8. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site. 9. NEW TREES: New trees to be planted shall be double-staked, using rubber tree ties and shall be planted prior to occupancy. New tree selection to conform to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas (Appendix A). 10. TREE NUMBER 30: Tree number 30 shall be protected and retained. Tree protection measures shall be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the arborist report. 11. IRRIGATION and WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: All newl y planted material shall be irrigated by an in-ground system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native trees and vegetation. The final landscape plan shall meet the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 12. STORY-POLES : The story poles on the project site shall be removed with i n 30 days of approval of the Architecture and Site application. 13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 2: With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 201 0) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist's report. These include recommendations under the Design Gui delines section addressing tree retention and relocation , so il disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development , encompassing fencing, removal ofhardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 14. CULTU RAL RESO URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 3: In the event that archaeological trace s are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified , and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 15 . CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEAS URE 4: If human remains are discovered , the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remain s are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not s ubject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Ifthe Community Development Director find s that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisio ns for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will fo llow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the site i s found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public R eso urces Code Section 21083 .2. I 7. CULTURAL RES O URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 6 : A final report sh all be prepared when a find is determin ed to be a s ignificant archaeological s ite, and/or when Na tive American remains a re found on th e site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and li st of identifi ed reso urces, the di sposition and curation of these resources, an y testing, other recovere d information, and conclusions. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL Building Division 18. AIR QUALITY-MITIGATION MEASURE I: To limit the project's construction- related dust, criteria pollutant, and precurso r emissions, the following BAAQMD- rec ommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be impl eme nt ed. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soi l pile s, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks tran sporting soil , sand , or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet po wer vacuum street sweepers a t least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speed s on unpa ved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways , drivewa ys, and s idewa lk s to b e paved shall be completed as soon as po ssible. Building pads sha ll be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedi n g or soil binders are used . f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g . All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications . All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site . This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residence. Separate building permits are required for site retaining walls , water tanks, or swimming poo ls; separate electrical, mechanical , and plumbing permits shall be required as necessary. 20 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 22. SOILS REPORT: A soils report , prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official , containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics . 23. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS : A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation in spection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to approved plans . Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or regi stered civil engineer for the following items : a . Building pad elevation b . Finish floor elevation c. Foundation comer locations d. Retaining Walls 24 . RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a . Wooden backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom wall s, at water closets, showers and bathtubs located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b . All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the acces s ible floor. c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5' x 5' level landing on both sides of the door, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance on the strike side. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 25 . TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans. 26. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase 11 approved appliance a s per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 1 0-feet of chimneys. 27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: This project requires a Class A roofing assembly. 28. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. 29. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 30. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 31. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Ins pection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www .losgatosca.gov. 32. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print. 33. APPROVALS REQU IRED : The project requires the following agencies approval before is suing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: ( 408) 3 78-401 0 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of paid receipt is required prior to permit is suance. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Divis ion 34. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of- way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities . The storing of goods and material s on the si dewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unles s an encroachment permit is issued. The Developer's representati ve in charge shall be at th e job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 35. APPROVAL: This application sh all be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer 36. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5 ,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any building permit. 37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations . Improvements such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti , etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 39. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 40. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department 41. INSPECTION FEES : Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any permits. 42. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. 43. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 44. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 45 . SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations b . Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 46. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works. 47. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE 1: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for liquefaction on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, concrete slab-on-grade construction , excavation, drainage , on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans . 48. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant 's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 49. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TlON : During construction , all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant 's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy pennit is granted. 50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS : The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Limited Geotechnical Study Lands of Orphan and Supple mental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Pearson Property by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22 , 2013 and December 22 , 2015, respectively, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town 's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 51. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground , as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities . 52. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE : The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued . The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses. 53. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation Di strict): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town. 54. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture 's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 55. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4 :00 p.m . and 6:00p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer s hall work with the Town Building and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 56 . CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors , heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays . The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 57. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum employee parking, materials storage area , concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations. 58. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum . e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 59. DUST CONTROL: Blowing du st shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping di s turbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 60. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 61. SITE DRAINAGE : Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING-Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 1 0 ' minimum from adjacent property line and /or right of way. 62 . SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT washed into the Town 's storm drains. 63 . GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 64. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. Building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building code (CBC) Chapter 7a. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701 A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 65 . AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 66. WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies . The applicant, or any contractors and subcontractors shall contact the water purveyor supplying the site and comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems , and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record . Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by the Fire Department until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 67. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND REQUIRED . Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 68 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the s treet. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background . N:\DE V\CON DITN S\20 16\Hi ghland-19 _ Rev ised .doc 11 July 2016 To : Lo s Gatos Planning Department I Sally+ Joel: The following is a short list of the modification s made to take into con sideration the comments from neighbors and the recent planning commi ssion . 1. Building Footprint reduced by 620 sq . ft . 2. Total sq . ft . reduced by 429 sq . ft. 3. Trees to be removed decrea sed from 14 to 6, with one additiona l dead tree to be removed . 4 . Previous retaining wall length 653', revi sed plan 210'. 5. Hou se has been rece ss ed into hillside as sugge sted in HDSG . 6 . Di stance of building footprint to tree #30 has incre ase d from 15' to min. of 20' 7. Ove rall h eights and m ass ing have been r educe d. 8 . Hou se footprint i s 20' from creek bank at closest point . 9 . LRDA is encroached into 1182 sq . ft . Plea se note that studio3 desi gn will provid e a letter of justification with diag ram s further showing these items, as well as additional information. I hop e that you find thes e change s to be in keeping with the spirit of the comm e nts given -we have made great efforts to modify the de sign to alleviate the neighbor's concern s while maintaining the over all desig n effort . Thank you, Ed Pearson ,EXHIBIT 2 ? I N D E X T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s t o c o n s t r u c t a s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e i n a n H R - 2 1 / 2 z o n e . T h e s i t e i s o n a p r i v a t e r o a d o f f H i g h l a n d A v e . S u r r o u n d i n g p a r c e l s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 / 4 a c r e t o 3 a c r e s . H o m e s i n t h i s a r e a t y p i c a l l y r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 , 3 0 0 s q . f t . t o 5 , 5 0 0 s q . f t . W h i l e t h e p r o j e c t d i f f e r s f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d h o m e f o r t h i s s i t e , t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e h o m e w i l l r e m a i n t h e s a m e a n d t h e f o o t p r i n t w i l l r e m a i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p a s t a p p r o v e d h o m e . U n l i k e t h e p r e v i o u s a p p r o v a l , t h i s d e s i g n w i l l f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h t h e m a x i m u m h e i g h t f o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e H D S + G g u i d e l i n e s . T r e e r e m o v a l w i l l f o l l o w t h e p r e v i o u s l y c o m p l e t e d a r b o r i s t r e p o r t a n d n e w l a n d s c a p i n g w i l l b e c o m p r i s e d e n t i r e l y o f a l m o s t a l l n a t i v e s p e c i e s . T h e s t y l e o f t h e h o m e i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d a s c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h s o m e r u s t i c e l e m e n t s . I t w a s d e s i g n e d w i t h a s t e p p e d f o u n d a t i o n ; k e e p i n g a l o w p r o f i l e w h i l e r u n n i n g p a r a l l e l t o t h e c o n t o u r s o f t h e e x i s t i n g h i l l s i d e . L o w p i t c h e d s h e d r o o f s w i l l b e u s e d t o m i n i m i z e a e s t h e t i c i m p a c t s . E x t e r i o r m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e a d a r k t a u p e c o l o r i n t e g r a l s t u c c o w h i c h f a l l s b e l o w t h e L R V v a l u e o f 3 0 . K e e p i n g f u r t h e r w i t h t h e d e s i g n s t y l e , h o r i z o n t a l w o o d s i d i n g w o u l d b e i n c o r p o r a t e d o n s o m e a r e a s . T h e r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l w o u l d b e a d a r k b r o w n s t a n d i n g s e a m m e t a l . L O C A T I O N M A P P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N O w n e r : E d P e a r s o n 2 3 9 T h u r s t o n S t . L o s G a t o s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 0 ( 4 0 8 ) 2 0 5 - 7 3 0 5 A 2 . 2 P r o p o s e d F l o o r P l a n s A 2 . 1 C o v e r S h e e t : G e n e r a l N o t e s + I n f o r m a t i o n A 1 . 1 P R O J E C T I N F O . P r o p o s e d R o o f P l a n P R O J E C T D A T A P A R C E L M A P A 3 . 2 P r o p o s e d F r o n t ( E a s t ) + R i g h t ( S o u t h ) P r o p o s e d R e a r ( W e s t ) + L e f t ( N o r t h ) A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 Z O N I N G = H R - 2 1 / 2 F L O O D Z O N E = N O N E H I S T O R I C Z O N E = N O N E O C C U P A N C Y = R 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y D W E L L I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E = V - B R E Q U I R E D P A R K I N G : 2 C O V E R E D G A R A G E S P A C E S A L L O W E D P R O P O S E D S E T B A C K S : F R O N T S E T B A C K : 3 0 ' - 0 " > 3 0 ' - 0 " R I G H T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " L E F T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " R E A R S E T B A C K : 2 5 ' - 0 " > 2 5 ' - 0 " C R E E K S E T B A C K : 1 5 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " + + + B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 2 5 ' - 0 " / 3 5 ' - 0 " L o w t o H i g h 3 4 ' - 0 " / L o w t o H i g h ( B U I L D I N G H E I G H T D E R I V E D F R O M A V E R A G E G R A D E E L E V A T I O N A L O N G B U I L D I N G E D G E A N D R I D G E E L E V A T I O N ) G R O S S L O T A R E A = 1 . 0 4 A C R E S = 4 5 , 3 0 2 S F A V E R A G E S L O P E = 2 8 . 7 6 % N E T L O T A R E A / L O T A R E A R E D U C T I O N : ( 1 0 0 % - ( 3 0 % / ( 3 X 8 . 7 6 ) X 4 5 , 2 4 0 = 1 9 , 7 7 9 S F G R O S S F L O O R A R E A P E R H D S T A N D A R D S / F A R : A L L O W A B L E F L O O R A R E A = 4 , 7 0 0 S F G A R A G E A L L O W A N C E = 4 0 0 S F M A X I M U M A L L O W E D T O T A L = 5 , 1 0 0 S F M A I N L E V E L : 2 , 3 7 9 S F U P P E R L E V E L : 1 , 6 5 2 S F T O T A L H A B I T A B L E H O U S E : 4 , 0 3 1 S F G A R A G E : 6 1 7 - 4 0 0 = 2 1 7 S F T O T A L : 4 , 2 4 8 S F S I T E C O V E R A G E : B U I L D I N G F O O T P R I N T : 2 , 3 7 2 S F C A N T I L E V E R E D B U I L D I N G : 4 0 4 S F D E C K S / P A T I O S : 4 2 9 S F D R I V E W A Y : 3 , 5 8 3 S F H O A / C C R : N O N E W E L O R E Q U I R E M E N T S : N O T A P P L I C A B L E , U N D E R 5 0 0 S F O F I R R I G A T E D T U R F A N D N O P R O P O S E D P O O L O R F O U N T A I N O N S , I T E . C i v i l E n g i n e e r : P e o p l e s A s s o c i a t e s C o n t a c t : V e l i m i r S u l i c 1 9 9 6 T a r o b C o u r t M i l p i t a s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 0 f a x : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 1 C O V E R S H E E T I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : N T S S t r u c t u r a l S - 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 2 D e s i g n e r : S t u d i o 3 D e s i g n C o n t a c t : B e s s W i e r s e m a 1 5 8 5 T h e A l a m e d a # 2 0 0 S a n J o s e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 1 2 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 2 9 2 - 3 2 5 2 f a x : ( 2 5 3 ) 3 9 9 - 1 1 2 5 S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 1 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 L a n d s c a p e P l a n L - 1 T h e f o l l o w i n g c o d e s a r e c u r r e n t l y i n e f f e c t : 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a R e s i d e n t i a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a P l u m b i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a M e c h a n i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E l e c t r i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a F i r e C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a G r e e n B u i l d i n g S t a n d a r d s C o d e C O D E S U S E D GENERAL N O T E S 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R T h e r e s i d e n c e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e p a s s i v e a n d a c t i v e s u s t a i n a b i l i t y m e a s u r e s b y b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o s o l a r e x p o s u r e o n c e r t a i n f a c a d e s , m a t e r i a l s s e l e c t i o n s a n d L O W - E g l a z i n g . T h e h o m e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e H i l l s i d e D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s : p l a c e m e n t o f t h e b u i l d i n g i s a s p a r a l l e l t o g r a d e a s p o s s i b l e , t h e r e b y m i n i m i z i n g g r a d i n g a n d e x i s t i n g s l o p e s . T h e f o u n d a t i o n a n d b l u e p r i n t a l s o s t a c k b a c k f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s . M a t e r i a l s a r e e a r t h t o n e i n c o l o r s a n d m e e t o r e x c e e d L R V r e q u i r e m e n t s t o b l e n d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S h e d r o o f s a n d s h i f t s i n m a s s i n g a r e u s e d t o l e s s e n t h e o v e r a l l b u l k a n d m a s s . T h e h o m e i s n o t a t h r e e s t o r y h o m e , r a t h e r a s p l i t l e v e l s e t u p t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e h i l l s i d e g r a d e d i f f e r e n c e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t h e g a r a g e a r e a . A t n o p o i n t a r e 2 s t o r i e s o f h a b i t a b l e s p a c e s t a c k e d o v e r t h e g a r a g e a t t h e l o w e s t l e v e l . T h i s s t a g g e r e d e f f e c t h e l p s t o m i n i m i z e g r a d i n g a t t h e h i l l s i d e f o r b o t h t h e h o m e i t s e l f a n d t h e d r i v e w a y a c c e s s . 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y F I R E N O T E S 1 . T h i s p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e d e s i g n a t e d W i l d l a n d - U r b a n I n t e r f a c e f i r e a r e a . T h e b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e ( C B C ) C h a p t e r 7 A . V e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h C B C S e c t i o n 7 0 1 A . 3 . 2 . 4 . 2 . A n a u t o m a t i c r e s i d e n t i a l f i r e s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d t y p e 1 3 D . S e c t i o n R 3 1 3 . 2 a s a d o p t e d a n d a m e n d e d b y L G T C . 3 . P o t a b l e w a t e r s u p p l i e s s h a l l b e p r t o t e c t e d f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n c a u s e d b y f i r e p r o t e c t i o n w a t e r s u p p l i e s . T h e o w n e r a n d a n y c o n t r a c t o r s / s u b c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l c o n t a c t t h e w a t e r p u r v e y o r s u p p l y i n g t h e s i t e o f s u c h p r o j e c t , a n d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h a t p u r v e y o r . 2 0 1 3 C F C S e c t i o n 9 0 3 . 3 . 5 a n d H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y C o d e 1 3 1 1 4 . 7 . 4 . A p p r o v e d h o u s e n u m b e r s s h a l l b e p l a c e d i n s u c h a p o s i t i o n t o b e p l a i n l y v i s i b l e a n d l e g i b l e f r o m t h e s t r e e t f r o n t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . N u m b e r s s h a l l b e 6 " t a l l a n d i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e i r b a c k g r o u n d . C F C S e c t i o n 5 0 5 . 5 . C o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h a l l a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C F C C h a p t e r 1 4 , i n c l u d i n g F i r e D e p a r t m e n t S t a n d a r d D e t a i l a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n S 1 - 7 . SHADOW STUDYN.T.S.1. All material and wor k m a n s h i p s h a l l c o n f o r m w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s t o t h e 2 0 1 3 C R C , 2 0 1 3 C B C , 2 0 1 3 CEC, and 2013 CMC.2. Notes and details o n d r a w i n g s s h a l l t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e s e G e n e r a l N o t e s . 3. Dimensions as indic a t e d a r e t h e d i m e n s i o n s t o b e u s e d . D o n o t s c a l e t h e d r a w i n g s . 4. No changes are to b e m a d e o n t h e p l a n s w i t h o u t t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e E n g i n e e r w h o s e s i g n a t u r e appears herein.5. The design adequac y a n d s a f e t y o f t h e e r e c t i o n , b r a c i n g , s h o r i n g , a n d t h e t e m p o r a r y s u p p o r t s i s t h e sole responsibility of th e C o n t r a c t o r . 6. The General Contra c t o r s h a l l i n s u r e t h a t t h e r e i s a f u l l t i m e , q u a l i f i e d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a t t h e j o b s i t e a t all times.7. Provide special insp e c t i o n f o r a l l t i m e s a s r e q u i r e d b y I B C a n d L o c a l C o d e a u t h o r i t y . SPECIAL I N S P E C T I O N N O T E S FOUNDATION INSPE C T I O N S : A p a d c e r t i f i c a t e p r e p a r e d b y a a l i c e n s e d C i v i l E n g i n e e r o r L a n d Surveyor shall be subm i t t e d t o t h e p r o j e c t B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r a t f o u n d a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n . T h i s c e e r t i f i c a t e shall certify compliance w i t h t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e s o i l s r e p o r t a n d t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g pad elevation and on-si t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l l o c a t i o n s a n d e l e v a t i o n s h a v e b e e n p r e p a r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e approved plans. Horiz o n t a l a n d b v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l s s h a l l b e s e t a n d c e r t i f i e d b y a l i c e n s e d S u r v e y o r o r registered Civil Engine e r f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : a. Building pad elevati o n b. Finish floor elevatio n c. Foundation corner l o c a t i o n s d. Retaining wallsPRIOR TO FINAL INS P E C T I O N : P r o v e a l e t t e r f r o m C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t o r L a n d s c a p e Architect certifying the l a n d s c a p i n g a n d v e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d p e r t h e California Public Resou r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 a n d G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . PROVIDE DEFENSIBL E S P A C E / F I R E B R E A K L A N D S C A P I N G P L A N : P r e p a r e d b y C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d Architect or Landscape A r c h i t e c t i n c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 a n d Government Code Sect i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . BUILDING M A T E R I A L S ROOFING: Standing s e a m m e t a l GUTTERS AND DOW N S P O U T S : G a l v a n i z e d m e t a l ( s q u a r e s h a p e ) EXTERIOR LIGHTS: D o w n w a r d / d o w n w a r d d a r k s k y EXTERIOR FINISH: St u c c o a n d w o o d s i d i n g ENTRY DOOR: (Selec t i o n b y O w n e r ) GARAGE DOOR: Carri a g e H o u s e ( S a n M a t e o S e r i e s ) ROOF SOFFITS: Stuc c o ROOF/ FOUNDATION V E N T S : " B a n g u a r d V e n t s " u n d e r e a v e / s o f f i t v e n t s , r i d g e v e n t s , a n d f o u n d a t i o n vents S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r : C o r n e r s t o n e S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p , I n c C o n t a c t : C h a d 4 0 F e d e r a l S t r e e t S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 0 7 p h : ( 9 1 6 ) 8 9 7 - 9 6 4 9 e m a i l : c h a d g @ c o r n e r s t o n e s t r u c t u r a l . n e t T i t l e 2 4 : F R I E n e r g y C o n s u l t a n t s , L L C C o n t a c t : N i c k B i g n a r d i 2 1 N . H a r r i s o n A v e . , S u i t e 2 1 0 C a m p b e l l , C A 9 5 0 0 8 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 8 6 6 - 6 8 3 2 e m a i l : n i c k @ f r i c o n s u l t i n g . c o m D o o r + W i n d o w S c h e d u l e A 5 . 1 M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n M E - 1 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 1 B l u e p r i n t f o r a C l e a n B a y A 1 . 2 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 2 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s 7 M A Y 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S MATERIAL BOARD G 2 T i t l e S h e e t G 1 S i t e P l a n G 4 U t i l i t y P l a n G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n G 3 T r e e I n v e n t o r y P l a n G 5 S e c t i o n s a n d D e t a i l s G 6 E r o s i o n C o n t r o l P l a n G 7 C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( P e n d i n g ) G 8 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 1 8 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S P R O P O S E D R O O F P L A N I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S F R O N T ( E A S T ) + R I G H T ( S O U T H ) E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S R E A R ( W E S T ) + L E F T ( N O R T H ) E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S S E C T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 4 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S ID Qty.Size Latin Name Common Name Notes AB 5 24" box Acer p. 'Bloodgood'Japanese Maple CO 6 24" box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud HA 9 15 gal.Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon PI 6 15 gal.Prunus i. lyonii Catalina Cherry UC 4 15 gal.Umbellularia californica California Laurel CJ 40 1 gal.Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter'Wild Lilac CS 28 1 gal.Coleonema 'Sunset Gold' Pink Breath of Heaven CH 40 1 gal.Cotoneaster 'horizontalis' Rock Cotoneaster RP 39 1 gal.Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Rosemary 3T R N K 5 ' O A K 1 0 " O A K 10 " O A K 1 2 " O A K 1 0 " O A K T2 1 8 " O A K T B W A L L 430 420 440 410 420 430 T1 4 E 3 0 " E U C T2 0 T6 6 T5 7 IP T A G M A G N A I L T5 4 T5 9 T6 2 T6 3 T6 5 T2 3 T2 2 T1 8 T1 1 T1 3 T2 9 T 3 0 T3 3 T3 2 T3 1 T3 4 T4 2 T4 0 T3 9 T3 8 400 T4 4 T4 5 T4 3 T4 7 T5 0 N 4 8 ° 2 3 ' 3 7 " E 9 8 . 4 0 ' S 0 7 ° 0 2 ' 5 0 " W 3 7 . 0 0 ' N 60°0 8 ' 3 3 " W 7 1 . 5 8 ' N 4 2 ° 1 7 ' 0 8 " W 1 4 0 . 0 0 ' S 5 2 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 " W N 67°20'06" W 1 6 7 . 5 2 ' S 3 7 ° 4 2 ' 7 " W 6 8 . 9 7 ' S 82°1 9 ' 0 2 " W 4 4 . 5 3 ' N 75°14'43" W 309.40' N 1 9 ° 5 4 ' 5 8 " W 7 1 . 6 2 ' 26. 4 0 ' CO N S T R U C T I O N LANDS OF PEARSON 1.04 Acres A.P.N. 529-37-033 BE N C H M A R K 44 0 . 4 6 T2 7 T1 T3 5 T3 6 T4 1 T9 T4 6 T8 40 8 40 8 412 410 408 406 404 4 0 9 41 8 42 0 42 2 Drawing No. Scale Project IDProject Manager Drawn By Reviewed By Date CAD File Name L1 1/16" = 1'-0" Date 1 of Drawing Title Project Title Landscape Plan Pearson Residence 19 Highland Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consultant Design Firm Ecotone Landscape P.O. Box 320201 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 357 0354 No. Date Revision NotesAppr No. Date Issue Notes 3-HA T1 1 7-CH Undisturbed Landscape1-CO 1-UC 3-PI 3-PI 1-AB 3-HA Landscape Plan La n d s c a p e P l a n Pe a r s o n R e s i d e n c e 19 H i g h l a n d A v e . Lo s G a t o s , C A 9 5 0 3 0 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 6-CJ 5-CH Ex. Densely Wooded Area Ex. Densely Wooded Area Plant List L1 1-UC 1-CO7-RP 6-CJ 5-CJ 6-CJ 5-CS 11-RP 7-CS 1-UC 8-CJ 6-CH1-UC1-CO 7/10/16 www.ecotone-la.com mark@ecotone-la.com (408) 357-0354 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1-CO 3-HA 4-RP 10-RP 5-CJ 1-AB 8-CH 1-CO7-RP1-CO 6-CH 4-CH4-CH5-CS 5-CS1-AB 6-CS 1-AB 4-CJ1-AB ABBREVIATIONS A.D. AC. or A.C. B.S.L. B.W. C.B. C.O. CL Conc. Div. V. D/W E.P. Ex. or Exist. F.F. F.H. F.L. Fnd. IP. L.F. L.L. Max. Min. Mon. N.T.S. NAT. Pay. PL or Prop. P.W.L.E. R/W Ret. S.T. T.L. T.W. Typ. W W.M. VICINITY MAP N.T.S. = Area Drain = Asphalt Concrete = Building Setback Line = Bottom of Wall = Catch Basin = Clean Out = Centerline = Concrete = Diversion Valve = Driveway = Edge of Pavement = Existing = Finish Floor = Fire Hydrant = Flow Line = Found = Iron Pipe = Linear Feet = Leach Line = Maximum = Minimum = Monument = Not To Scale = Natural = Pavement = Property Line = Private Water Line Easement = Right -of -Way = Retaining = Septic Tank = Tight Line = Top of Wall = Typical = Water = Water Meter TOWN OF LOS GATOS STANDARD GRADING NOTES PARKING NOTES: IN GARAGE 3 ON DRIVEWAY 2 in front of garage OFF STREET 1 BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT 30' SIDE 20' REAR 25' BENCHMARK TOWN OF LOS GATOS LG38 BRASS DISK IN MON. WELL (CENTRAL AVE & OAK HILL WAY) ELEVATION: 556.86 1. All work shall conform to Chapter 12 of the Town of Los Gatos Grading Ordinance, the adopted California Building Code and the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction except as specified otherwise on these plans and details. 2. No work may be started on -site without an approved Grading Plan and a Grading Permit issued by the Town of Los Gatos, Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 3. A Pre -Job meeting shall be held with the Town Engineering Inspector from the Department of Parks and Public Works prior to any work being done. The Contractor shall call the Inspections Line at 408.399.5771 at least 48 hours prior to any grading or onsite work. This meeting should include: a. A discussion of the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledgement in writing that Contractor and Applicant have read and understand the project conditions of approval, and will make certain that all project sub -contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction. 4. Approval of plans does not release the developer of the responsibility for the correction of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If, during the course of construction of the improvements, public interest and safety requires a modification or departure from the Town Specifications or these improvement plans, the Town Engineer shall have full authority to require such modification or departure and to specify the manner in which the same is to be made. 5. Approval of this plan applies only to the grading, excavation, placement, and compaction of natural earth materials. This approval does not confer any rights of entry to either public property or the private property of others and does not constitute approval of any other improvements. 6. Excavated material shall be placed in the fill areas designated or shall be hauled away from the site to be disposed of at approved Iocation(s). 7. It shall be the responsibility of the Permittee or Contractor to identify, locate and protect all underground facilities. Permittee or Contractor shall notify USA (Underground Service Alert) at 1-800-227-2600 a minimum of 48 hours but not more than 14 days prior to commencing all work. 4Z) co Gallege Financial Consultants 0 '0 GRADING NOTE: ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "GEOTECHNICAL REPORT" PREPARED FOR THIS SITE BY: C2EARTH, INC. DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2013. PLANS FOR THE GRADING PERMIT NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LA\DS OF PEASO\ 19 HICHLA\D AVE\UE, LOS GATOS, CALIFO SHEET NO. G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 A.P.\. 529-37-033 \IA SHEET INDEX DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN UTILITY PLAN GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN TREE INVENTORY PLAN SECTIONS AND DETAILS EROSION CONTROL PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PENDING) 4, a LANDS OF PEARSON 1.04 Ac. \ET 8. All grading shall be performed in such a manner as to comply with the standards established by the Air Quality Management District for airborne particulates. 9. The Contractor shall comply with all local, state and federal laws, codes, rules and regulations governing the work identified on these plans. These shall include, without limitation, safety and health rules and regulations established by or pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act or any other applicable public authority. 10. The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 11. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall --top of wall elevations and locations (all walls to be permitted separately and applied for at the Town of Los Gatos Building Department). b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 12. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. Soils Engineer C2EARTH, INC. Reference Report No. 13050C-01 R1 , dated NOV. 22 , 2013 Letter No. , dated , 20 , shall be thoroughly complied with. Both the mentioned report and all updates/addendums/letters are hereby appended and made a part of this grading plan. 13. During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer. The engineer shall be notified at least 48 hours before beginning any grading. The engineer shall be onsite to verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report and/or provide appropriate changes to the report recommendations, as necessary. All unobserved and/or unapproved grading shall be removed and replaced under soils engineer observance (the Town Inspector shall be made aware of any required changes prior to work being performed). PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1�! \ r • • - -7,,,, NEW R ESQ, D E N C E N 75'14'43" W 309.40' SITE MAP SCALE: 1"=40' N 67°20'0 CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK EXISTING MAG NAIL IN HIGHLAND AVENUE. ELEVATION: 440.46 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DATUM 14. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as -built" letter/report prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted for the Town's review and acceptance before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 15. All private and public streets accessing Project Site shall be kept open and in a safe, drive -able condition throughout construction. If temporary closure is needed, then formal written notice to the adjacent neighbors and the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department shall be provided at least one week in advance of closure and no closure shall be granted without the express written approval of the Town. No material or equipment shall be stored in the public or private right-of-way. 16. The contractor shall install and maintain fences, barriers, lights and signs that are necessary to give adequate warning and/protection to the public at all times. 1 7. Owner/Applicant: ED PEARSON Phone: (408) 205-7305 18. General Contractor (If available): PEARSON CONSTRUCTION Phone: (408) 205-7305 19. Grading Contractor (If available): Phone: 20. a. Cut: 439 CY Export: 0 b. Fill: 429 CY Import: 0 21. Water shall be available on the site at all times during grading operations to properly maintain dust control. 22. This plan does not approve the removal of trees. Appropriate tree removal permits and methods of tree preservation shall be required. Tree Removal Permits are required prior to the approval of all plans. 23. A Town Encroachment Permit is required for any work within the public right-of-way. A State Encroachment Permit is required for any work within State right-of-way (if applicable). The Permittee and/or Contractor shall be responsible coordinating inspection performed by other governmental agencies. 24. No cross lot drainage will be permitted without satisfactory storm water acceptance deed/facilities. All drainage shall be directed to the street or 25- �� I CO / other acceptable drainage facility via a non -erosive method as approved by the Town Engineer. 25. It is the responsibility of contractor and/or owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 26. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 27. Grading shall be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the project Storm Water Pollution Control Plan and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, the Town of Los Gatos Storm Water Quality Management Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and any other permits/requirements issued by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Plans (including all updates) shall be onsite at all times. No direct storm water discharges from development will be allowed onto Town streets or onto the public storm drain system without treatment by an approved storm water pollution prevention device or other approved methods. Maintenance of private storm water pollution prevention devices shall be the sole responsibility of the owner. Discharges or connection without treatment by an approved and adequately operating storm water pollution prevention device or other approved method shall be considered a violation of the above referenced permit and the Town of Los Gatos Stormwater Ordinance. LEGEND 41 0 9 0 77 W G T/E PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE BUILDING LINE TOP OF EX. CREEK BANK DAYLIGHT CUT LINE MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR RETAINING WALL (EXTERIOR) WATER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE/ELECTRICITY LINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (PER ARBORIST REPORT, MAY 10, 2016) TREE TO REMAIN GENERAL NOTES OWNERS: DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: NET ACREAGE: EXISITNG USE: PROPOSED USE: STORM: SANITARY: WATER: GAS: ELECTRIC: TELEPHONE: CABLE TV: A.P.N. ED PEARSON 239 THURSTON ST. LOS GATOS, CA 95030 ED PEARSON (SAME AS OWNER) PEOPLES ASSOCIATES (SEE TITLE BLOCK) 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE LOS GATOS, CA 95030 HR-2 1/2 HR-2 1/2 1.04 Ac. VACANT LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EXISTING NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS EXISTING SWALES AND CULVERTS WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE SAN JOSE WATER CO. EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE P.G.&E. EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE P.G.&E. EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE AT&T EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE COMCAST EXISTING IN HIGHLAND AVENUE 529-37-033 NPDES NOTES 1. Sediment from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on site using structural controls as required by the statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit. 2. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, or wind as required by the statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit. 3. Appropriate BMPs for construction -related materials, wastes, spill or resides shall be Implemented to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities, or adjoining property by wind or runoff as required by the statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit. 4. Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites and must not be discharged to receiving waters or to the local storm drain system. 5. All construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are to be made aware of the required best management practices and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction staging areas. 6. At the end of each day of construction activity all construction debris and waste materials shall be collected and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins. 7. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that a storm does not carry Wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges of material other than stormwater (nonstormwater discharges) are prohibited except as authorized by an individual NPDES permit or the statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, lime, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, wood preservatives and asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; floatable wastes; wastes from engine/equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; wastes from street cleaning; and superchlorinated potable water from line flushing and testing. During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site physically separated from potential stormwater runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. 8. Discharging contaminated groundwater produced by dewatering groundwater that has infiltrated into the construction site is prohibited. Discharging of contaminated soils via surface erosion is also prohibited. Discharging non -contaminated groundwater produced by dewatering activities requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the respective State Regional Water Quality Control Board ui > yi > > REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION co 0 0 M N uJ DESIGNED BY: ui CO z CC 0 CHECKED BY: (n > AS SHOWN -J Ct U c CA 95035 tei •a • 0 0 1996 Tarob Fax 408-957-9221 408-957-9220 DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 APPROVED BY: LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER G1 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 15027-G 1 REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 LEGEND BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK GRADING NOTE: •/ 410 410 •2. , W G T/E PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE BUILDING LINE TOP OF EX. CREEK BANK DAYLIGHT CUT LINE MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR RETAINING WALL (EXTERIOR) WATER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE/ELECTRICITY LINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (PER ARBORIST REPORT, JULY 10, 2016) TREE TO REMAIN EX. AC ROA 0 370 15' WIDE EASEMENT DOC.# 23066030 GENERAL NOTES 1. TOPOGRAPHY WAS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2015 & JUNE 2016. 2. THIS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REPRESENTS SURFACE FEATURES ONLY. 3. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2-FEET. 4. BENCHMARK IS TOWN OF LOS GATOS DATUM. 5. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE RECORD DATA. 6. TREE REMOVAL PER APPROVED ARBORIST PLAN, SEE NOTE BELOW. 7. ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT BY C2Earth, Inc. 8. THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE 12' WIDE MIN. 9. THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF THE DRIVEWAY SHALL FOLLOW THE EXISTING TERRAIN TO MINIMIZE GRADING. 10. MAINTAIN NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERN AND EXISTING SHEET -FLOW INTO EXISTING SWALES. 11. ALL DOWNSPOUTS SHALL HAVE A SPLASH BOX AND DIVERT WATER AWAY FROM BUILDING INTO LANDSCAPED AREA. A.P,N. 529-37-007 A.P.N. 529-37-041 PARCEL 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INGRESS & EGRESS DOC.# 248501 (MAY 15, 1942) A.P.N. 529-36-044 SITE PLAN 400 6 SCALE: 1 "=20' 4 AVERAGE SLOPE FORMULA S- 0.0023 x I x L A OVERALL SITE 0.0023 x 2 x 6,497 S= 1.04 S = 28.74% / FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND / A.P.N. 529-37-008 0°08 3 7r.58, NATURAL HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES OF PEA P.N. 529- Acres 0'-4' HIGH IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LOCATION SQUARE FEET HOUSE, GARAGE & PORCH (ROOF) 3,620 EXTERIOR WALLS 126 TOTAL 3,746 PERVIOUS COVERAGE LOCATION SQUARE FEET DRIVEWAY & FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND 3,538 WALKWAY & STAIRWAYS 184 TOTAL 3,722 / O, PRIVATE RIVEWAI\ EASEMENT FOR ROAD-PURFCSSES DOC # 59-7045 TOWN OF LOS GATOS LG38 BRASS DISK IN MON. WELL (CENTRAL AVE & OAK HILL WAY) ELEVATION: 556.86 GRADING QUANTITIES EXISTING MAG NAIL IN HIGHLAND AVENUE. ELEVATION: 440.46 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DATUM LOCATION CUT (In Cubic Yards) FILL (In Cubic Yards) HOUSE TO PADS (416.0 & 417.5) 163 0 GARAGE TO PAD (409.0) 60 0 DRIVEWAY & FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND 55 429 REAR YARD 148 0 PATIO 13 0 TOTAL 439 429 A.P.N. 529-37-032 ✓ CAP\ )/ � T29 (A`0 -r-411.0 i�l�� y-PAD 41 4009.00 / / / •T4: \\\ NON-STRUTURAL PLANTER BUILDING \FOOTPRINT - -`.�� MAIN FLOOR F.F. 420.00 PAD 417.50 CUT TO DAYLJ U --"'"' =No - BUILDING ENVELOPE 01:002,372 SQ. FT. ova / / �3i7 % 4L/ i./-1 %-7- N 75°14'43" W 309.40' A.P.N. 529-37-016 • T39 •T38 LINE OF CANTILEVERED BLDG. & RAISED DECK 418.4 I P-ATLO - (PAVERS)__ 419.9 T.W. 423.0 PLANTER TONES __ T.W. 426.0 MAIN FLOOR F.F. 418.50 PAD 41&.00 _ -BUT- • DAYLIGHT DECK T ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "GEOTECHNICAL REPORT" PREPARED FOR THIS SITE BY: C2EARTH, INC. DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2013. LAND USE TABLE LOCATION ACRES SQUARE FEET COVERAGE SITE AREA (Gross & Net) 1.040 45,302 100.00 HOUSE (Coverage) 0.054 2,372 5.24 STAIRWAYS 0.005 206 0.45 ENTRY PORCH 0.002 100 0.22 SIDE PATIO 0.004 165 0.36 REAR YARD & LANAI 0.017 750 1.66 DRIVEWAY & FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND 0.081 3,538 7.81 LANDSCAPE AREA 0.069 3,000 6.62 NATURAL 0.808 35,171 77.64 A.P.N. 529-37-034 / •TQ� 2� SP / gP / �T1 p w P\.� \ /ram` , .3. SLOPES LESS THAN 30% HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES CV� O(\-\ 1.W 29.0 --DEAD TREE (®OQK 2 �9 WID�$�hC�--i- UTILITY TIC NOTES: 1. TREE REMOVAL PER ARBORIST REPORT BY MONARCH CONSULTING ARBORISTS LLC., DATED JULY 10, 2016. 2. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE INTERLOCKING BLOCK GRAVITY WALLS IN EARTHTONE COLORS AC ROAD. • TQQ eF NST vq/4 AtieR 'ye \\, A.P.N. 529-37-031 •T�\ M _co / HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES > > > > >- co REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION (43 O O 0 up 0 M N O Lu DESIGNED BY: cd } Z 3 c CHECKED BY: w J 0 N AS SHOWN O Fi3 W W z (5 z LL.I CA 95035 • i 0 U 1996 Tarob 408-957-9220 DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 APPROVED BY: Z a_ W O V J n 7 LLJ z W 0) LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER G2 REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 15027-G2 LEGEND r of -410 410 •2' 77 PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE BUILDING LINE TOP OF EX. CREEK BANK DAYLIGHT CUT LINE MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR RETAINING WALL (EXTERIOR) WATER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE/ELECTRICITY LINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (PER ARBORIST REPORT, JULY 10, 2016) TREE TO REMAIN E \WM 15' WIDE EASEMENT DOC.# 2306�6! 0 4 09at. ssy ,o \ 4 400 406 408 41 ` 33 w 7i. Acres / / / / 1' 7 O' GAS/ELEC L _ _L\ \777=7- N 75°14'43" W 309.40' THT IHI SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' / / 4 / ES DENC N 67°20'0 / / • zoFv-cEp\S\_s_\;R.P\C �S2484uE. 3-31-1729588 J fGf �� vi REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION O 0 co 0 M N cc DESIGNED BY: vi } z 3 6. CHECKED BY: w J 0 N AS SHOWN w W z CD z W J U c CA 95035 L O U -0 O 0 1- co 0 rn 408-957-9220 DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 0 LJJ 0 LL 0 w z Q 0 z Q 0 CD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER G3 REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 15027-G2 A.Pa\. 529 36 044 EERGY (LR re 307 • l•O� SSIPATOR PRIVATE SES 415 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EX. AC ROAD RIVEWA 0 O 0 0 0 E 11 7-7E- PERVIOUS PAVERS y ADAGE .F. 410.00 PAD 409.00 / / /7 /—/ 7 N 75°14'43" W 309.40' 10' V.C. 0 oo V) O 1 O�� • \ �O \ON—STRUTU RAL PLA\TE BUILDING FOOTPI\ 411.0 AIN F� F.F: 420.00 PAD 417.50 CUT TO DAYLI T BUILDING ENVELOP — 2,372 (PAVERS) 19.9� T.W. 423.0 3 LA\TE _4' HIGH IN EASEMENT FOR RO DOC • T3cs, LI\E OF CA\TILEVEED BLDG. & D • T39 TONES T.W. 426.0• T 10' V.C. 0 oo 00 • rn d— +>o O 0: J EX. 10' WIDE P 2 ORIGINAL GROUND AT CENTERLINE RAISED DECK 418.4 LIC UTILITY EA PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1 "=10' E IV EN MAIN F 418.50 PAD 41 DAYLIGHT PRIVATE bRIVEWAY SES LIVIT OF GRADING E\VE •PE •T1� —/ P°\-/ (LP�� 0'�2 N-N 424• -LB:W. 425.0 T ►. 429.0 0 Ow �< Q +0 //J yz z j ,z<6\0 / nO • T` 03( s_e2 415 6% 410 10% 0_% F.F. 410.0 410 405 CENTERLINE 405 • Tsai GARAGE -.F. 410.00 PAD 409.00 MAI \ FL F.F. 42 PAD 41 CUT TO C �T--- Tn1 .4I 1 1 � 1 I LI HIL 11111 111111 TONES N 75°14'43" W 309.40' EX. 1C HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES FOR SECTIONS SEE SHEET G6 ��O�ZEf S�L ESpR.�o Ozo s C2958 S 244 fGExp. 3-3-t vi (6 DESIGNED BY: vJ � L W O (i) W w Lu z z J a_ w z oC 0 W 0 0 cc 0 J U c REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 0 M CHECKED BY: REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT 0 N CA 95035 L 0 U 0 L 0 F- co 0 408-957-9220 RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN O w J 0 N REVISION DESCRIPTION w AS SHOWN DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 } 0 > 0 a Q LL O 0) LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 0+00 0+50 DRIVEWAY PROFILE SCALE: 1 "=10' HOR. & VERT. 1+00 PROFILE 1+50 G4 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 15027-G4 LEGEND -410 410 G T/E PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE BUILDING LINE TOP OF EX. CREEK BANK DAYLIGHT CUT LINE MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR RETAINING WALL (EXTERIOR) WATER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE/ELECTRICITY LINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (PER ARBORIST REPORT, JULY 10, 2016) TREE TO REMAIN \ N\ • (\ SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 "=20' / / / 44/ / Oq OF PEA P.N. 529— Acres / / / / 1' PRIVATE o. RIVEWAY\ NOTES: 1. TREE REMOVAL PER ARBORIST REPORT BY MONARCH CONSULTING ARBORISTS LLC., DATED JULY 10, 2016. 2. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE INTERLOCKING BLOCK GRAVITY WALLS IN EARTHTONE COLORS BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK TOWN OF LOS GATOS LG38 BRASS DISK IN MON. WELL (CENTRAL AVE & OAK HILL WAY) ELEVATION: 556.86 / / / EXISTING MAG NAIL IN HIGHLAND AVENUE. ELEVATION: 440.46 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DATUM DEAD TREE o 01902 6FNrq/� \ R� c6 �ct/oti GRADING NOTE: ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "GEOTECHNICAL REPORT" PREPARED FOR THIS SITE BY: C2EARTH, INC. DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2013. yOF 0 cD oZ * n Exp. fGf F� c."( •J ��� 4. ESS C 29588 S 2464 3-31-17 I� 0,0 V) N &i > (N > } m REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION 0 0 o r c. r) Cl .- 0 w DESIGNED BY: V.S. DRAWN BY: R.S.C. CHECKED BY: V.S. SCALE: AS SHOWN PEOPLES ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1996 Tarob Court • Milpitas, CA 95035 408-957-9220 Fax 408-957-9221 APPROVED BY: R.E. NO. 29,588 DATE 11-30-15 TREE INVENTORY PLAN LA\DS OF PEASO\ 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA Eft — SHEET NUMBER G5 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 1 5027-G5 REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 1 1 450 SECTION A -A SCALE: 1 "=10' HOR. & VERT. 440 430 420 410 400 J 431.5' BEYOND 21 418.5' 410' SECTION B-B SCALE: 1 "=10' HOR. & VERT. ---- r z 450 z 1 n' I- n- ' 440 0_ 0 0 n 50 450 450 440 430 420 410 400 12' 6' RET. WALL 2.0% MIN SEE PLAN ,11=r PERVIOUS PAVERS VARIES DAYLIGHT r_ EX. SEASONAL SWALE 6" PERMEABLE SOIL DRAIN ROCK 'ILTA -1 111H1 i1-111 & FILTER FABRIC =1111 (MIRAFI 140 OR BETTER) _1 LEGACY CALSTONE FINISH GRADE 4" HEAVY DUTY RIGID-1I-1I I II SUB -DRAIN PERFORATED PIPE, TYP. DRIVEWAY SECTION TYPICAL BLOCK WALL DETAIL N.T.S. DENSE LOW -GROWING VEGETATIVE COVER SLOPE VARIES El LIITiII=IIII:IILII,� III=III=III= VARIES COBBLES COMPLETELY COVERING PIPE GRATE COVER 1(ft 4"DIAMETER 4"DIAMETER SOLID PIPE PERFORATED PIPE 10 FEET FERSP€-CTIVE VIEW MIN. r=III=111=LLILI I 1 =11 .i 111-I 1 111=1 I' 1 1 - -I I ETJ VARIES TYPICAL BIO-SWALE BURRY OR ANCHOR (REBAR OR EQUIV.) NOTE: PERFORATED PIPE MUST BE LEVEL (PERFORATIONS FACING DOWNSLOPE) w z N.T.S. GRATE COVER 1 "DIAMETER PERFORATIONS LEVEL SPREADER N.T.S. N.T.S. SLOPE VARIES I I111-I 11E1 � 1=I -111=1T=ITi Ti a42 ITI T r1Ll= GRATE COVER FILTER FABRIC BURRY OR ANCHOR (REBAR OR EQUIV.) SECTION VIEW LLI z 450 40 440 430 1 ( 430 430 420 0.G. HX. D/W \.7 0.G. 420 420 410 .4 400 i vo — Xo S ASO\A SWAL SECTION 9 O C-C SCALE: 1 "=10' HOR. & VERT. n- W 0 0 ry 4 n- w 0 0 O.G. 440 430 420 410 410 4 O 410 400 400 S ASO\AL SWAL O SECTION D-D SCALE: 1 "=10' HOR. & VERT. 400 i oQ,E/ ESSI0N� ti/Z C 29588 � S 2484 Exp. 3-31-17 OJ fGf ��� REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION O co 0 co 0 U) M N O w DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: (n > w J U N AS SHOWN (!) z 0 U w 06 J W L O U O -0 0 0 rn 408-957-9220 DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 0 0 LL 0 (n n Q 0) LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER G6 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. 1 5027—G6 REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 SE-1 Silt Fence SE-5 Fiber Rolls SE-9 Straw Bale Barrier Existing Ground Z w 0 w J 0 N JOINING SECTION DETAIL (TOP VIEW) STAPLE DETAIL SECTION A — END STAKE DETAIL (SEE NOTE 9) END DETAIL CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK l I 0 -o 0 0 a▪ ) 0 0 m X w JANUARY 2003 40' Min. Diversion Ridge A A PLAN VIEW 12' Min. 3"-4" Crushed Rock 2.5"-5" Thick �� AiO�wy vi0viwi0vi0u�� 0�O�0���0�0�0�0 II T71 I II7M I111 I I; Filter Fabric (If Needed) SECTION A —A I Subgrade Notes: 1. The entrance shall be maintained in a condition that will prevent tracking or flowing of sediment onto public rights —of —way. This may require top dressing repair and/or cleanout of any measures used to trap sediment. Temporary Gravel Construction Entrance/Exit WEDGE LOOSE STRAW BETWEEN BALES 12 MIL PLASTIC LINING REUSABLE ROUGH WOODEN FRAME N.T.S. 4'-0" STRAW BALES 2.5"-5" WEIGHT IN CORNERS 2 WOODEN STAKES OR REBAR PER BALE (TYP) ROUGH WOODEN FRAME ASPHALT CONCRETE \ P LAN STAPLE AS REQUIRED BALES (BEYOND) NATIVE MATERIAL 12 MIL PLASTIC LINING BINDING WIRE STRAW BALES (2) WEIGHT IN CORNERS SECTION A -A TEMPORARY WASHOUT FACILITY H 0 Z 0 •y OUTHOUSE LOCATION Note: Install fiber roll along a level contour. Vertical spacing measured along the face of the slope varies between 10' and 20' TYPICAL EIDER ROLL INSTALLATION Install c fiber roll near slope where it transitions into a steeper slope EE N al N.T.S. Fiber roll �8" min 3 /4" x 3 /4" wood stakes max 4' spacing ENTRENCHMENT DETAIL N.T.S. CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK JANUARY 2003 • • STRAW '/ATTL o. 0 406 408 4/. °08'33„ RoWTH OF TREES 0 -4' HIGH I CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / DIRECTION OF FLOW t 0 4- 0 VI END DETAIL Woad stoke N O 0 0 See note 5 See note 8 0' c O m SANDBAG CROSS BARRIER *›- CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK JANUARY 2003 \ 'VQ r�08., --BLOC TDRIVATE w RIVEWAY GARAGE .F. 410.00 PAD 409.00 / 7-7E/3 . /1 / N 75°14'43" W 309.40' /'\ / MAIN FLOG' F.F:420.00 PAD 417.50 CUT TO DAYL BUILDING ENVELOP TONES / EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL CONFORM WITH ABAG STANDARDS OR TOWN OF LOS GATOS STANDARDS. 2. EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE RAINY SEASON. 3. IN THE EVENT OF RAIN, ALL GRADING WORK IS TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY AND THE SITE IS TO BE SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING AND REPAIRING EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS AFTER EACH STORM. 5. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE PROTECTED BY SEEDING AND COVERED WITH STRAW MULCH. 6. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER IN FIELD. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT ANY ACCUMULATION OR DEPOSIT OF DIRT, MUD, SAND, ROCKS, GRAVEL OR DEBRIS ON THE SURFACE OF ANY PAVED ROAD. EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES: INSTALL SEDIMENT ROLLS (FIBER ROLLS), OR SILT FENCE, OR STRAW BALE DIKES WHERE SHOWN. 2. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION ARE MINIMIZED. 3. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT NO MUD OR SILTATION LEAVES THE PROJECT SITE. SPECIAL NOTE: GRADING WORK BETWEEN OCTOBER 15TH AND APRIL 15TH IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. SEEDING NOTES: 1. SEED AND MULCH WILL BE APPLIED BY OCTOBER 15 TO ALL DISTURBED SLOPES STEEPER THAN 5% AND HIGHER THAN 3 FEET, AND TO ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO EXISTING ROAD AS DIRECTED BY THE TOWN INSPECTOR. 2. SEED AND FERTILIZER WILL BE APPLIED HYDRAULICALLY OR BY HAND AT THE RATES SPECIFIED BELOW. ON SLOPES, STRAW WILL BE APPLIED BY BLOWER OR BY HAND AND ANCHORED IN PLACE BY PUNCHING ITEM POUNDS PER ACRE "BLANDO" BROME ANNUAL RYE GRASS FERTILIZER (16-20-0 & 15% SULFUR) STRAW MULCH 30 20 500 4,000 3. SEEDED AREAS WILL BE REPAIRED, RESEEDED AND MULCHED IF DAMAGED / MAIN FL . 418.50 PAD 41. !e PIPPITMKPIA FLOWLINE SEASONAL SWALE 6FC NtiST4/4 4 • Q6� �ir/GxL LEGEND: = Construction Entrance = Straw Wattles = Direction of Flow HEAVY GROWTH OF TR. Ek. TOp OF B ANK (3) HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES HEAVY GROWTH OF TREES SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 "=20' 9 ESS • Rp C 29588 ;_c• S246• Exp.3-317rCiJ (6 REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS REVISED PER ARBORIST REPORT RELEASED TO CLIENT & TOWN REVISION DESCRIPTION 00 co 16 0 co 0 10 M N O w DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: w J 0 N AS SHOWN r CA 95035 L 7 -a 0 0 L 0 F- 0 408-957-9220 DATE 11-30-15 R.E. NO. 29,588 } 0 > 0 a d a z J a_ J 0 z 0 U 0 0 w O W < • < ▪ 0 LL Z O Q 0 z Q 0) LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SHEET NUMBER G7 OF 8 SHEETS DRAWING NO. REGISTRATION EXPIRES: MARCH 31, 2017 1 5027—G7 19 ~ighland Avenue modified project-PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/ CONDITIONS PROJECT PERM ITTED Zoning district HR-2 1/2 same - Land use va c an t Sin gl e-fa m ily - General Plan Designation h ill si de re sidentia l same - Lot size $ Gross square feet 45,2 40 same 40 ,000 sq . ft. minimum $ Net square feet 19,77 9 same - Exterior materials: $ siding N/A Cedar si din g a nd - smoot h stu cco $ trim N/A none - $ windows N/A Fiberglass clad wood - $ roofing N/A Stand ing Seam metal - Building floor area: $ first floor N/A 2,379 $ second floor N/A 1,652 4 ,700 sq. ft. maxi mum $ garage N/A (61 7)217 400 sq . ft. exemption $ cellar N/A N/A exe mpt $ accessory structure(s) N/A N/A included in FAR $ total (excluding cellar) N/A 4,248 5,10 0 sq . ft. maximum Setbacks (ft.): $ front -185' 30 f eet minimum $ rear -61 ' 25 f eet minimum $ left side -20 ' 20 f eet minimum $ right side -24 ' 20 f eet minimum Average slope (%) 28 .76 same - Maximum height (ft.) 25'/35 ' 25'/35' 25 feet maximum Building coverage (%) no m ax imum Parking garage spaces -3 fou r sp aces min imu m in uncovered spaces 3 add it ion t o two in garage - Sewer or septic sewer - N: DEV·Mami A&S 19 Hig h land p rojectdata.\\"pd "EXHIBIT 2 8 LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, tC. an Ecological Consulting Firm July 21, 2016 Alex H. Jewell, AICP, LEED AP Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Biological Evaluation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2035-01). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town of Los Gatos' request, Live Oak Associates' (LOA) ecologist Pamela Peterson conducted an additional site visit on July 19, 2016 to the approximately one -acre 19 Highland Avenue project site. The one -acre site is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd. interchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. The additional site visit was for the purpose of evaluating a large coast live oak (Tree Tag #56) for potential bat habitat and to evaluate a small reach of the on -site creek where the alignment appears to have moved locations sometime in the period between 1996 and 2015 based on current and previous site plans for the property. For the latter, we were requested to evaluate the existing condition of this reach of the creek and determine whether the potential change in the creek's alignment has resulted in, or could in the future result in, any potential biological issues. Background Review. Prior to the site visit, LOA reviewed two site plans provided to the Town by the project proponent, one that was prepared in 1996 by Westfall Engineers and one prepared in 2015 by Peoples Associates. Additionally, we reviewed the Appellant's biological report with regard to their assertion that a single large coast live oak (Tag #56) provided habitat for bats, including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) which is a state species of concern. Habitat for Special Status and Non Special Status Bats. The large coast live oak tree was evaluated visually and with binoculars for the presence of features such as hollows, exfoliating bark or deep bark fissures that may potentially be used by bats for day roosting or maternity habitat. The tree was relatively easy to evaluate since it is in the process of succumbing to a bark beetle infestation and. may also be highly drought -stressed, and therefore is almost barren of foliage. There are less than a half dozen places where limbs have fallen that have created small, relatively shallow hollows, ranging in diameter from about 6 to 8 inches. There are also a few areas of exfoliating bark as a result of the bark beetle infestation. These features do not provide potential maternity or roosting habitat for special status bats such as the Townsend's big -eared bat or the pallid bat as these latter species do not use these types of features. Townsend's big - eared bats require large cavernous areas such as buildings, mines, caves and less frequently large EXHIBIT 2 9 San Jose: 6840 Via del Oro, Suite 220. San Jose, CA 95119 • Phone: (408) 224-8300 • Fax (408) 224-1411 Oakhurst: B.O. Box 2697.39930 Sierra Way, Suite B • Oakhurst, CA 93644 • Phone: (559) 642-4880 • Fax: (559) 642-4883 Bakersfield: 8200 Stockdale Highway, M10-293 . Bakersfield, CA 93311 hollows in the bases of trees; while the pallid bat typically uses buildings, caves, and rock crevices, so removal of the tree is not expected to affect either of these special status bat species that potentially occur in the project vicinity. The small hollows and areas of peeling bark could be used as day roosts by certain common bat species, although these features wouldn't provide maternity habitat for any of these species. The removal of the tree would not represent a significant loss of bat roosting habitat, however removal could impact a few individuals (based on the limited availability of roosting features, this number would be extremely low) of more common bat species, in the unlikely event individuals are roosting at the time the tree is removed. This potential impact could be avoided simply by removing the tree via a two-step process over two consecutive days outside of the bat winter torpor season, i.e. outside of the time period from mid -October through the end of March, under the supervision of a qualified biologist. To implement the two-step process, in the afternoon of the first day, limbs and branches would be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only and chipped on the site to create noise and disturbance. Limbs with cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark or deep bark fissures would be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features would be removed. This action would allow bats to leave during the night after the first day of the two-step removal process, thus increasing their chances of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight hours. The tree would then be removed the second day. The bat biologist would not be required to be present on the second day (i.e., day of actual tree removal), as the activity, noise, and vibrations of the chainsaw and chipping activity as well as the physical and visual change of the tree would deter bats from returning to the tree after their nightly flight. Creek Alignment Evaluation. LOA also evaluated a short reach of the on -site creek. According to the 1996 site plan (Westfall Engineers), the creek alignment for this reach used to occur further to the north than its present location as depicted in the 2015 site plan (People's Associates). In the field, it appeared that the change may have been a natural process which occurred as a result of the erosion of a steep bank on the adjacent property to the north which subsequently resulted in the channel following a new alignment around that area to the south. It appears that this occurred quite some time ago as the area of the old alignment is now densely vegetated and the creek channel itself in this location is undifferentiated from those reaches immediately up and down stream of this area. In LOA's opinion, the change in the creek alignment does not result in any current or future potential biological issues for the site or for the proposed project. Thank you once again for allowing us to assist you in this matter. If you wish to discuss any of our findings, conclusions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884 or Rick Hopkins at 408-281-5885. Sincerely, Pamela Peterson Senior Project Manager LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. an Ecological Consulting Firm May 5, 2016 Alex H. Jewell, AIC.P, LEER AP Kiml ey-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RECEIVED MAY 09 ?gib TOINiN or Lt'c CATCNii PLANNING DIVISION RE: Biological Evaluation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2035-01). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town's request, we have prepared this peer review of H. T. Harvey's Biological Constraints Analysis (1997) and Biological Evaluation (2016) for the approximately one -acre 19 Highland Avenue project site. The one -acre site is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd interchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California: As we understand it from the site plans provided, the project includes the construction of an approximately 5000 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, and associated driveway and landscaping. Background Review Prior to a site visit to evaluate existing site conditions, LOA completed an appropriate background review. In addition to a review of the biological constraints analysis and biological evaluation reports prepared by H.T. Harvey, sources of information relevant to the proposed project, the project site, and the site's vicinity were reviewed, including the prior biological peer review report completed by Mike Wood of Wood Biological Consulting (2008), the 19 Highland Avenue Mitigated Negative Declaration (Town of Los Gatos 2010), the project site plans (Peoples Associates 2015), aerial photographs of the project site, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands. Inventory Maps (accessed April 19, 2016 on-line at lion:: ww.fws. jot etlands!Data/Mapper.htm l), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 (CDFW 2016). Existing Site Conditions On 20 April.2016, LOA ecologist Pamela Peterson conducted a reconnaissance -level site visit with the property owner, Ed Pearson, to evaluate existing conditions of the site. During the site visit, habitats present on the site were verified, including potentially suitable habitat for any special status plant or animal species that are known to occur, or once to have occurred, regionally. The site visit also evaluated the extent of potentially jurisdictional habitats present San Jose: 6840 Via del Oro, Suite 220 . San Jose, CA 95119 . Phone: (408) 224-8300 • fax: (408) 224.1411 Oakhu: st: P,p. Box 2697.39930 Sierra Way, Suite B . Oakhurst, CA 93644 • Phone; (559) 642-4880 . Fax: (559) 642-4 Bakersfield: 8200 $tockdale Highway, A.110-293 . Bakersfield, CA 93311 and proposed setbacks from the on -site creek. LOA did not conduct focused or protocol -level surveys for rare species or a formal wetland delineation. The project site is a long, irregularly -shaped one -acre property bordered to the south by Highland Avenue (which apparently is an easement on the property) and by existing single family homes estate lots on all other sides. On the south side and up the slope from Highland Avenue there also is an existing home. The proposed location of the home occurs on a north -facing slope between Highland Avenue and the on -site creek channel. Bank slopes along the side of Highland Avenue on the site are relatively steep, but then slopes become more gradual down to the on -site creek. Slopes on the north side of the on -site drainage then .rise fairly steeply again. Elevations of the site vary from a low of 60 feet near the drainage channel to approximately 100 feet in the northwest portion of the site. Woodland dominated by California bay (Umbellularia californica) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifalia) is the predominant habitat on the site. This woodland has a moderately open: canopy in the area of the proposed home on the south side of the drainage and a relatively dense canopy on the remaining northwestern portion of the site. Other tree and shrub species observed on the site included non-native, invasive species such as blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and French broom (Genista monspessulana), and native species such as blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The herbaceous understory was dominated by periwinkle (Vinca major) a non-native ornamental groundcover. Other herbaceous species observed in the understory included primarily non-native annual forbs and grasses, including Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). An unnamed ephemeral tributary of Los Gatos creek traverses the site, flowing onto the site along the eastern boundary and meandering across the site in a westerly direction to the western boundary. During the April 2016 site visit, although there had been no rainfall in the site's . vicinity for at least a week, water was observed flowing in the low flow channel of the creek approximately two feet wide and between 2 and 4 inches in depth. Evidence of an Ordinary High Water (OHW) channel was present within the creek, varying in width from three to four feet. The width of the creek from top of bank to top of bank varied between six to more than ten feet. The creek banks were generally barren of vegetation with no wetland or riparian vegetation observed to be associated with it. This ephemeral drainage would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to the extent of the OHW mark on opposing banks, and the bed and bank of this feature would also be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing site conditions as observed by LOA during the April 2016 site visit are consistent with the existing site conditions found by H.T. Harvey biologists during their February 2016 site visit. Peer Review of Impacts and Mitigations H.T. Harvey categorized biological resources into three categories: No Impact, Less -than - significant Impact, and Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Additionally, they have a section Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site, We have organized our review to be consistent with these sections of their report. No Impact Impacts on Special Status Plants. H. T. Harvey concluded that special status plants are absent from the site and therefore that the project will have no impact on special status plants. We concur with H.T. Harvey's conclusion. The dominance of the herbaceous understory by non- native grasses and fortis, including fairly dense mats of periwinkle would preclude special status plants from occurring on the site, and special status woody shrub species such as arcuate mallow and western leatherwood would have been identifiable if present on the site even outside of their blooming season and they were not observed. Impacts on Special Status Animals. H.T. Harvey concluded that the site does not provide habitat for special status animals that may occur in the project region and therefore that the project will not impact any special status animal species. We concur with H. T. Harvey's conclusions. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. H.T. Harvey concluded that while the on -site creek would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW, the project as proposed will have no direct impact on the creek and, therefore, the project will have no impact to jurisdictional waters ofthe U.S. and state. We concur that there will be no direct impact (i.e., filling) to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state as a result of the project, and, as such it does not appear that Section 401 or 404 permits will. be required from the RWQCB or USACE, respectively, or a Section 1600 permit from CDFW, Additionally, H.T. Harvey states that "..it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize significant impacts on biological resources." While we concur that there will be no direct impact to areas of the creek considered jurisdictional by the resource agencies, H.T. Harvey's report lacks a more detailed discussion of creek setbacks. For instance, H.T. Harvey doesn't cite the project plans that they evaluated (i.e., the preparer and date), although we assume they were the same site plans that we evaluated, and they do not discuss what the actualsetback widths are that are reflected in the plans they evaluated and why those setbacks are adequate in their opinion. Based on our site visit and the locations of flags and story poles showing the outline of project footprints, and based on our review of the project plans (Peoples Associates dated November 30, 2015), setbacks from the proposed home to the topof the creek bank appear to be, at minimum, 12 feet from the top of the creek bank in the eastern portion of the site where a small oxbow occurs (the setback may originally have been greater in this location, but due to a tree falling into the creek this past winter and blocking flows, some erosion has occurred here, which appears to have brought the southern bank of the oxbow slightly closer to the proposed home site. Sheet G4 of the site plans indicate that the minimum setback in this location is 16 feet to the home itself, although stairs to a deck in this location occur closer and it is possible that in the held, the flags that were observed were for the outline of the stairs that were within 12 feet of the creek. The setback between the driveway and the creek bank appears to be less than 10 feet in a couple areas (Sheet G4 indicates that the setback is as narrow as 2 to 7 feet in these locations). Aside from these areas; however, overall, the setback along the vast majority of the reach of creek on the site is wider, and the average setback is likely more in the realm of between 20 to 25 feet or possibly greater. Typically, we would recommend a greater setback from a creek channel than 16 feet but overall, the few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10 feet for the driveway are not significant in our opinion, given that the vast majority of the remaining setback is at least 20 feet, which we believe is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. This is a highly constrained building site as a result of being bound by Highland Avenue to the south and the meandering creek channel to the north, and it appears that the Applicant has attempted to design the home to conformas best as possible to these constrained conditions. From a biological standpoint, the riparian influence of the creek appears to be restricted to the wetted portion of the channel. Because of underground culverting downstream and the lack of associated riparian or wetland vegetation, the creek itself provides foraging, shelter, and movement habitat for native species that is not greater in value than that of adjacent upland woodland habitats. The creek will continue to provide a seasonal source of drinking water for native species even after the project is built, and the few common species that may move through the site within the creek currently will also likely continue to do so after the project has been constructed. Further, potential water quality issues with regard to run off from new impervious surfaces have been addressed through the incorporation of five bioswales (Sheet G3 and G6) into the design, four of which occur between the proposed home and the creek, and the driveway has been designed utilizing permeable pavers. Additionally, any potential water quality issues during project construction are addressed through compliance with erosion control measures as detailed in the NPDES notes on Sheet G1 and erosion control methods detailed on Sheet G6. However, while we concur with H.T. Harvey's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the setbacks, we would recommend that they revise their report to include a citation of the plans that they reviewed and a greater discussion as to what the actual setbacks are and why they are adequate in their opinion. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations. of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison. Less -than -significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project would impact up to one acre of coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated common plant and animals and that this small loss of habitat would be a less -than -significant impact of the project. Because development will only occur on the southern portion of the parcel, the actual loss of woodland habitat on the site would be limited to approximately 0.6 acre or less, while woodland occurring in the northwestern portion of the site on the other side of the on -site drainage would be preserved, We concur that the loss of approximately 0.6 acres of woodland habitats on the site would be a less -than -significant impact of the project given the amount of similar habitat that occurs in the region. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees, H.T. Harvey concluded that the project may have a significant impact on trees that are protected under the Town of Los Gatos' Tree .Protection Ordinance (Los Gains Town Code, Section 29.10.0950 — 29.10.0990). According to the site plans (Sheet G5), approximately 14 trees will be removed as a result of the project. As we were not provided with a copy of the arborist report, it is unknown how many of these trees would be°protected by the Town's ordinance. Mitigations for loss of protected trees included: 1. Conducting a pre -construction tree survey, and 2. Applying for a permit and complying with permit requirements, which may require the planting ofmplacement trees. It should be .tooted that based on our site visit, opportunities for planting of replacement trees may be limited on the site (as areas of the site outside of the proposed project footprints are already. wooded), so, it is possible that depending on the number of protected trees that will ultimately be removed and the replacement ratios that the Town may require, the project proponent may not be able to accommodate all replacement plantings on the project site. Therefore, additional measures for compensation for a loss of ordinance size trees may be required, such as in -lieu fees. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site H.T. Harvey has concluded that impacts to birds that may nest on the site during project construction are less than significant under CEQA, however, they have provided a regulatory overview for nesting birds and they provide measures to ensure that the project complies with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). These measures include avoidance (i.e., construction during the non -breeding season), pre- construction/pre-disturbance surveys if construction will occur during the breeding season, and measures to inhibit nesting, including removal of nest substrates during the non -breeding season. Although to some extent this is a simple matter of difference of opinion, impacts to nesting birds may also be considered under the category of I»ipacts Found to ,Be Less than Significant with Mitigation. However, as long as H.T. Harvey has provided measures to ensure compliance with MBTA and CFGC, and as long as these measures are incorporated into the project's Conditions of Approval, then we consider this a moot point. However, for Measure 2, we would recommend that H.T. Harvey include that the pre-construction/pre-disturbance survey area include surveys of nesting substrates within a 300 feet radius of project footprints, as possible/accessible, since they indicate that buffers up to 300 feet may be necessary depending on the nesting bird species. LOA Summary and Recommendations In general, LOA concurs with H.T. Harvey's assessment of the existing conditions of the site as welt as their evaluation of potential impacts and the mitigations that they have provided to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level under CEQA. Therefore, our recommendations are fairly minor and include the following: 1. That H.T. Harvey modify their 2016 letter report to discuss the actual setbacks as indicated on the Peoples Associates November 2015 site plans between the top of the bank of the creek and the home and driveway areas, and provide a more detailed analysis as to why these setbacks are adequate. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek bank that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison, and less than 10 feet and greater than 10 feet for the driveway setback. 2. Revise Measure 2 for nesting birds to state that all trees and other potential nest substrates within a 300 foot radius of the project be surveyed to the extent possible/accessible, and that the Town ensures that all three measures for nesting birds become part of the project's Conditions of Approval. That completes our peer review. We appreciate you considering Live Oak to. provide ecological services for you on this project. If you wish to discuss any of our findings, conclusions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 408281-5884 or Rick Hopkins at 408-281- 5885. Sincerely, Pamela Peterson Senior Project Manager January 29, 2016 Project 0084491980 Mr. Ryan Do Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, California 95031 amec 4A4 foster wheeler Subject: Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Proposed Site Development, Pearson Property 19 Highlands Avenue Los Gatos, California Dear Mr. Do: At your request, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), has performed a review of the Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Site Development, Pearson Property, 19 Highlands Avenue, Los Gatos, California, prepared by Upp Geotechnology (Upp), dated December 22, 2015. We also reviewed a set of Plans prepared by Peoples Associates, Structural Engineers, for Lands of Pearson. The December 22, 2015 report updates a November 22, 2013 report to current CBC criteria, and confirms that the geotechnical engineering recommendations in the November 22, 2103 report are valid for the proposed project. As AMEC did not review the November 22, 2013 report titled Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Site Development, Lands of Orphan, 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA, prepared by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22, 2013, for a different owner, we have review this report as part of the current review. Although titled "Limited" the November 22, 2013 report is a design -level geotechnical investigation report. Amec Foster Wheeler has not visited the site. The proposed project is a single-family residence. We (as Geomatrix) previously reviewed a Geologic Feasibility Evaluation, Proposed Residence, 19 Highland Avenue, prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering (PGE), dated March 9, 2004, for a different owner, and submitted our review comments in a letter to the Town dated April 6, 2006. This proposed project was for a single-family residence. Based on our review, we note that the Upp report does not specifically comment on the potential for liquefaction. The data on the boring Togs suggests that the potential for liquefaction is probably low. Upp should review the data and confirm that the potential for liquefaction is low, or provide appropriate mitigation measures to the design. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1100 Oakland, California 94612-3066 USA Tel (510)663-4100 Fax (510)663-4141 amecfw.com Mr. Ryan Do Town of Los Gatos January 29, 2016 Page 2 Upp must review the final Plans and submit a Plan Review letter to the Town prior to the issuance of permit(s). Upp must perform construction observation and testing of the geotechnical elements of the proposed project and submit and "as -built" letter to the Town prior to project final. We trust this provided you with the information you require at the present time. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. No further review of this project by Amec Foster Wheeler is required. Sincerely, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. C..d?0,04.4. II let/ Robert H. Wright, PhD, CE Principal Engineering Geologist Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4187 E-mail: bob.wright@amecfw.com Christopher J.iutu, PE, GE Principal Engineer Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4156 E-mail: chris.coutu@amecfw.com rhw/cjclldu x:18000s18449.00018449.198_highlands avenue18449.198_supplemental peer review_012916.docx Amec Foster Wheeler Town of Los Gatos Addendum to the Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 August 2016 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95113 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION A. Determination This document constitutes an Addendum to the December 10, 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2010 IS/MND, included in this document as Attachment 1) (Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc., 2010) originally prepared and adopted for approval of the 19 Highland Avenue Project (hereafter referred to as the Original Project). This Addendum evaluates whether modifications/refinements to the proposed single-family residential home design, as revised July 11, 2016, (hereafter referred to as the proposed project) would result in any new or substantially more significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2010 MND. Similar to the Original Project, the proposed project would consist of the development of one single-family-home and driveway at 19 Highland Avenue. The proposed project differs from the Original Project because of changes to the architectural design of the proposed house and modifications to the project footprint to increase setbacks from the adjacent stream, reduce the number of trees to be removed, and avoid the need to export soils from the proje ct site. As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the 2010 MND remain current and valid. The proposed revisions to the Original Project, in the form of minor changes to the project design, would not cause new significant effects not identified in the MND nor increase the level of environmental effect to substantial or significant, and, hence, no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than were identified in the 2010 MND. In addition, no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects which have not already been analyzed in the 2010 MND. Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. This Addendum incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the 20 10 MND. With this Addendum, the proposed project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the Original Project as documented in the 2010 MND. B. Background An IS/MND was circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program when the Original Project was approved on December 8, 2010. The Town approved a time extension in 2012 after which the property owner passed away and the property was placed on the market. The applicant and current property owner purchased the property in 2015 and submitted a new application derived from the previously approved project plans. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 2 Refinements to the project design constitute minor modifications to the original project that was evaluated in the 2010 MND, which necessitate subsequent environmental review/documentation under CEQA. Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (further described below under Section I.C) apply. The Town of Los Gatos (Town) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Addendum to address the potential for new or more severe environmental impacts as a result of implementing the proposed project on the project site. C. Purpose of This Addendum The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed project as currently proposed would result in any new or substantially greater significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2010 MND prepared for the original project. This Addendum, together with the 2010 MND will be used by the Town when considering approval of the proposed project. D. CEQA Framework for Addendum For a proposed project with modification from an original approved project, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred: Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 3 B. The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the MND, C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Based on the analysis and evaluation provided in this Addendum, no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously-identified significant environmental impact. In addition, no new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternat ives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2010 MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For this reason, an addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed project. E. Adoption and Availability of the Addendum In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an addendum to an adopted MND need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted MND and presented to the decision-making body. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted MND prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)). Although not required, this Addendum is also available for public review at the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California 95030, and will be made available as an Attachment to the Staff Report that will be provided when the project is scheduled for consideration by the decision -making body. 2.0 Project Description A. Project Location The project is located at 19 Highland Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 537-11-030). Please see Figures 1 and 2: Regional Map, and Vicinity Map, respectively. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 4 B. Proposed Project Components The proposed single-family residence would have three levels with the garage set to the lowest grade, stepping up to two floors of living space. The first floor of living space exits at grade to a dirt patio at the rear of the residence. The residence has a mode rn/contemporary architecture with roof forms that slope with the hillside. The proposed materials include: cedar siding and smooth finish stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The proposed project is in compliance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) inclusive of grading and drainage criteria, allowable floor area, height, and architectural and landscape design. The only exception requested is in regard to development on slopes greater than 30 percent. The limited area of development on slopes greater than 30 percent is consistent with the approved placement of the residence from 2010. The proposed project has reduced HDS&G exception requests compared to the 2010 original project. The layout of the proposed project is shown in Figure 3 : Site Plan, the proposed grading for the site is shown in Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan, and the trees that are proposed to be removed are shown in Figure 5: Tree Inventory Plan. The proposed project includes landscaping along the perimeter of the development envelope, including trees to replace those trees that are proposed to be removed. The proposed landscape plan is shown in Figure 6 : Landscape Plan. C. Comparison of the 2010 Original and 2016 Proposed Projects The proposed project includes changes to the project design that reduce the overall impact of the proposed project compared to the original design. Examples of the design features that minimize the physical impacts on the project site include a reduction in the overall lot coverage by 1,065 square feet (approximately 14%); an increase in the creek setbacks to the garage and residence, and driveway; elimination of the need to export soil; a reduction in the overall length of retaining walls by 54%, and a reduction in the number of trees to be removed from 16 to 7 (a 56% decrease). These changes are tabulated in Table 1: Comparison of Project Components which provides a comparison of the 2010 original project and the 2016 proposed project. Although the floor area of the proposed project is approximately 211 square feet more than the original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover, the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. The proposed project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and materials of the proposed project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible with the natural surroundings than the original project’s colors and materials which included taupe, “ochre” (yellowish or orange-brown), and “terra cotta” (brownish red). The proposed project would use stone and wood, a more natural element, compared to the original project which was planned to be stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space). 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 5 Table 1: Comparison of Project Components 1The difference in earthwork quantities account for soil shrinkage during the compaction process. 2010 Original Project 2016 Proposed Project Lot Size 1.04 acre 1.04 acre General Plan Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre Zoning HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone (2 ½ to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre) HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone (2 ½ to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre) Floor Area: Main Level: Upper Level: Garage/Storage: Subtotal: (garage credit) Total Floor Area: 2,310 square feet 1,535 square feet 592 square feet 4,437 square feet -400 square feet 4,037 square feet 2,379 square feet 1,652 square feet 617 square feet 4,648 square feet -400 square feet 4,248 square feet Maximum Height Maximum Elevation: 25-feet 35-feet 25-feet 35-feet Lot Coverage - Residence - Driveway - Deck/Patios Total Lot Coverage ~ 2,642 square feet ~ 2,880 square feet ~ 1,927 square feet 7,449 square feet 2,372 square feet 3,583 square feet ~ 429 square feet 6,384 square feet Property Setbacks - Front: - North (left) Side: - South (right) Side: - Rear 190.0-feet 20.0-feet 24.0-feet 63.5-feet 185.0-feet 21.0 feet 25.0 feet 65.0 feet Creek Setbacks: - Residence/Garage: - Driveway: Minimum 10-feet Minimum 1-foot Minimum 20-feet Minimum 10-feet Area outside LRDA: ~1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet Grading: 342 cubic yards cut 188 cubic yards fill 154 cubic yards of export 439 cubic yards cut 429 cubic yards fill 0 cubic yards of export1 Retaining Wall Height: < 3 feet height: 0 feet 3-6 feet height: 394-feet > 6 feet height: 63-feet < 3 feet height: 106-feet 3-6 feet height: 104-feet > 6 feet height: 0-feet Retaining Wall Length: ~457-feet ~210-feet Tree Removal Proposed: 31 trees Removed: 15 trees Remaining to Remove: 16 trees Proposed: 7 trees (including one dying tree) 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 6 3.0 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The 2010 MND identified mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental effects of the original project to a less than significant level. All of the mitigation measures approved for the original project would also apply to the proposed project and no new mitigation measures are necessary. No new or substantially more significant adverse impact has been identified. 1) AESTHETICS The 2010 MND found that the project would have less than significant effects on scenic vistas, scenic resources, and the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project would remove 7 of the existing 86 protected trees onsite (nine fewer trees than originally proposed). The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. Despite the minor changes proposed in the house and driveway locations, the overall nature and intensity of construction would not be substantially different than under the proposed project, and all construction activities would occur within the project site as was also evaluated in the 2010 MND. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 2) AGRICULTURE The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to agriculture beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no prime, unique, or statewide important farmlands in the project study area. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts to agricultural uses; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 3) AIR QUALITY The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts to air quality beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 original project proposed a total cut of 342 cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards of soil, resulting in the need to export approximately 154 cubic yards of material. The proposed project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and total fill of 429 cubic yards. No export of earthwork would be required resulting in fewer construction trucks coming to and from the site during grading activities. It should be noted the additional grading is proposed to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The background conditions, construction equipment mix, and construction work hours identified in the 2010 MND have not notably changed and the proposed refinements would not result in any substantial change in the way the way the proposed house would be constructed. The modifications to the construction plan would not substantially chang e the intensity or duration 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 7 of total construction activities identified in the 2010 MND. Therefore, as described in the 2010 MND, the proposed project would not exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards or contribute to air quality deterioration beyond BAAQMD projections. As was the case for the 2010 original project, mitigation is required to limit the proposed project’s construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, per BAAQMD- recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 1: To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne taxies control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 4) BIOLOGY The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts on biological resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The proposed project has increased the setbacks of the house and driveway from the creek that traverses the project site. In March 2016, HT Harvey updated their previous biological resources report prepared in 1997 for the project site. The biological resources report determined that the proposed project did not result in any new or more significant impacts to biological resources. This report was peer reviewed by Live Oak Associates. Both HT Harvey and Live Oak Associates recommend a project condition with 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 8 regards to completing a pre-construction tree-survey and pre-construction survey for migratory birds be included. As no special status plant or animal species were identified onsite, the project condition is proposed to ensure compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Live Oak Associates also recommended a project condition relative to potential day-time roosting bat habitat of non-special status bat species that could utilize tree #56 to further address neighborhood concerns regarding the potential for bat species onsite . Inclusion of these project conditions is not a result of a new or more significant impact. No new impact has been identified because potential project impacts on non-sensitive upland habitats and associated common (non-sensitive) plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required under CEQA. Tree Protection The proposed project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010. Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s) were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried “protected” trees in proximity to the original project’s proposed development and located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. Under the “review of potential tree impacts” the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 protected trees that “would either be removed or considered a loss” (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 37-40, 60-62, 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be removed due to their failing health (#s 10, 46) for a total of 3 1 trees. Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 Arborist Report, it appears that the property owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55, 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees. The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. A Tree Inventory was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then revised on July 10, 2016 for the proposed project. Per the 2016 Inventory, the subject property contains a total of 86 trees1, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot that were not previously considered. Per the proposed project, seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while seven (7) trees will need to be removed. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. Potential impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. 1 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed). 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 9 Creek Protection There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. In this case, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10-feet for the driveway would result in less than significant impacts on the proposed project. Creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank would occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project would provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. In addition, establishment of a 10 -foot wide setback between the top of bank and paved surfaces is also consistent with regional and state guidelines, provided appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed, implemented and maintained. The proposed project would have no impact on the existing creek and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure 2: With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 125, 2010) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendation are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist’s report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainage, facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report’s recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 5) CULTURAL RESOURCES The extent and intensity of construction activities would not vary substantially relative to that evaluated in the 2010 MND, and mitigation measures prescribed in the 2010 MND would still be applicable and necessary to reduce potentially significant of impacts under the proposed project. The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects with mitigation on archaeological resources and human remains. While the proposed project would include increased excavation for building foundations and bioswales, the potential effects on archaeological resources and human remains would be the same as the original project and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3 through 6 which would remain the same for the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 10 Mitigation Measure 3: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. Mitigation Measure 4: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Mitigation Measure 5: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.S(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Mitigation Measure 6: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 6) GEOLOGY The proposed refinements would not result in substantially different geophysical impacts beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. While the proposed project involves proposed changes to the timing and location of some construction activities, these changes do not represent a substantial deviation from the project analyzed in the 2010 MND, and the conclusions of the 2010 MND remain valid. A Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology was submitted for the proposed project in 2016 and peer reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 would remain the same for the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 11 Mitigation Measure 7: A design-level geotechnical investigation and final construction plans shall be completed and reviewed as specified by Geomatrix, Inc. (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for detailed recommendations). 7) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The proposed project would result in a similar (or potentially reduced) duration and intensity of construction activities relative to the original project, and both the original and proposed project would be operationally identical. As such, the proposed construction modifications would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions or related impacts to global climate change or conflicts with applicable climate change plans, policies, or regulations. The 2010 MND found the project would have a less than significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed changes to the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects due to greenhouse gas emissions. 8) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to hazards or hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no hazardous wastes or hazardous materials at the project site. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts from hazardous materials or lack of defensible space for project located within a fire hazard area. Therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 9) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The proposed project would be required, as under the original project, to comply with all applicable water quality regulations during and following construction activities. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. As is the case with the 2010 MND, compliance with stormwater regulations would preclude the potential for significant impacts to receiving water bodies, including the creek at the project site. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 10) LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project would require the same entitlements, permits, and other approvals as the original project. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 11) MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to mineral resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND and because the project site is not located within an area of 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 12 known mineral resources, either of regional or local value, the 2010 MND did not identify any impacts to mineral resources; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the changes to the original project. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 12) NOISE The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to noise beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The proposed not result in design or operational changes to the project site or surrounding area from that analyzed in the 2010 MND. The overall intensity, equipment mix, duration, and proximity to sensitive receptors would not be notably different than under the original project. The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant impacts related to noise. The proposed project would have no change on the project’s noise operations; therefore, it would not affect the MND noise analysis of the original project. No mitigation measures needed for either the original or the proposed project. 13) POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed project would not have any effect on population, housing, or employment in the Town or region at large, as is the case for the original project. No adverse impacts would occur in this regard. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 14) PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to public services/utilities beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because they would not result in changes to existing public services those evaluated in the 2010 MND for the original project. The 2010 MND did not identify any potentially significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. 15) RECREATION The proposed design modifications would not result in additional impacts to recreational facilities beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 MND did not identify any permanent impacts to recreational resources or facilities. No mitigation measures area required for either the original or the proposed project. 16) TRANSPORTATION The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects on transportation and circulation. The proposed project would result in no changes to operational trip generation; therefore, it would not affect the 2010 MND analysis related to transportation and circulation. No mitigation measures area required for either the original or the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 13 17) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any public utilities beyond those required for the original project. Temporary short‐term and operational demands on public utilities or other infrastructure would not measurably change under the proposed project and therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 18) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings would be comparable to the original project, and potentially reduced with regard to biological resources given the reduction in trees to be removed and increased setbacks from the creek under the proposed project. As impacts under the proposed project would be similar to or reduced relative to the original project, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation measures are required. 4.0 Recommendation That the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record that the proposed modifications to the original project are within the scope of the original 2010 MND analysis and will not cause any new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase previously identified impacts, nor require any new or modified mitigation. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by Town Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and has determined that: (1) NO substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previou sly identified significant effects; (2) NO substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, does NOT show any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 14 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the analyses conducted and the conclusions reached in the Final MND adopted on December 10, 2010 remain valid. The proposed revisions to the project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the 2010 MND, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the project would contribute considerably, and no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required beyond this addendum. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. Not to scale Project Site FIGURE 1: Regional Map 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Google Maps, 2016 Los Gatos Not to scale Source: Google Earth, 2016 Fountain Valley Project Site Al p i n e A v e Jo h n s o n A v e Pier V i e w W y Fos t e r R d N P a c i f i c S t N M y e r s S t Hi g h l a n d A v e Jac k s o n S t G r o v e S t Cen t r a l A v e FIGURE 2: Vicinity Map 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Project Site Not to scale Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 FIGURE 3: Site Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Not to scale FIGURE 4: Grading and Drainage Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 Not to scale FIGURE 5: Tree Inventory Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 Not to scale FIGURE 6: Landscape Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Ecotone Landscape, 2016 ID Qty.Size Latin Name Common Name Notes AB 5 24" box Acer p. 'Bloodgood' Japanese Maple CO 6 24" box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud HA 9 15 gal. Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon PI 6 15 gal. Prunus i. lyonii Catalina Cherry UC 4 15 gal. Umbellularia californica California Laurel CJ 40 1 gal. Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter' Wild Lilac CS 28 1 gal. Coleonema 'Sunset Gold' Pink Breath of Heaven CH 40 1 gal. Cotoneaster 'horizontalis' Rock Cotoneaster RP 39 1 gal. Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Rosemary 3TR N K 5 ' O A K 1 0 " O A K 10 " O A K 12 " O A K 1 0 " O A K T2 1 8 " O A K T B W A L L 430 420 440 410 420 430 T14 E 3 0 " E U C T2 0 T6 6 T5 7 IP T A G MA G N A I L T5 4 T5 9 T6 2 T63 T6 5 T23 T2 2 T1 8 T1 1 T13 T29 T3 0 T33 T32 T31 T34 T42 T4 0 T39 T3 8 400 T44 T45 T4 3 T47 T5 0 N 4 8 ° 2 3 ' 3 7 " E 9 8 . 4 0 ' S 0 7 ° 0 2 ' 5 0 " W 3 7 . 0 0 ' N 60°08' 3 3 " W 7 1 . 5 8 ' N 4 2 ° 1 7 ' 0 8 " W 1 4 0 . 0 0 ' S 52 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 " W N 67°20'06" W 1 6 7 . 5 2 ' S 3 7 ° 4 2 ' 7 " W 6 8 . 9 7 ' S 82°19 ' 0 2 " W 4 4 . 5 3 ' N 75°14'43" W 309.40' N 1 9 ° 5 4 ' 5 8 " W 7 1 . 6 2 ' 26.4 0 ' CO N S T R U C T I O N LANDS OF PEARSON 1.04 Acres A.P.N. 529-37-033 BEN C H M A R K 440 . 4 6 T27 T1 T3 5 T3 6 T4 1 T9 T4 6 T8 408 40 8 412 410 408 406 404 4 0 9 41 8 42 0 42 2 Drawing No. Scale Project IDProject Manager Drawn By Reviewed By Date CAD File Name L1 1/16" = 1'-0" Date 1 of Drawing Title Project Title Landscape Plan Pearson Residence 19 Highland Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consultant Design Firm Ecotone Landscape P.O. Box 320201 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 357 0354 No. Date Revision NotesAppr No. Date Issue Notes 3-HA T1 1 7-CH Undisturbed Landscape1-CO 1-UC 3-PI 3-PI 1-AB 3-HA Landscape Plan La n d s c a p e P l a n Pe a r s o n R e s i d e n c e 19 H i g h l a n d A v e . Lo s G a t o s , C A 9 5 0 3 0 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 6-CJ 5-CH Ex. Densely Wooded Area Ex. Densely Wooded Area Plant List L1 1-UC 1-CO7-RP 6-CJ 5-CJ 6-CJ 5-CS 11-RP 7-CS 1-UC 8-CJ 6-CH1-UC1-CO 7/10/16 www.ecotone-la.com mark@ecotone-la.com (408) 357-0354 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1-CO 3-HA 4-RP 10-RP 5-CJ 1-AB 8-CH 1-CO7-RP1-CO 6-CH 4-CH4-CH5-CS 5-CS1-AB 6-CS 1-AB 4-CJ1-AB 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 Attachment 1 19 Highland Avenue Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 10, 2010 TCIWN C IF 1.109 (Al09 CIVIC C» ]:IC >t. MAW STR8611 P.Q. Bo»i 949 Los GPO OS, CA 95031 NC ITICE OIF MITIGA TIID NEC A TIVE I7 E CI ARATIC IN 1C1WN CIF 11 OS GPITOS, CAHIAORNIA 110 E.1V PITNI STREHT I1OS CIA11OS, CA 95032 (1408; 314.6872 DATIE: Nc vanlibar 2, 2010 SUB, ECT: AN IN: TIAL STUDY AND MITIGA1ED NHCIATIUE DIIICILARA➢ICIN HPINB BEHN PREI ARED BY THH `GOWN OA 11OS GA`➢OS AND AR] ON AIIIE IN TETI CON MUNITY DBVniL OAM INTI DBI ARTM ENT! Al 1 10 E. MAIN 9171RA<E1, DOS C PITIOS. TIRO: ECIT DHSCIRIITION: :19 Highland Avenue Anchilectune and Sita Plpplications S-4 3 -049 Nag alive DeclanailionNH-03 1 laequesting approval to consti ua l a sing la family ra sidence on pra pa rty Jona d ER-21 /2. If no sign'flcant enviranrnenlal impacts ale iclanlified as a neiult of this pnoject a Nitigaled Negative Ha clanatia n will be necomimc ncl(cI. AAN 529-3 7-033. PRCIPHR➢' CI WNIER: Angelo Orl han APE] MAIN T:.Iahn 1Jisn, Archilecl Tore initial Stlldy an d Mitigated Negative Declamation are available for nevi('w in ilhe Oonmi unity] Llavelopmenl Dapartmienl gown Hall) at the above addness. Tlhe public a(' nmient penis d Ior this pnoposed Neg a live Da clara l is ni is 30 clays from the dale of this na tio a ai d will expine on Fridam, Da dumber 3, 2010 al 5:00 pm. \Mritl en commenls s he uld be submiilt( d to 11 a Cominliunily Developnlien l DeparIrna nt. The Planning Clommiasion public haaring n this meat en is 1 en1 a1 ively s c1l edu e d for Dec( mben 8, 2010 all 7:00 I .M . in I ha lawn Co until Clhambens at 1 10 E. IV ain 91treet. Ill you Have any questions in this mat er, please contact EN a Ilk r Bradley at (I408) 3 54-4H 06. ATTIACHMEN1: lllacomm( nda d M itigated Negalive Dealaration INCORIaIRATIII AUG1.15110, :I8d7 EXHIBIT 2 D]19111RIBU]IION : lla in M anagen av n i IttoiineA Dineclor all Cornimiunily Developmiant lla wn Hngineen awn Cllark Ta vim Library! Fllanniin fl Cla mmiis. iia n (17 copie s; Sania Clara County Cllerk (4 copies; Caliib:unia Ilapartrnenhl of Flish & Gama Rational Watan Quality Clontnol Board Caliibnnia Stale Clearinghouse 1119 aapia s] Ios GatosUnioniSahoa1 Wetiiicl I os Galoi Saratoga Union Higll School His lrict N. id -Hen insula Regional Open' 8 paaa District Hay Area Ain Qualit l 1J anagemient District Santa Clara Valley War ea Dislriat F1G&E San Jose Walen Company Santa Clara Coiirq Kline Deparlinant Was1 Valley Saniialion DiEtria1 South Bay Cablevision Vanizon Valanie Geier Di . Angelo Orphan, Owner Jahn Bien, Ana hill a t, Applicant N:1DEV1F FIATH111 B119 11ighl a ndJ Imiiram Tanta l review & t aak®ra ua tll S Higt land Nc tic e a :IMF, D.dc < NO1IICE Tom of Ilasi C atos Hnriiiionlmental Imi 1 Review Mii i ki1 ek l Nlegati'ue 1l e a laral ion Lead A gency: Town oil Lds CIa tos Clommiinit] Development llepartmant 110 Has t Main Stra et Los Ga os, CIA 9:10 3 ] Pugjecl Title and Location: 19 Highland Avenue Anchiteatura and Site Review .PIpplication 1-03 -049 Puojacl Descuipllion: lhe pnojeat applicant is agues ting approval oil a Site and iInahitecture Peview application that won d allow cons truation oil a now residence with an attached two -was garage -on a 1.04- a cre lot. Tha prop used residence would 1 e 3,841 s quara feel (s.f.) and the ga na ge ba 592 s.f. 'Ilhe -faatprint afl the prapoiad residence would be 2,641 s.il., covering appronimately iI.1 % pencant of tl a it a. With the pro' a sed ra sidanca, drinewa�l, walkways, and clacks, total site aovenaga would 1 c 7,449 s.il. on 17.196 oil the site. lhe pnojacil would entail davelopmanl oil a nesidenae with foun bad:ioom: and time and a hall baths in the solid eastern! port on oil the site. The pupal e d home would step u 1 the slopes o that it would ba Iwo atorias at any single loaation, but would have lhiea levels.'llhe lowest lcvel would be 113 s.1. with a two -can garage and equip mentls to ra ge noom.11ha fiirt flown would be 2,310 s .f. with main end y, living noom, dining :loom, kitchan, gamily noom, a nd gum s t noom, while the second lava' (1,535 would ha ve a siludy and tin ea bedrooms. lhe pnoposed nesidenae would ha`am a total of 4,437 gross s.f., a r 4,037 gnoas s.f. when taking into a cca unt the 400 s .1. ga ra 0 e cna dit al lows d by the Town. Proposed plans show six a ros s -section s ol tha house , india a ting that the pnopos e d ha ig ht oil the ha use would as nfa nm to the 21-ilooi heigl t limit as it exilends along the natural g:iade of the silo: Access to the nasidance would ba'raIiided i6iom Highland IIvanue (a'riiia le street_ by a new :I1-flool wide dnivaway tha l is appnoximata180 sleet in langth. 7lhe'ropused driveway would extend passallel to and north of tha existing access driveway to tl a existing 7iesidenca (25 Hi111 land) to the southaa; t. Tha pioposad drinieway would be con stiucted of pervious intenlockinl 1 aving stones. iI fine twat hammy rl a ad i ui nauoun (I would ba provided a t the N4 g; t a nd ol the ro' oso d drivewia y (near Il ig l la nd Avenue and appnoximataly 121 Heat west oil the nesidenae), while a 'ma Iles, parking area/' ullaut is 'Apposed on the soutl side of tl g pioposed driveway just west oil the pnopasecl residence. Del esmiinalion: Although the pnopasecl project cat 1d hava a significant off(' at on the environment, tl a:ia will not ba a significant affea in this ease beaause the mit.gation meanings listed bolaw halm bean added to the pnoja al, mitia atinl potential impa cts to a 1 es ; -than-si gnii ican t Rivet. An Hnvironmenta 1 Impact Rai ort will not be neiuirad. Slatament of Be amens 10 SuAportl inding: 1. i1leslhelice: 'Ilhe project site is a wa a ded hillside a ite loco tad adjacanl to an intarno ittant d:aainago channel. lts wooded and low elevatian within the deainago would limit misibility ol the site and its II oI iEMI HR, 7 010 1 MITIGATE]] I IHGATTVE IIECLARATIICIN — 19 HIGHLAN II i I VEN UB vicinity to the existing residential driveway that extends along the southern property boundary and a few residences to the north.11 a nesidencas to lha nor I are located mostly uphill oil the project site and scenic' Aiistas are available dram the uppe:!levels of theca homes, above the existing true canopy. 'Ilhe proposed home wa u d not bleak on adversely affix' theca iaenic mist; s. However, the lowers leliels of those I amen are below the tnea campy and the proposed iesidenca would 1 e visit le from ti eio locations. Project delialopment would nequira limited Irae removal wham the iiesiclence would 1 a located. oak and > 7 retained on the mutt. side of the App]IOXimaiu 1y eight n a tune uajj-truer are. propored to ufi rauxlllcu lLLl the fl\ li Ell a u LL7L proposed raiidanca and the canopies of these tnaas would help sane en views oil the residence born existing rusidunaes 10 the nor 1. 71 ass trees together vat1I axis tin g mature trees on thu lower portions of the adjacent lots to the north would all]] a an to hale sufl icier tly high cc' nopies so a s top ro `side effective visua screening loll homes totaled above. Visual impacts assaciatacl with gnadad slopes and nataining walls, and theirs eansistenc`l with the HGllside Devi lapment Standards 81 Guidelines (HII MCI) will t e aansidarud d►nnnE Anchitualune and Situ review. Town stall has da lei mined tl at the pliojeel's visual effects would 1 a consistent with the HDS&G. (Bradley, 1010, . If design changes during Arahitectuna and Site ne`dew a tar tl a extant of € ra ding on true removal and result in new significant impacts , the IS/MN D will nosed to ba rt'vise,d. 71_e. publiat will have tile opporlunitli to comment on all aspeats of the speaifia delielopment pnopa sal duping ti e Archileatura a nd Site neltie w pilotless. Tha chaff ge in visual ehanaater resulting lhiom proposed pacing is elialuatecl in lenm,rof tlla extent of tiea no ma val (see Scallion 4, Biological 121esounces) sing a iluae i ern a pal would ru cull in a change 1 o views Tha t would be `usible for an extended pursed of fn a, until landscape trees sufficiently However, • ahanga s in to pographli tilat result from proposed grading are a onsidared a to mponary visua impact tha t is lass than significant because piieiariil ed nevagetation onus immedialuIN following grading (lo address ra sion I a zarcls) and Fo11 a sed ru taining via Is (up to six feel 1 ig h) would be scneaned floor view a nce tile are aovened by landscape vegetation. Clonditions wham topognaphie ahangus would nesull in visua in II a cis include crea tic' n of man-made cut slopes that contrast with n a tuna] slap di art ig h visibility ol retaining wa ls. phase conditions one specillica hl addressed in the Hllr S&G and compliance with tl use guidelines to ininimiae such visual impacts will a required during Anahiteatura and Site m`uew. Ito emaluatu the pnoject's potential visual effects on the neighl a'boa d, the Town retained Clannon L align Clroup (aDCI) to review the project deli*n. In 1 rief, CIDCI's design review indicated that the house is well- dusigned to lit within the unique cons l paints of the site. llha only issue raised 1 `l CGDCI is the promimitjl of ti e proposed house to tl a elisting private driveway, which pro1iidas a ecesu to the u risting I ause a t 25 Highlands Avenue. llhe pro posed house is located 15 to 24 ilea' from this existing dcdvevia y, but since tha driveway nisei in eleliation as it ascends to thu axisting residence, ti a heigl t cif tha proposed home diminishes ova tl a lengtl of tl a proposed home. CIICI notes that than one fevi, if any, design options to ameliorate tllis condition ems ept to use muted colons fan the stuaco (e.g., not white on yellow; 10 minimize the apparent ,iiae ol the low e. CDCI also notes that use of stone rather tha n sh aco would provide a more nature apilearanae and tia the 1 oust] into the site moue. It should ba noled that this is a design issue, nol an envinonniantal issue, and t1 erefara, is net aonsidared any iIurt1 ur in this doaument. Clutdoos lighting wau d be provided on thu exteriion of the 1 ame. project axterior lighting would not le ampectud to adversely affect rigl tt'ma views in the area clue to saiaening pra`iided by the existing Ira aaven and distal ce 1 etwean the pnojaat and surrounding nesidenam in addition, the Zoning Ordinance (Sectiai 29.1(1.45.035) would pool it it tl a pfioduction of dinuct on reflected glare (such as that produaud by floodlights) onto am area autsida the project boundary. N OVEN HER, 2010 M I IGAITELI NEQAITI\IE IIIICLARATICN — ]I q HlptrL/ ND AVENIm 2. Agniculhlle RI sounaei: T1 e pagject site aansists of an undelielopec hillside, generally covered with oak woodland iiagetafan. lhe : ubject grolltrt3 is ioned for hill: is t iiesidential use. Tht project site's sloping topography limits it agrisultuaal potential.Ilhenelone, tl a pnojeat would not adversely afilect any ting agriicultunal ties ounces a t the : ite. Since the : ire is not in agricultt ra use , the pnoje ct would i a t adversely afleat any existing agiicultujial operations., 3. Ain Quality: 'Me :I an Francisco Bay Aiwa Ain Ha sin is classified by the Baal A:iea Alir (IuaIity Management Di: triat (HMIQM11) a s ran-attainmc ntfar axone and inha able ga:it'aulatf s (1 Mu). 10 addnes,i Mesa excaedance:, the HA IM11, in cool' cation Viiitl tl e MTCI and AHAICU, prepared the Bay f flea 7 005 Dxone Strategy (BADS] in SI p to mben 20 d :I and Aaaitiaulate Matter inj ilarnentaiticui Sehaida le 1PM1Sj in Novi n tan 200;1. The WI CIS is the most neaently adopted net is nal a in qua i ly. plan, while the PMIS disau: ses how ells HAIAQMD implements the Clalifornia Ain Resources Hoard': 103 panic ulale matter as nlrol nit antra s. Tha HAIAQMD i; currently in the pro QC; s of pis paring the :1(109 Pay A nit Claari t it AIan and adoption is expected somen' e in 2010. The consistency oil the proposed pnojeat wiilh the mo: t recently adopted negj anal air quality plan, the 1IAC S, is deter]] ined 1 y compan'ng the pnojeet's consistency with the Has Clatos General Plan. Since the 11/ CS is based on population Ilrajections of tl A: socia lion o1 Ba Anea Clovernments (AHAG) that ai a based an the Town's Gene:ial plan in afleat al the time the BADS was approve( , consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate constency with the BA OS. 'Ilhe 1noje ct Imo a cl be aansistent Viiith ti e use and den: ity allowed on the projects ite by the Ilo: (Palo: Genera Plan, and thenel one, the project would be consistent with the CIAP. 1t June 2010, the B a], I A: iea Air Quality M ana g emu t Iaistrict (HAAQM D) tielea sa d update d C IBQAI Guidelines and adolltod nu CHQAI threshelc s of signifiaance for ariittrta air pollutants lot both consultation an apenation of grout] se( pro jacis. 11 a proposed pnojeat's construction and oparatianal emissions ate astimatad to ba below and comma]ed to thus(' new HAAQMD signilicance thresholds: According to the 'flown Planning Ilapart'',ent, tilt propo: ed pnojeat woulc n('sult_in a net tnaffia increase of 10 dai171 trips, with 1 AIM peak I our trip and 1 PM peak 1 ou:I trip. Air emissions increasas as: aaiatec with operation of tl e piopos ed ntojcct would be les s tl an sic nifiaant since Ole siae of the lima secl pra.jact would no t e xcn e d the Hi IA QM la's sig nifiaanca tiniest old levels lot poten f a 1 signilica nee . Tha HAIAQMD's significance threshold 1 or crite:iia pollutant emissions is 315 single family units for operational emissions. Adjacent memidential use ant n.nniir aged to he. REIS sitive. raccelltoIL!_ Prnpo!eCj gradiig ar_.tivitiea wroth! generate sl ort-team emissions of arite ria pollutants, incluc it g suspended and inhalal le particulate matte]] and aquipment arhausI emissions. Ut-dan the now HAIAQMD Guic alines, a pnojeat's asnstruction emissions aie eansidurad to ba lass than significant if: (1) the pnojeat's : ize tic ea not exceed the HAIAIQMD significance thrall alcl fan eonstruat'an, whicl is 1:14 units fol single-family voidance for this pna ject; (2) the HAA(IMU's II asic Clonstrivatian Mitiiaitian _last rcis are implemented datung cons truation;and (1)the project da a s na t include demolition,:imultanaausaacwwence oll mote than tIAo constniation pha ses, simultaneouslanstructiot of mare .than ono land use tllpe; entensi`ic site preparation; or extensive ni a ta: iia I tun: por (mare t1 an 10,0 0 0 cnbie yards a f s oil). lhe pnojeat would ma et the e cnilenia ma that impleniantation of the fallowing maasuna would neduae aanstruction-seta tad ctutenia pollutant: to a less -than -significant level: Mf➢IICIA➢IICIN MHFI1I1RH 1:'Ito limit the pnojaat's cansttuctionaelated dust, criteria pollutant, and pneaurson eniis lions, the fa hawing HAAQMD-tecomn ended Basic Clonstruatian Mitig atian Measines shall be implemented: a. A 11 exposed 1urfaraa del.,11urkinll arias, Staging areas, .sail piles, graded aaieas, and unpaiied access roads,) shall d e ivaterecl trio tunes new day. NoVENIBEA , 3010 3 1~Ji I'] IGIA TED NEGAPTNH UECLI IRA7ICIi: _ 19 HIGQIIJM' INC ,6I VENT E b. 211 haul tt ucks t+Iansllarting moil, sane, or otl er loose mananial off -seta shall be covered. a. Ji 11 viral le Mid or dint Mack -out onto aid jacentllaiblic'loads shall be removed using we pa i ear vacuum s;I; eet swaellan at least once liar day. 7lhe use of dry flower swae ling is praA ibi&.d. d. 211 vat Tale speeds an iinpaved reads shall be limited to 15 mph. a. Ji 11 roadwalis, dnivewajs, at d sidewalks to be paved shall be completed a sa an as flossiil le. iluilding pods shall be laid as soon asnoisiblii after grading finless : eeding or. oil binder aaie u: ed. j, Idling times .hall be minimised either bi she tang equipment off mil en not in wise an ueducinll the maxim aim idling tin a ,Io 5 minutes (la.i rag uired by nia airborne Ioxias cantnol maasaire HAlti 13, Section 2485 al Clalifoainia Code of Regulations [CC1j). Cllean sianaige ill all be pioliided fon con; traiation winkling at all access points. f 11 constniation ecltiillment .hall be maintained c nd pone] ly tumid in acaardanae N iitA mans factuw en's specifications. All eqiiinni end shall ba aheekea b) a certified niece 'nia and determined to A ''tinning in pnopen conditionilrion to operation. h. f publicly visible sign with toe telepA one numtl er and Raman to contact al the 'lead Agency regarding dust conifllaials shall Ito nova(' at the si Ie. This Reason shall aiespond and tat e conrectiiie action within 48 A our.. ate Air Distaiic,I's phd ne nuna er shall also ba uisiblca to en. uate cemplianae with applicable Heil t ilatiens. g• MI71lCIA11Cl1\ 1V ONTIIORII CI: 1e Building Divirian of the Clommunily DavelopmanI Deg artmenI will ba ra spon sibla fa r (Inn ring tl a t all measures are poll a rim implemen to d dui ing ea nstJ uction. . Biological Rasou>taet : The sal ja ct pnopenty is situ' tad in a man ow va la)l o:i side drainage at beim en (10 and 1fl0 fa et in elevation. An incised, meandefin g stream channel, flowing from east to welt extends along the nortl ern edge ol the va ley Boon. the pa Mal has a relatively shor 1 ut steep bank on the south side, extending downward fro m Highland Aventi a 10 an apparently historiic flood tarraae. The flood terrace varies in width Ira m 16 feat to a' much as 45 lea t bet wa en the toe ol the slope ar d the soul h ban a f the creel channel. H.1. Harvey &I_Arsoeiates, Inc. pneparad a biologiaal ea nsti aints auaysis far tl a project site in I` a`iember! 1997; a aapy ol thin rapor is on file at the Lds Gatos Carnrnnunity Da`relopmant Department. A naaonna'ssanca-level field survey war conducted on Is a uembar 3, 1997 to idantif l 1 abilats capable ol supporting speeia-slates plants and anima s on-sita as well as negulaled habitat'. Tlhe prq ja ct site i' heamiljl woods c , supporting a dense a anom of mature native l: ices dominated by Claliio;inia ba31 aaliforniaa.; and eaalt line oak (One; cur agrijolia;. Cltl er native ties llnasent an sit' are Clalifornia buakeya (Aesculu. califonnica; and blue oak ((Iueatcus couglasii] . A clu'tar of na n-native blue gum flees (lhncal,Vitt s globtihis; is grason t at the western end of the pnoper y, and a single 1 lea gum is p;ie'ent at tila upstream (ea stern) end of tl a'ita. Non-native henbaeeoun Jr cies, e.g. periwinkle IIVinca major), da minate in tiro undanstory, particularly an the north -facing slope 1 elow Highland 1Iuenua. 71 a lite does not support anll's etland or riparian veg elation, i.e., plant species typiaallly awl aiatt d with of iestrked 10 aquatic onviionments. /Ill of the native flea species poem nt aye commonly associated with upland Jetting' and ana not dependent an the presence oil an elevated ground wz ten table IN OVEN BER, 20I0 4 MITIGL ITEIu NEGINTIVE DE ILARATICIN — :I I HICIHIIANr IVENUE The studrl identified ilive p la ni species and six animal species that aaie kna w n to oa cur in the jingle cl vicinity but in I abitats that are not found on tie paoject site. Ma study 1 resents detailed discussions ol tl se species far which: potentially suitable I abitat occurs an the pnojeat site; surv1e31s weiue conducted; on the mesa rune a ('nails have axp]iessed par iaular canaerrs. Detailed discussions are provided fan live giant species that ane Iis ted b1 the state on (lalifornia Natir e llaani Soak ty: Sant< Cla na rad rit bons (CllarA is aoncint a sap. autorniina , maple •leaved aheakenbloom (ISidalaaa malaahraidea] ,western leatlle:'wood QDinca accidanlalis'„ Santa Cruz manzanita I1/ nctoataph:llas midaraonii;, and rill tail iIBansariicu.s astutua] . Alma, six animal specie s weld(' identifies by the study as ledera ly on sta to listed as endangered, threatened, oil can didate.spaniel, oil a (la lifamia Species of Cloncam. A deli iled discussion of two of tiles(' species, Coign VI Ha wik ticipitlui coal erii) and sharp-shinna(I hawks ill acipitar atriatua , is 1 resented, 1 ut the other four weak s were presumes a bunt 'blue than was no suitable habitat a n the site iloai those speaiem. Survey results indicate that althoul h the s ite s uppor s suitable habitat fon a number oil s1 c cieS oil special -status plants and wildliile, most oil these Species are either net likely to oacun on -site or their ll a tential I a bitat would not ba affa cted. Hower ens, se venal specie s of ha wki and a rills Qprotea tc d under . Clalilornia His and Clame (lode Section 11(3.5 could east an the project site, and anuld be adversely affeailed t y project a a nstruatia n. The 1997 study was reviewed and updated bat Wlood Biological Connulting(lWBC) in 2( (18.71 is assessment was based an a ilea annainsance-level site in spa ation ol the subjaal pnopenty parformed an January 3, 20(8 , and a review of -the H.11. Harvey & Associates :aepor , the proposed site plan, an( tre inrienlory plan. 71 a WHC assessment aha included an erialuation of the potertia min arianneiou.aces on the pnojeat site a s well aS p:aoject aonsistenay with the Cluidelinas and pander ds Jan Land Lisa Neat �Iltneams, p re pared bJl the Santa Clara V alley I WIater 1? enources Ruotection Clone l a ra tir e IISCN \MRWI) .and adopted by the Tom it 2007. The WHC ax✓11ant indiaales that the 1997 HLT. Ala:ariey & plssociates analysis oil pnojeat site's biotic aonitnairts accurately described tl a conditions ol the grojact Site an obsen`ied during tl a field survey in 3 ( 08.E aced on a search ol the Ualilornia Natural Diversity Data base i ICI' DDH) and an uvalua f an of t1 a subject properly, no additional analysis for sjIecial-status species was warranted. The WHC assessment also in eludes an evaluaCan of tl a stream channel'i poilentia as habilal ton stealhead (Cleicorl ynchiis niykias it ideual . 11 a analjlsin conaluden tt at the stream nowise on the subject prep err) could I a con,sidenad to provide marginally mt itshie habitat ilorstan rhead; howe`ieu, the in tu ann ittent natuna of tl e inrfaae flown and, mane signilicantly, the axtenl oil unclergraunding ol the channel connecting with Las (latos Clrnek, t1 a potent al fan stealhead runs to °aura on the 1lnojeat site is extrcmeljl la W. Tlhe subject property da as not sup part ripa ria ri vegetation a defined 1 y the 1CV WIpHC. The woodland liagetatian on the pra gar y does halls anecologiaa1 influence on the stream channel by providing v<sildlife I abitat and pienerviing waters quality. Tlha namaval oil trees and deveIognsent will in the riparian ;ane would therefana I e regardad as having an adnanse affect on the sta earn environment. However, mince no in 11acts to the areek al annul below tha top oil ban) would oacun, only local a11Pralials would be lies wined lon thin project. Tlhenofore, sett ackS and compensation Jon impaats a n woodland within the rig ariian zone are at tha discretion of the load agency. Rased on tl a aonditian and la sal aantaxt oil the creek cl annul and riparian 1 abitat at tl a Highland Avenue Brogart}l, the establishment of a 20-fa at wide setback between tile top ol bank aI d any permanent structures as propomad by the project plans in col sistent with the Cluidelinas and Standards joti lland U.e New Staaam as we11 an standard requirements of the ❑DFCI. In a ddition, estat lishment of a 10-fa at wide setback between the top of bank and 1 aved surfaces in alsa coniistant with regional and state gi idelinen, N OVEN BEr , 2410 5 M]TIG2ITEII NEGI ITIVE DECLARATIC IN — 19 HIGHLANI1 I IMENUI II rollick! d appropriate cons ti uction and post=aonstruatio n Ha st N ana g erne nt Pra a rites I ]BM Ps) are designed, impleme nted and maintained. It should be noted that the piiojeat plane were submittc d fan nenic w and jurisdiation a detarmina Lion to the Claliilounia Dapartn ent of Fish & Gana r]DAG; . ]Ihe IIBCI p:ieparacl a draft Seaton 1600 I]Ca ifomia llish ar d Ga mie Coda) agneamenl to ensure ti e pnoteat'an of the State's fish a nd wildliile nesouwrces if the gnoject will substan tiai ly divert, al s truct the nal meal flow, ar ahang a amuse any ma Ierial from the bad, ahannaI or 't ants of a river ar stream. The agrlearnent (inciudod in I IttR chment 1 of the Initial Study) iista 29 spaaifia conditions oil permit approval that would be requilled to n inimize pnojeaI eilfeet: on the stream ahannal and halital values as;ociatad with the site's biologic 1memo uiicea. Althougl not apart of the CIEQQA nevievi prates, the agreement aould be compla tad and permit Is: issued once the MP review iinooess has be n competed. The Qalilotaia Lleparlment of Fish and Ganu i]GDPCI) would regulate aonstnuctian activities vrrith'r tile Area mbad channel (punsuan 110 Ilisl and Clame Clode Sea dorm 11(19 ] - 1(197] ,ensuring ins glemantation oil irequised II emit conditions an minimizing potential wateii quality imps et] .to a leas -that -significant level. • 'llnee llemova Ins pacts.11 tees surviay was pneparad for tile pasojeat by the Town's consulting anboli,rt, A"Irban esouraea ]AR), in llabruari 2010. Copies oil this stud]; are on the with the I es Gatos Oomrnunity IIevelopmentDegas tment.The ARasaessmantpro jectplans serve as the basis iloaithe following evaluation of tha projeat's potential eilftscts on tiees at tha p:sopery. llhe . IR survey inventoried a total of (11 trees on the puojeat silo. Oil these 68 trees, (I= are on tile sill jacl pnopertl and alive (11roes #48, 49 and `11-13) are sufiicientl;l close on the p:ssapert) adjoining the site as to ba vulnerable to potential damage during development [Section 29.10.0931(B) of tile 1 own's Municipal Clode].'able :I of t1 a Initial SIudy presents a summarY' dasaript'aa of tile trees inventoried on site. Clf the 68 t: sees potent'ally a1 ecte d by the pink ct, 29 trees Q43 % (7naes #3-11, 12, 13, 11-11, 19, 21, 22, 24-21, _ 9, 37-40, 60-62, 64 and (II) would ba removed ar aonsiderud a lass as a result of prajecl implementation. Trees in direct conflict with paioject IiIans inalude tile ilollowing 29: # , 4, 12, 1 _ , 15-17, 13, 24-77, 37-40, 60, di, 64 and 68. in addltian to these, than aaie an additional five trees proposed fon aemo`tal: #5- 7, 28 a nd 62. Of these 25 trees, llrue #21 is highhl wor by oil retention;) a wever, its rretention does not seem feasible as ma ja n dasiln revisions would be nacessara to aaI ieve a minimum setbaal of a t Ica st nine feet from its truss! . Thew are an additional lour ti eas plat ned Ion retention Places #8, 211, 22 and 10) tilat wou d t e subjected to sevens impacts foam site preparation and goading. Tl is would rasu t their premature decline and instability, resulting in a sarioua safety concern to parsons and Ilroi!erly below. 1 he PIP1 study :recommends that ti ea s #19 and 46 also 1 a scheduled ilor removal. Three #] 0 is a sni all, dyis g coast live oa k with -a trunk diamatar of senan inal ea. Tree #46 is a mode ra le -sized ba]i tree i]multiple trunks oil 15 and 8 incl a s in (iameter) vritl moat not a nd internal decay, a situation tha t can result in the en tine ti ee lei tin g . ➢he pnojeal's proposed undengnound utility trench would conflict void font laega oaks located on the noigi boring western property. To a void jeapaidizing tllasa tnoas, t1 a section opine beneath the aanopies mus I be direatianally bared by at least four feu I below grade.,AIdditional naaommendations are provided below. Seatiar 29.10.03 11 oil the lloviui Clod( requires mitigation ion the nerna`iai oil trees unless "the tree is dead on al azandous condition enists...." Subsequently, mitigation is naaeisary to compensate far tl a loss of all removed trees exacptilor#10 (nearl,l dead), 21 (dead; and 46 (extensive decay). AR also neaommends 11a`Ia0.aaBR, 20111 6 M ITICV TEL NEAATIVE 1l1Ci ARAITION — l 9 HIGHm IND Al) EMIR the I mitigation apply 10 b e e s the t woulc be 'eve] ely rot l act(' cl and 1 IN dis po< ed t( l remain e de cline and - instabilily. `llhe Town will negnira implemanta tion ol the following mea sane t( na duce irnl acts on 11 ear 10 be retained, and ado quakily :icplaae trees to ba removed: MTT1GAl71C11` MEAISURE 2: IAlith:le view and al praval by the lawn, all tea ommendations made 1;1 Arbor Neu w ces (Fehivary I:I, 2010; will be iniplementad 10 eliminate on minimize cons trualion- nelata d impact is a n l he ti ees to I e tetaina cl. Ra comma n dal ions are listed uncle : i Section I.( , Ha comm enda tic ns, of 1ha arbori ij' a ra por . TI a sa include re comma ndations untie r the Des ign Guidelines section addressing hiae retention and neloaalion, scil distutbanae, mulching, tielm hin8, drains ge 1aailities, a nd installation of new ees. the tepc rt a so 1 novidas naaommen(la tions for Plloteatian Measures I afore and dud' g devak pment, ancompass ing fencing, nemova of hardscape, demolition, work within ti tie aanopias, etathe report's tea ommendations ai e - inchided as AIttachmenl 1 ol the initial 11114 MITIGAIIICII` MC1N1I]ORM CI: 11 e Planning Division of tl e (la mmunily Davelopmaril Department) will ba rasp( nsibla for ensuring that all recommendation made by the arboriist an neflectac in fin piojeat plans. the Hnilding and I1arming Ilivisions oil the Clommunity Develo1Imen1 Dal artn enl will be neslonsil 1a far ensuring that a 1 two management measures are pnopenly implemented during eon truation. 5. Clullunal Resounaei:.Tha project site is unde'ieloped and the potential lot enaonntening cultural ties ouucas during lira ject aonstruatian would be low due to the mile's relatively steel togogiiaphy and the site's a leva tad location away iiiom creeks. Thera is tY11 is ally a I i g he( potential fa r encounte riin g arahat alogical rasoma ea in aneas adjacent to or t ear a nivait on ate ek. Alithoutih the 11atenlial ancountaring cultural resources (luring puaject aanstruction would ba low due to the site's loaation and tops g raphy, tile pow' tie for suet resa woes canna t 1 c corn 11lately a Iirn in a ted. llha refs me, the ilollowing mitigation measures will 1 a naguii ed: MIT1GAl11CIII MEASURE! 3: In the event tl ataichaeologiaal traces ane encounter ed, a 1 aonstruation within a 50-metar naclius (f the find sha 1 be halted, the Clommunity Ilevelallment Dineatc r s hall ba notified, an c an a nahaea la g ist sihall ba ra tained to a xaminu the find and make appropriate neca mmenda tion,i M 1TlGAlllCII' MEAIS U RH 4: lit human ra main: are discovara d, the Sat to Clara County Cotonou s hall ba notified. The Co non a r will determine whet) e u c r not the remains and Native American. If tba Clarancrdetarn.ir a s tha t the tam ains an not 'object to I is autt orit]l, t e will notify the Native IImariiaan Heritage Clomminsian, who : hall attempt to identity descendants oil the deceased Na tive AImai naans. TTICIA111CII' N E119 URH 5: if tt e Clommunity Davelopnrant Dinecton linds that the airhaaological ffind it not a signii icant namourca, work will nes ume only afters the submittal oil a gralimina iy and aeologj eal'Depart and afters p'Dovisic ns ton reburial and ongoing rnanitoning are aaceAte d. Ai iovi,i is n s lot idea tifying c e: cenda nts of a deceased Na tip it American an( fan rel unia will follow the gra to aol mel ilo:uth in CIO Guideline s Saation 150t 1ki.5(u] . It the site is ilound to be a siggifieant arahaaalagical mite, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Clommunity Ile veloprntint Dineator foncansidenatiar and app:lc val, in act tofu rmianee with the protocol Eat forth in Hui lia Resounaes Clode Saation 2! 032.2. N oVEMBER, 211 10 7 MIllGIATELI lr EGAITINEL ACLARAITICIN — i9 HI HLANDIVENUE 1711GAIOQN N EAISURH 6: AI fins 1 rapont sha 1 be prepared when a Hind is determined 10 ba a signiiicant arahaeological side, ar dlo:i when Native Ameriicar aiemains are found on the site. The lima report shall include 1 ackgnound information on the complatod via rk, a descriipilion and lisiI oil idantifie d 1 'emu urge: , the di: po: itioft and aura tion ol 1lhese ses ourca s, a ny tes ting, othen neuomeued informiation, and co nclu: ions. Ml111GAlIIQN MONI IICIRINCI: 71 a Manning and Building Division: of the Clommunity Development %apartment will ae nes pon: ihie no:i eh: urinfl that those measurer axe impieimented appropriately during aonitruetitan a: the need ari: em. 6. Geo la l y and Soils: A Nellie w ol the Tlowm's haaand: map: indicates that the pmoja at ; its has a high shrink-: vial] pot(' ntial, very low potentia fon liquafaation, mode: late pa tential ion ilauh rupture (Ilocatod immediately: auth of ar area maP11ed as "cancentnat'an of co: eisrnis ground deformation"), low 11atontial fa r seis mic : halting, ma denale 11 a tential ioii erosion hazards, m a denale to high pots ntial for slope stability hamands, and no dal ris flaw hazard: . Thu pnoject site is traversed in an ea: t-vAest direction bat an unnamed tribute ry, with the site comprised of a noel h-facings lope south of this tril utary and a ;ma u tL facing : lope nontl o f this tributary. Site slope: to the north oil the araek are momtl31 oven 30%, wl iIu the area along the : outhem projacll boundary isouth of the creak; are a so over 3 0 %d. Tl e pnopo; a d dr7iveway and nor hern portion of the home would be Ioaated on ilapea of less then 10 %, while the southern por isn oil the ha Inc would be located on slopes ova 30%. The piioposed grading plan indicate: cut on eawavat'an to depths ol I to 3 feet.'lihene vtiould be a iota' cut of 342 cubic yard: and lot l f111 oil :I1 f cubic glands, nes ulting in tha need to eaipart appnoximata111 15z cubic 3lards of material. Pacific Cieoteal nical tinging ling +IPGEj aonducted a geologic fieasibility evaluation of the pnoject site and pnesentad the nemults of the ana131sia in a nepar1 dated March 9, 004. AI aopy of this repor is a mailable fon put lie :ieview at the Town CommnnitJi Development Hepantmant. TI e PGH evaluation aonsis led ol a geologic raconnaisianca a: well as a nu view of regional gook gic maps and aaria photo: of the sita `ucinity. AI preliminary sail ism' tig ation was paella:led in :1177 by Peter H. Monk as part of a faur-pancel subclimis ion oll Alpine Avenua, wh'ah included a boning drilled neap the westerns site boundary. IIGH note: Ihere v+i as d be a lava potential for landsliding to afi ect the ; itu and a low pa tential ilor the pnopo: ed pre jact to induae lam dsliding a t the site based an a neviaw of a'ia ilable infoirra tie n. PGH's review of aerial photos a nd published rnap,i/napor s did net nameal tl a presence of any a ctive or paIentially active faults at the : ita. )l GH's preliminary aonchis ion is that the g round rupture hazard is low at the sita, but theme is a la v i to moderate probal ility tl lat miciioacala sloupl im g oil the two -loot high creel bank could ocaur during] an eartl q uake event. PICIHnato. tllat a site spa cite gee tachniaal invastigat'an (including sub: urfaae xploration; Hull ba requi;ied fon ilull coniint ation of its preliminary Gandhi: ion: and damelopmant of design -lave] gootechniaal criitenia inaludirrg expansive soil movement, settlement, soil araep,1 igI ' graundwatar, depth to supportive materials, and 1 oaring capaait2 of tile sita :iailshiock. Tha p.uapenty i; la aatecl in a 'legion of 1 igI saismicit I. No kna vein aatima on inaatime fault time: are she vein to traverse the subject site based on the 11ublishad data reviewed. From a seismic s haking standpoint, signilicar t potentials ei: mic sou: ices include the: San Andreas fault i al1prarimatelA 3.1 mile: to the s outhwe: t), Sangant fault 1F .1 miles to the s outha a st' , Hayward fault soutl a as t extension (1.14.3 mile s to tlla norlhea st), and Clalamenas fault 11 6.8 miles to the nortl ass t). Clolleatively, tha ]E urroaai fault, Shanno n fault, and Monte \ istafault one Heated under tl a Unillorrr Huitding Code ( riia) as a composite seismic sounca, the M onte NI ista-Shannon ilault, and it lie: within 1.2 n ilas oil the site. i\ OV EMBER , 2010 8 Mn IGATED I\ EGE ITP E DECLAR TIC N — 19 HIIGHLAINL ilI VENUB 11 e 'Down nett fined Cleoma trix [Ions ultant s, Inc., a g eota chnia a 1 consulting firm, 1 o review the PGH sta (y. A copy oil this re view is atiailable fon put lic nevi( vu al thu lawn (lammunity D( rlielopmant Departmc nt. the Geomatrix peen review noted sevara disu:uapanuies betv (en data in the re farenca and the arigjna sa uric es noted, and specili( c I the nee d iron a design -la nel go a to chnia al inve sligatior and 1ina1 a onstructioi plans, nevi w oil these b] I tl e gea to chnia al en Olean, and th( need fa ! obsenvatioi and du aumentat' on by the geote®hr ica aonmultant duriing a on' truation. ]Io 1ieduae pot( ntial geatt chnia al contr aints a n the it 10 less than signifiaant, the folio wing maasun sl all be negliiired: M MHASUI E 7: A design-leiial geot(chniaal investigation and final aonstruanon glans shall. 1 e completed and nevi('wed as spaaified by Cleomatrix, Ina. se( Attaal ment 2 of the Initia 1 tud3l fon detailed is comm( n dationsl . MI11C1A31ION MOrs ITORING: The Building Division of tl e Clammunily Da melopment and Hnginearin g Division oil the Panics and Pelt lic 1A arl s Dapastments will ba raspar aible fon dI suiting that al necommt ndations ape inaorporala(1 info the pnojact design and puiopenly implemented during construction. 7. Gsieenhouse Gases: "Greenhoust gases" Oa calla (I because ol then! Hole in titaggil heat n(am the surf ace oil the earth) emitted by human aatinitJi ape implicated in g lobar climate change, aommonly i ieferra d to as "g lobal warming ." These Ira enhou s e g a se s (tontl ibul e to an increase in tl e temperature of the ( at th's atn ospl (re by iranspana I ay to shor waveleng Ell visible sunlig l t, 1 ut near opacity to outg (ling terrestrial lang wa`ielei g th heat napriincipal gnu(nhouse gases (GHCIs; one aaaibon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone , and wall ! vapor. li ossil duel aansun Rion in the tianspon ation Becton (ion - load motan vehicl( s, of1-highwa]i mobile souncas, and aiic(ia)1) is tl a sing la laiigest source ol GHCI emissions, a acotenting far appioximatt ly hall ol GHIG emissions glut ally. ]Industrial and ®amn e:icial saumes aiie the saaond largt st aantril utoss of CIHG en issians with about ana-fourth of tote emissions. California has passed sa venal bills and tl e Gone rno: i has signed at la a st tl nee executive orders : ieganding gseenl ousa gases. the [la `iel(nos's Office of Planning and Rasa a Bch is in the muss oil develu ging CEIQAI signifhaanee thresl arc s flop GHCI emissions but tl nasholds ham] yet to ha established. CIHICI statutes and axeautime osdens (HQ inclu de AIB 12,3B 1361, ECI S-01-01, HCI 1-20-06 an d RCl S-41-01. All 32 is ape oif'1 ha most si gnillican t pieces of e nviro nmenta l le gisla tion that C laliilonitia has adog tad. /.rnon{ nthepthingc it is (1eslp Tied to maintain Claliilornia's Autation as µ "nattioi ul and internati' al leach]: i on enlisgy con servlatian and anvisonmai tal stewardship." 11 will have wid(-Hanging eflects on Ca ifonnia businesses and lifestyles as wall as far noodling affects on othen stales and aountnias. Al unique aspect of AIH 31, beyon d its. broad and wide-: is nging ni a ndatony 1I novisions and dnani a tic GH CI re ductions ape the shaft time frames within wh'ah it mu: t be implemented. M a jo:u components of the All 31 inalude: ■ Require then anitorir g and negarting of GHCI emissions beginning with sauraes o:u eat(' g arias ol sounael ti at contribute the most to statewide emissions. ■ Requires immediate "early aclion" control pnognams on the most ti adily contlollad GHG sources. • Mandates that by 2020, Clalilorriia's GHCI emissions be re4 uaed to 1990 levels. • Fa tees an olimll neduatian of GIHCI gale; in Ca illosnia 1 y 25 to 40%, hem business as usual, oven tl a ne 11 13 ye a n is (Iby 2020). • Must complement eilfarls'to and ieva and maintain ilederal and state ambient aim qualit3l slat (lards and to radium toxic air contaminants. NovaIMEHR, 7 01a 9 Mil IGATED I` EG < RIVE DECLARJ TION —19 HIM] LAND AVENUE Statewide, the fraimewoikilon developing the implement'nt re'€ ulations far AIB 32 is underway. Addit'anally, through ti a California (llimata Action 12legistry (CICAIR, now ca lee the Cllimate Alction Raserue , general and industia-spocii is p ollocols for assessing and reporting CIHG emission' have 1 aen de`ieiopecl. GHCI sources are cat('gorized into direct source' Ii.e. conigany owned: and indirect aouraes (i.e. na t aompany owned). Direct ;sources include' coral ustion amismic ns $liom on -and off-i oad ma t ile ma urges, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off -site electricity generation and non -company owned mobile sources. Implementation of the prepasad p oject would contribute to long -terns increases in gnoenhouse gases (GHCIs) from direct sounaes ItrafLc increase' and mina secondary fuel cambumtian emissions from spaae heating . Demalopment a acunring as a result ol the grog ased grojact would alma result in othen indirect oparatianal inaraalas in C HG omission' am a result of electricity 1 enervation to meetprojact-related incnaasas in anengy demand. Hleatriaity genana tian in (Ia ifornia is mainly from natural gas -fined power plants. Hawevar, since California impor s al aut 20 to 21% ol its ta gal etaatriiaity ilmainly bona the nonhwestern and southwestern'tates), GHCI omissions associated viith alectricit` € enema t'an could a so ocaun out'ida ol Ca lifornia. Space on water 1 eating, water delivery, wastewa ten puocasming and solid waste disposal also.goneiate CIHG omission'. 91 ort-term CIHG cmis'ians vnauld also be generated by pnojeat-related !tie nsti action Letivities. - Ploject aon'tnuatie n would ganenato exl aunt emissions from off-noad equipment, an -road t'uck'ng, and canstructian woukar commuting traffia during this period, but these emissions ana exl ode(' contribute minima ly to long -term re giona inci ea se' s in CMGs. Na state agency a r tile 1= AAQM[I has ado p ted a ma tllodolog]l ar quantity tive thrash(' id that aan be applied to a specific davelollmenl a r aon'truation puojeat to a`ialuale tha signifiaanca of an individua pre ject's con tribut'an to GEM emission', such as those that eaiistlbn criloria pollutants. llhe adopted HAAQMD Ctuidelines recommend that a p'ojeat's con stl uction- nelated GHCI emissions be quantified and a signifiaanya determination be made in relation to mailing AI 32 CIHG neduall ion goals. Hawevar, tha piopoIed guideline' also quantify iuieen'ng levels foil opeiationa emissians (direct and indirect sources), and fa r 11rolectm tlla t meat all sareening anitenia, pnojeat apeiational emissions are considered 131 the HAACIMD ta have a leis-than-nig nifia ant impact on ill] bal climate change. '➢he adopted HAJIQMH GHCI senaening cniterion ion'int le -family aeIidances is 56 units, and tt e proposed project would 1 a wall 1 elovi tl is criterion. llhenafore, ti pnoject's consti uction-nelatad and operatic nal amis'ians vnould have a lass -than --significant impact an global climate 'hang'. 71 e HAAQMD encourages imglomentatian of construction -related CIHG 'induction st:nalegies wl are feasible, au ch as: using alternative dueled (a.g., biodia sal, eleotrio) aonstruat'an vehicles/equipment, la ual building malaria Is (within 100 miles), and neaycling ol canstruction and da molitia n waste, to reduce aon'truatia n- nelatad GHCI emiasions.'Ahe proposed project would alma 1 e'abject to ti a enisting CIARB regulation (litle 13 of the Claliioi uia (lade of llegulatia us, Sic lion 2481) , which limit' idling oil diesel -fueled ca mini encial ma to r vahicles, and compliance with this r o g ulation wa uld further reduce GHCI emission' as'aaiatad with pnojeat aonatrualion val isle' (compliance with idling limits in required under Mitigat'an Measure :11 in Saation 3, Air Quality . - ViIII ila the lltoga sed nosidanae van t e uequined to comply viitll eneng3i efficiency noquirements oil the Clalifaruia 13 nenty (Ia de (Title 24, Pari 6 of the Clalilorniia Aldministaativa Code), the flown also nevi inas completion oil the OraenPoint Hata el Cho aklimt (pursuant to the lawn's adoption oil naar-tarnu pc Hay necammendatians lhiom the Santa (liana (Iaunly (Iitios Asia aiation Clreen Building Clollabonativa in April 2001), alit ough the Town has nog adopted mating stall dands log *vat(' develapmenl. llhe project appliaanl completed tl a G'eonl ainl Ratad (11 eck ist and tha pi ojeat is estimated ta achieve a Gwen Ploint rait'ng 'aonie o192, which anceaels the minimum (Inaenlloint rating score of 1a points. T1 a,GneenPoint Rlatad N a VEMBER, 2010 _ 10 MITIG2ITEIII.NEGAITIVE DI a LARATICIN — .I I HICIHL.AND AllANIJE Clheaklist aansidars paojeat demi n element: , but aleo cansidera j ea;la ling of aonstructiar waste, aommunity planning (i.e. infill), and material sounca locations (with'zi _`I00 miles ).11 e applicant's Ciraenlloint estimates aro included as Attachment 3 of the Initial Stud;l. lrnplemer tion oil GneanPaint standards ii considered tc re duce the pnojeat's impact to a la as-than-iignifiaant 1ave1 since tl is would 1 aonhistent with the Towr 's adopted GHCI policies. 8. Hazaiidsl and Hasa rdouai Mal eliialsl: 11 e pnojeat site is not included on ai ;I Haaardoua Wafts and Sul stances Sites Iliit. Since tl a aita is uncle' vela led, the potentia for encountering haaardous materiiala during lira 'act aanstIuatian would bo low. Tlharofaro, potent'a public health risks would ba lass than signiilican t. Alccondini to the flog Glatos Geneival Alan, tl a plojeat site is located in a fire holland area. Gen am Plan Fbiiay S.A.2.3 enaounagas design and 'Wing of nevi devalapmentin fine azard a leas to minimize hazards to life and piopartrl, sual as fine graventiva site clesil n, aaaes s,1a ndsaapin it and ! uilding materia s, and use o f liiile sum eision to chi' iqu a s. In addition, the puo ject mull be nequira cl to conIipl;l with the followui i standards aantainacl in the Town '3 Hillside Dar elopmant Standards and Guidelines (January 2004: to mininiiae rime haaands: ■ Building Iodation.' shall ninimize exiiesutie to 14ildfires. ■ A landscape plan shall be l Inovidcc and mill bi i Heiden ad by tl e 2toa in staff' fan cansistanci, with the Aire Departments aiecernmended plant list. 7Ih4i landscape_plan s1 all areate defensil le .apace around the home, and if thane is a fire ladder on to a pnopenty, it shall be eliminaticcl in an duiuircuimentally seniitirie n annex. ■ Ilevelel Iment shall harie adequate j ire aaaea.s. • llh i final/ llandsaapla !Ilan fan th,i llrojeall .shall be subject to review and ail/Irma/ by tA El Santa Clavia County Ilina Dellartnl ant. • A dependable and adequate mialen suldy foal f re protection and sul Illras:sian pluiIlosas, as required by JIha Santa Clara Countj Fine flepartnient, shall be llrouided fan all pnopenties. ■ Rlaten for fi,NI supllnessien shall be availal le and la) eled hafore anyftaniing may I egin. Ilha hillside Development Standards and Cluidelinas a so paovida the lollowin8 recomma ndations or gyidelines faa reducing fine 1 azands: • Development should maid as ea:i subject to severe firm clanger. ,1n oaiden to acl iave to is, delielopraiant should be set back fi on" tl a crest of a hill, not be located on or adjacent to slope.' greater than 30 'lenient, and net be located w iithin densely wooded areas. Ij this is not possible, measures designed to canine tA a highall degree of f rEi iireuentien and jast effeetiue means of evacuation and fire suppression shall bu prioiiided. ZUzc fi el load riii shin a dcfen.ril Ia slimly should! E minim iced I y use of selcativellnuning, to inning and clearing as j(llawi: reniama/ of flammable species and del ri.', removal aj dead, dying on hazel! dots.' trees, mom dead grasses, removal of dead w and f 1m trees and shre it s, and thin tree clowns ldnzaximum aj 11 pencant). )r OVEMUIBER, 2110 MITIGATE]] NEGIArrr\E DECLARP TION,— 19 HIGHLAND IVEVUH ■ . fliseantinwous fi el sc tirces shoula be eneated arc maintained x itA in a c ejensible vane lhrc ugh use a� tA follox ing techi! iqt lam: thin i iegefstian to form a i.saonlinuouiI gratviings c f trees c r shrubs, limb t� eas up fi om the groi uid, and eitabli: h a separation betit can the lox est A nanehes of a free and any t vidersaory .sA rubs. • Landscaping within a defem ible space sic tild be designee witA fine safety in mind. Landscaliiiig in defensil le space should be: fine nesisdent and.draughl tolerant, predominantly loxi-gronling sA nubs . slut gr i it'ndcoi irs (limit shrubs In 30 pare n.t cui'eragel, limited near fti vndations (height and densit] ). Project Consistency. V41Iith neipact to building Ioca tian, the pnollased home site avoids the chest of hills. While mast ol the site has slopes oven 30%, ma st proposed development is loan fed an slopes ol leas tl ar 30%, althougl a port on oil the home is laaated on a slope that exceeds 3090. Pnopased time removal and landscaping will 1 a raviewod 1Ion consistency with E ills. ide Development tandards and Cluk alines by the 'flown 's lanclseope monsultant (with input l iom the Fire Department; during Architeatura and Site 'elk w. To rninimi; e fira ha;! t Ids, the Santa [llama Clounty Aire Department will re quit le an a utoma tie fine sprinkler system in the prapasecl home. Me Fine Departmant will also require that access iload and drivev ay irnpnoilaments meet minimum engine drivev ay turnaround standards, and the pnojeat design will be subjeat to other requirements v hen formal plan review is aompleted 1 y the Hine Department. 9. HydrologN and Villa ter Quality: Elevations on the silo range Isom a higl of about 97 foot (AMSII; at the sa utheast camel! ol the property to a fowl of about 60 fa et at tha nor heasterni carrier of the pt'open y. The site g('nerally c onsists of Navin(' with lavel floodplain area ands t(ep nanth- and south -lacing slopes. An interrrittent stream al annel, tiibuts ry to Los Clatos Chleek, (mosses the center of the pnojmc t site from oast to west, and clischargum sea sonalflaws to a 4-foot wide rectangulaii concrete --lined cl annel imrnudiatehl nortl west of tha piIoject site near Hi gl land 1hianue. AI pmsant, the :I.013-acne pnojec t site is undevelallod, but claw include approximateIN 2,880 s.f. of az ving ton the 1- ig I la nd 1I1 ie nue right-ol-wa:l. Thu propose d de' ialopment o f a re side nce and di ivew ay would coach approximately 10.7°a 01 the site (al a ul 4,569 Kluane fa a t) vnth impervious s urlac es. Access to tl ( proposed resident(' would be available Ilia a 221-loot long dri'tiiewaN covering approximatel3l 3,270 s.f. ,17.2%) of the site . TI a drinie wa31 would I a turfstone and surface water woulc percolate through the ti riitone nathen than drain off tl ( .iurfane of the drileway. Minot from the roof and decks of the proposednesidenae v auld be dines to d to a 1 elow grade drainage system which would drain to three mangy dissipa tars and infiltration lac ations on the propenty for a n-site percolation. Mho increase in on -site imps mious surfaces resulting fnon tile project would not bo expo cted to result in a significant change in downstre a m peat suri ac e flows a r runoff volumes thorn the project site. Zlhe 1 a nta Cllara Valley Wa for District (SCIVWEI I as indicated that the prapasecl re sidencu would not dines 011 affect an y District fa a ilit11 and I a: no s l o cific requirements unless site dnaina g e is dire cted into District facility. The Meg ion al Watar Qua it] Clontnol Hoard iIRWIQCEI) has also reviewed the proposed site plans an cl has indicated that the proposed uesidenua and driveway would be sufficiently distant torn the active channel to a'wicl the ne, d ilor permits from the RWIQC'B. l he Clalilomia Depar ment of ail and (fame (CIDFIG) we a Id regulate aonstruation aati'<iitias w itllin the s tre ambu d char! n el (punsua nt to Fish and Cla me Clode Sections 1601-1607). The applicant has obtained a OVEN t ER, 2016 12 • ,I M ITICV I NEaAITIVE IIECLJ IIZA7IGN —19 HIGHLAND AVEN UE and Game ((IIIFCI] and tecomm( ndalions of this a gneemt n4 (listed in Section 4, Hiola gj cal ]fesou:laes] a s well as mitigation measui es lista cl below would help minimize potell t'al watt r c uality imps cls to a less- tl la n-signifie an l level. Flood Ha; ands. Aca a ri ling 1 o Hede ra 1 Ern e:ug emu Ma nag( melt All e nql (FNMA) Flood lns_ uran co Data Malls los the pnoj( at area, the llnoj( cl site is nat within the 100-year floodplan. the Santa CIla:ua Valley Wlalen.District 's Malls of flood.e a nlra 1 facilities and limits ol one llcacestfloading as wall as the lawn of nos Gates Safet] Hh men Flood Plain maps sl a w the pso ject site does na t lie within a f la od zone. In older to delermin( the affects of perioclia storms on the p:lopoied pnojeat facilities, a1 }Id:uaulic analysis dt linea tin 8 the 2-, :I 0-, and 100-year fla a dplain 1 a undaries was piella red lon the -voila sad pia ja et by Sal aaf & -Whet] lt r (S8I11)4 , consulting emit ngin( ens to the lawn and apiiliaanl (1V arch, 2fl041. The twin] lagicialuation fan the se storm eventsaaledated peak clischar8esfar axist'ng and Igo sl-pm jecl aanditions on the subject pnopert]l using the SCI'I WID llnoaeduries far flood disahange ostima lion far small v a tersheds.11 a floodplai n deline at1 ions and hydraulic analysis iden t'fia s the expected limits oil fla oding foil the tl rue storm a veil is 'and indicates tl la molt appaoprialu location fon the proposed nesidenu e . Hasa d upon the conclusions of the S&W study, t1 e proposed na sidena e wa uld not be affected by the 7 -, 10-, and I0fl-clear flood flows. Hormevan, tl a western and of the 11sopased driveway near Hllghland Avenue would probably entire ach upon the ]00-year floodplain. Afters pnojea l development, the :I00-yeah storan flows v auld aemai n contained v ith'n the neat! ngulaii ae mode -lined channel immadial ehl nortl west of the pnoje at site neap Highland Avenue. lheneilone, na signilicanl fla a d haaaiid imps a ts,vs ould ba an ticipa to d. Vdlaten Qualit3. Ruoject aonstruation would have t1 e potential to degrade loaal v alert quality in the adjacent Riparian till utanII. Due to the Ilnoairnit,l of ti tributary' el annel to the pnojeat construction area, thane v auld be a potent'a I far erosion and downstiean sediments t'a n if soil ma Ielials exposed during project eanstruatian were aeeiclentallp released into the tributary. t ow, mane stringent water quality iiegulatians of the Clean Water Act 1 ave reaently l een triggered because tl a NADHS (Nat.(' nal Pollution Discharge Htimination System; permit Ingram has failed 10 pnoteat beneficial uses of Santa Cllana Clounty's a:ueel s and the South flan Ilrancisco Bay. Evidence includes violations oil and ient watan quality anitania, high as ncentratians of toxia tut stances, and fish cansunlptian health advisories. 71 use nevi nag -illations riequine tha 1 all dischanges shall aomply with Pnovisian C.1, Nevi and F edanelopment performance St ndands of Udell Na. R2--2009-0074 of the NEE ES h e rmi t lira gram. Hoes ever, il ; hould be noted that sin g le -fa mily home projects that a re not a Il a rt of a largel plan of development one spa aifia ally elcluducl (Section (I.3.b.ii (2) Other [level apmcnt Piiojeets). Ai a eandition of pnojeat approval, tile town I as net uirad the Ilrapanation and submittal oil inlenin and final erosion eantral plans to the Engineering Division ol the Paiks and Public V1llonks Department. 10. hand Use and Planning:11 a Hos Cla:los Clem ra Alan designatcs tl e pnojeat situ as "Hillside Residential" and this designation allows far residential uses at densities of zero to ane unit par acne. Since the site is 1.04 acne, the Clenara l Plan could alloy up 10 one single-family residence %Stitt out alone considerations. Even with slope aousiclanations, as implemetlted undar lhe coning Clydinonce , the proposed single-family hesidenae would be v ith'n allowable densities. Tlha Zoning Ondinanae designates the pm,ject site as "Hillside Resident- a1," whiel allows 2.1 to 10 acres par dwelling with a minimum lat siae of 40,000 a quane feat. Since Lila pi oposed sing le -family nesidenae would be located a n a 41,100 sc uane-foot lot, it would be consistent v itll densities allowed by the Zion ing Oiidinanae. lhe plop sed nasidance would step up tl a slope so that il would l e two stories (maximum 1 eight ol 25 feet) at any single location, which would be eansistcnt v it1 Hillside Residential standards. lhe pnojeat tl M IEMAB ER, 20 ] 0 13 M ITI(IATELI I\.E(IATIME E ECU IRAITIc1N — :I 9 HIC ED ANT .F MEN UJ ite is surrounded by existing resider tia: u;Ias. 71he 1 roj c sad sing le -family residential use waulcl be similar tc sun]iounding !ingle ilamily residential uses and, tllenelone, would not pose land u: a compatil ility problems. 1:1. Mineral HHerauncesi: The Las Clalos Qenenalplan does not idantifij any "regionaly on locallll- impontant mineral re sauna: an the project site or in its vicinitl 12. 1` oise.: The Towln Nr1D.O. Oriµlina�,tnc (CI a ptPu 16) monists Can srpwtinti activtt1eto the. hours al R_00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekday' and 9:00 a.m. to 7:001 .m. on weekends and holida;ls. this orclir ance also limits seise 8enenation to 85dBAI at the pnogentl line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction would neault in temporary) rhos -term liaise increaser due 10 the operation of heavl equipment. Canstniction noise 'aurae' range Morn atx ut.82 to 90 dBA at 1 _I feet la: mo: t twer of conitruation eq uigment, and rlig l tly hig hen levels of al aut 9410 97 dHA a t 25 feet ton ce rti lin types oil earthmovin g and impact equipment If noise contnola aie in'taled on ctnitnuation equipment, the noise levels could be reduced 'Io 80 10 81(HMI all 25 sleet, depending on 1Ihe tllpe oil equipment. Alitl controls, communion noise levels aauld be made to comply with the 11011111 Noire Ordinance. Aasidential uras aria genera ly considered to be noire -sensitive uses on sensitive ]:ecuplons. There are single-family residences located on lino] art -es surrounding the project site, and the closest residences are loca ted as close as appranimately : 1( feet northeast of the pra jacl'r.Hord en: p:iapuffy boundary. Al 110 lent, tl a closest dislanae to grading activities, the ordinance noire limit :185 dHA al 1I feat] would result in ma }Iim um noire levels of 72 dE A .at the closest na siden ces to the n ortl . 7a mponary dirturl ar c_ a (a .g ., speeal interfa renal) can oaaun if the noi: e level in the interion of a building enaeecls 4` I to 60 dE AI. To maintain such interior noire levels, elrtariiar liaise level' al the alorast residenaei (with windows closed', should nos emend 701Io 80 (IBA ar d this exterior noise level i! u: ed as a signiilicanae threshold on criterion. Maaimuni construction noire levels would not emend this criterion. it should le nosed that such noise levels would be sporadic rail en than aontinuous in nature because diflLrant types oil "(instruction ac uiprnent would be used tl non ghaul the eons trwithin process. Tl arafare, enloilcament oil lime nestniation' and noise tenet standa:da contained in the Town Noise Ordinance would maintain construction naise level' al accept, ) la levels and spaecl interference effect' would rat t e ealpacied when haavy equipment is apenaied on the pnojeat site, a less-than-signilicant temporally impact. )long-term noire increases a;raelated with the proposed single-family nasidanae would limit from inareasad traffic along the project driveway and residential act timaiie' an the pnojeai site (i.e., operation of alpha rice and maintenance aquipmer t such ar lawnmowlens, l la well, etc.). `Muffle incneascs assoaialed with tile pra jest would be mina n and would not significa ntly on measunabl;l inarease ambient noise levels • in the project vicinity. Noire generated by grojact residentia activities would 1 e'intilar to noise gana::ated bA adjaacnt ou nears 11 residential use' and would not confliat with the existing nasidentia noise envisionnlent in the raighbonhood. 13. 1lopulaiion and Housing: ]Ihe proposed pnoja at would devel( p one singleilamily residenae and, therefore, would no1 result in intensifiaation of "residential uses or significantly inertia! a Ioaal o:: regional populatian. Since the p::oject site it sun oundad by eMsting residential uses, the pro pored driveway and c itansion of Militias would only revile the 1 rogasad pro jcct site. )5Iacass and utilities are currently available to NIsidentia uses immediately adjoining the subject pnopenty. Clon'equantl3i, the pnojeat would not induae new g:owlh. 11he pnojeat site is aurrantlll undeveloped and no existing 1 During units would be displace( by the pnojeat. 14. Public Service': enuices a:e uurnentl)l pravided to the residential development around tl a p::a jest site. 11 e Ilos Clator Paliae Ilepantment and the 9 anta (llama County Ai::a Dapar ment pnovide emengenay NavE.MnnR,1014 14 MTTIW ITEEI NEW ITIVE IIECLJ IRAlICIN —19 H IGHLAINE AV EN IlE and put lia safet31 services in the pre jecl area. Tlhe pre ject vilould not signifIcantbi increase demand fon public services since th's is an in -fill development and serviices are already provided to the sur ounding a:uea. TIN Santa Clam Clounly pine Departn ant has reviewed tl a proposed site plan foal site access and walen supply onhi and will require: installation of an appals ved fine sprinkler s)lstam Isinaa sequined fire - flow is na t a vailal le) in the residence, and aonatruotion oil aaaess toad and drinawaN to met 1 Department fine apparatus aaaess and driveway turisaiiound standards. The Fine Departn ent noted that all identified conditions are nefleated a n cur eni plans. Tl a Hire Department a so indicates that the pnojeat is Ion ed within the del ignale< Wildland-L ri an linteriaae Hine Alicia, and tllereibne, will le subJect to building constnlction and liege talion alearanae requirements_ sgeciiied in the Claliilornia Building C ode (ICI apten 7A and Sealion 70:I)51.3.214). 15. RaMafia ii: llheprepoled adclitic n oil one naside ntial unit wauld incrernern a ly add new population to the anti, and ti e:ieby increase the demand ion recreational services. Tlhis inctemanlal ina:lease would 1 a less than significant given the small size of tile paiojeat, 16. Tiiariag a ii I a tie is and Tii a ffia : Tlhe la wn's Traffic Impact Pa licy (Pm solut-a n 199.1-174) specifi es - that a prdlecl with a traffic impaold 19 on less additional AM or PM gcak I our trips eauld be agproried without a compile] anaive tnalfic aieporl if it is determined that tha benefits oil the Brgject to tl a Town would c ulweigh 11 a impact oil ilium asad tialfia. However, 11 a pnojeat would be sul.jecl to Hayment oil a tlaffia mitigation ilea. the 11nopased single-family residence would Jesuit in a netineraase of 101riips par day, with 1 tfp occurring during the AM peal hour and 1 trip c acilrring during tl a PN peal hour. According to the Town's tiafiic delerminat'an, traffic generated by tl a proposed project would refire a minan iinliact and no additional traffic studies would be sequined. The proposed diivewa]i would 1 a appipnirnately 13fl fa et long and would vary) Liom :13 to 20 led wide. the Sant: Clara County Hie Departrr ent I an ter iewed the proposed site Man jbai acaeis, and determined that it meets tile Department re qui. ements. the lown'a Zoning Ondina nce would mg uire provision of two parking spa ces for tt e psopos ed single- family nesidenea. Tile Fillside Specific Plan (HSP] requijies four additionalspaaes when no on-stnee l parking is a loured. The HSP indicates that the drip away may be audio provide this Banking, eloept where all on a substantial par of the nesidenae la mole than 150 ileatfaom a safe and adequate access Woad. the pnojaat's driveway would be appnoxinsataly 22'1 feet long and therefore, Banking on tt a drivewa;l would not be a la wed. Ti e pnojeat provide: two Bark ng agates witllin the gana ge, and tit] ea farl in • spaces on tl e driveway area dineat1 i in front of tl e proposed garage. Tha lawn permit; tandem parking annangemenu on the p:ioposad driveway and, theneilone, tt e pnojeat would inovide sequined parking - consistenl with the HSII neguinements. C anstruction Impacts. Plb'eet eons truation would ent; it 342 c.y. cf excavation and 188 a.y. of fill, lion.a net axcavation of 114c.y. Hxpart of 114 c.y. of material off-:ite aauld generate ell to 13 truckloads on a - tota of 7i'I one-wa31 truck trips (a ssuming ]I2 c.y. Her haul truck:. Since the Town will piohibil haul meal operations an local noadi between 7 a.m. and 9a.m. as well as 4 p.m. and 6 pan., trunks operations would ocau:i 6.5 howl pea day. Assuming appnoninsately :1 to 2 till aki could 1 a filled pen hour, a total oil 2 to 4 truck trips pen hours on :13 to 24 t uck trips pen da would 1 a geneaated fon aBirviimately 1 to 2 work days. The Town will raquine 11 a apliliaant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works Deliartn ant Hngineuring Inspectoau to devise a trafille conteol plan to ensure safe and efficient tiafi is flow unden - - periods mil an sail is hauled an oil off tl e pso;ect site. This would include, l ut would net be limited to, - provisions fon the developer/owner to plaae construction natifiaation signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, on providing additional traffic central. All trucks hauling soil, 'and, • 1` ovEMBER, 201 a 11 mrrIQArrEII NEC1AITIVE LIE LARATICIN -• 19 UIIGHLANI 1 A\IENUE and other loa:e dabr's will need to be cane ed o] at least tv a fa et oil freeboand mustbe maintained. This iequi: ement Nii11 nocluce potential tnafilic safety haaardn to a less-than-aignifiaanl level. 111. Uliliti's and Service Sysleme: U tilities and services are eminently provide d to resiclantial u: e: on art' es surrounding the pia.ject site. Since this piiojeat would be En in -fill development, no main afil- ite utility improvements would 1 a expected to-1 -a j equi:ied.-- I.11.-utilities (water, sewer, eleatricity, gas, and telephone) v aulcl be extended from existing faailit'as in F ighland Ivenue unde]i the driveway to the llroilc.sed home. Clopies oil the Initial Stu ;I used to make the al ave iecomn andation are on file and availat le ilo i public inspection duriing ]iegular.1 usinass hours a I the 7 own Clommunily Development Department, 110 Halt Main neat, Las Gatos, Claliiornia. Hate �Wendie R. Roon�, Director of Community 1�7evelopment I�OVEMBE1 , 2010 1(1 �T r IAII STUIIN 19 BIG IG 1_ IILA NU A VENUE LO SI GATOsI, CAiinioRIN1A AACIHIlECI IURB 1 IT D 1111E RIHVIHW A HPLICAIT1CII S-013 -(14 SI PRHPAIRIIII FC IR ]IaWNI C IF LCIS CIA TON CI( IN MUI\ ITY DII VEIAPMHN1 DHPAIRTMEN T 11 0 E. MAIN STREET LcIs GAITCI9 , CA 91030 NQ\I EMBER I0 0 PIIEPAIRED BY GE1ER & GBJER CONSULTING, INCI. P.O. HMI 5054 BERKIIIIIIY, CIA 94705-_ 1014 5,H /644-2531 l'hil Pag(i Inteinticinal]ly L efh Ellanld IIOWN OP lios GAITOS C (IMMUNITY UHNIEIIOHMErr T EHNAIPITMElr T Els VIPIONMENIAII CHHCJKDIS1I FORM PJIOJII (IT 1r F(IRMAITION 11110JECIII T11I E: 19 Highlan(I Avenue A l re hitectuna an d Site Iaevie w AIpplication 9-03-049 DEAII]I A(IEI' (IY NAME AND AIIIIRESI: `flown a f L os Gata s (IQ mmunity Ile veloll ni ant De pal tment 1:10HastMainSheet lloa CJatos, CAI 95030 UIIACPER1111 CIWNED: �Ingelo CIrphar 106 Pue,ita DeI 9oI I os Chios, CAI 95010 G ENl 111A ID FUJIN DES Iuf Arm Or : Hillside Uesidential, 0-1 unit/acne PAOJEUT UES(IR1IPIION ARUJECI7 LCICAf17CIr1: 19 High and Aluenue (AIHN: 537-1:1-030: (Ffi�ure 1: C( N 11A IC11 AERSICIT A IND I HC NE NUMBER!: Heathen Hiadley; 403/354-6806 IIWIJE(I11 AIPPLICIA IN1: John Mien, Al!Chita at 196 (la lle ge Alvenue IJos Gatos, CIA 99030 AWING: H R-211 , Hillside Re side ntial done (21/2 to = 0 aches pen dwelling vwiitll a minimum lot size of one aaiie The nra iect applicant is iiecluestina appnoval of a Site and Alrahitectune Re`iiow application ti at would a IIo w ca n struction of a nevi residence with an attached two -car 1 a aia ge anal .04-acne lot. llhe pnoposed aiesidenae vwiauld be 1,345 iquane lent (s.i. and the garage would be 592 cf. Tl e iloolpriint of ti e pnoposed Iesideii(le would be 3,642 s.f., covering appaauximataly 6.1% pencent of the site. V1Iitl the imposed nesidenae, dnivaway, walkway], and deaks, to tat ;iila cove raEe would be 7,449 a.f. or 17.1% of tt a site. Ilhe grajact would entail devalagment of a nesidenae will four 1 ediiooms and due e and a hall baths in the southea:item por ion oil the site.The proposed 1 ame would stag up the slope so tl at it would ba two stories at an:I single Iocation, buil would I ave tl nee levels. Tie lower l level vaonld ba 992 a .f. witt a two - a a iu ganag and a quipme n tls torage :ua om. the ilirst flow would 1 a 2,3:I 0 s.il. with main entry, living room, dining roam, kitcl an, family loons, and guest loom, vil ile the seaand level (1,535 s.f.) wa uld have a study and three 1 a dnooms. TI a p] oposed residence would I a ve a total of 4,437 gloss :II, a n 4,037 g ra s s .f. when taking into acaaunt the 400 s.l. garage anaclit alloivad by the Town. Iioposad plans it ow six anoss=seatians of the house, indicating that the pm poled heigl t of the house would conform to the 25-foot height limit as it extends a ong the natm al gnada of ti e s rte. r 0VEMBER, 2410 1 PROJECI?l LICIQAilION FIGURI ]I Knowles Drive eil HIGIT AFVIIAVANUE )� a JACT SITH IN a SCALE I INITIAL STUTIY —.119 .HICIHLAND Al VENUE Aca e SS -to the re sidenca would le provide d fon Highland Avenue- i Ia priivata sti eet) b}I a na w 15-foa t wide driivawa1l ti at is approximately 110 fact in length. 'the pnoposed driveway r`ia uld a stand panallal to and north of tile misting as CI s ;i drinewa y to the a xistir g re side nce (12:1 Highland) to the as MI east. lie proposed driveway via uld be Joni truated oil parviaus intent] eking paving 'tan A fire truck hammerhead h rnaraund would be militia at tile west end of the imposed driveway (neon Highland Avenue and appnonin ately 7:I feet Midst of the residence), rehile a smaller, l ai king araapullout is proposed on the ;i a u th side oil the pnopa sack drimewa}I just west of ti a proposed neiic enae. SUHROUNE ING LANE USES AND SHTIIri CI 11 piioject site is aampr'sed of a 44,: 1d square -fa at pascal. Tha parcel is located off Higl lard Avenue in solid Las Gatos, just south oil its intend action viit1 Jackson Street. 'llhe 1lnoject site is aurrant13I undeveloped and is ;iarrouncIed by nesidantial denalopment. 11 eye are existing -single-lam ilbl detached residences dimeatly comb an d uphill oil the s ite witl the aka ses t residence (106 Alpine) la aatad as aka s' as 110 sleet r or heast of the Ira Hosecl resick' nee . lheie and no residences di neatIlisouhi of the project site, although tl e drive way Ion the existing residence to the s outha a st (125 1-1 ig bland; is la cats d along the soutl aril margin a f tl e project la t. 11 ere is an_dmisting nasidance 121 I-lighland Avenue to the southeast, mihich has an access aasame nt ilor theirs driiverliay. 11h3 praject's c rivewa}I would extend east from'the existing pavement adge oil Highland Avenue, imniediataly north oil the existing drive wa}I to 25 Highland and approximately 200 seat south oil an a:listing driveway associated with an existing no sidance an Highland Avenue to the west. An unnamed tril utar}I travanses the project site in an east -west c iraction andis loaated nortl of tl a imposed nesidenca. Surrounding nesidenaes are 2+i stor es high. OTHER A GEN( HIS l41HOSE A HPI1OVAIl Is PIIQUIRHD In addition to the TIown, the (Ialifornia Department oil fish and (lame would issue a Stream A ltanatian Agreement. )\ o othen agenaics mould issna permits an approve financing on participation agneementl fon this project. ENVIRONMENTAL FAICTCIHS POTIIN'IIAIIlIIII AFFECTED: 11 e en"iinonrnenta factors aheaked below Miauld be potentially afleatcd by this piioject,.involving at blast one impact tl at is a "Potentially Significant Ini11act" a s indiaated 1 y the checklist on the faIlowin g pages: Alestlletics Agriculture 1 esauraei X Air Quality )1 Biological Rasaunae;i X (lultuiral Ilesaurael X Geology/Soils Haaarc s & l:1 azardous M ate ria Is Hydrology/Water Quality Ilan Use/Planning Mineral Ra souR"a s Noise Population/Housing Eublia Serviaas Mean ation Transportation/Traffic 11t'lit'asiiarviae Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance No1IEMIEH, 2010 3 INrrIf4I �I rU —19 HICIHI AND AIVIINUE DHTHRMItNAITION: (I'TCI BH C ONIPIIE'IIEII BY 1E111 DIM I A GIINCY) On the basis aflthis initial evaluation: I find that the ll nog a s ed pro j e ct CIOULD NO1 have a significant affect an the environment , and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi 1 be prepared. X I find thzlt althaugl the llnog a sect pra jeci aould have a signifIcan t effect on the anvil one eat, Iheie m.ill nol be a significant eft eat in this ease baaause ievision i in the project have 1 aen made by on aggaed 101 y the piojeat pnoponer t. A MIT'IGAITED NEGAIVE DHCII1ARp TIC IN will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MA' have a significant (lflaci on the en' tiro nment, and an EN RC NMEN T AL IMHACT REPORT is required. I find that the praposad pnoject MAY have a "potentially iignjfraant impact" on "potenIia11y signjltaanl unless mitigated" impact on the enidranu' ern , but at least ono effect 1) hss 1 aen adequai413 analyzed in an aarlien doe tinlent punsuani to applicable legal standards, and 2] has bean addressed bymil igaiion measuiet based on the ear4erai alysis as described on attached .41 eets. An HNVI1 ONMF N]IAL IMPACI7 REPORT is sequined, but ilmust analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 fold that a though the proposed piojeat could 1 a ve a signjfiaani dike on the environment, baaause all potentially signjfflaani efkcis 'la) hive been analyzed adequately in an earlier MR on NEGAITIVH DHCILARAT]ION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b' have been avoided on mitigated punsuani to thrhl earlier HIR ar NECATIVE IIECIIIARATIICIN, including revisions on mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing furlhen is required. Wllendie R. Rooney, 1 irector of Communit:)l D velopment EVALUAIIIOI' OF ENVIi1 ONMEN]IAI ImIlACIIS 1 sues: I Z//n Data • Issuaa (and Supportu Ig Iniorrniatian Sources) PateIona llyi Significant Impact 1 otent'allj i 9 ignifiaan Img a , t Unless b it 411.011 I>jcarporite( Less Than 9ignjfiaant Impart Ns kg alit 1. A®sthitias-_.VIbuld.the prajeci:._...... ..-..--_ .. a; Have a substantial a (Iva so erect! an a scenic' virta? X b; Substantially damages cenic t esotu ces, inci ludirlg, but not lim'ted to, tares, rank outarappings, and his -Ionic buildings viithin a slata ,iacnio highway? X c) Sul stanlially daglade tl a existing visual character or quality a fl tile s it e and it s surra undings? X d Clneata anew saunce al substantial light or glare vih'ah - would adversely J. ffeci day on nightl ime views in the areal X Novnainuitf 2010 LI INI LMLST[3IiY— 19 HIGHIJ NEIIIVENUE Tht project site is a via c ded 1 inside site to(a ted a djaat nt to an intermittent di a' n a ge (Manual. Its wooc lec and low c leva tic n within tilt di ainag a wou cl lim t visibility of the site and its vicinity to tile existing nc side ntia driveway the t e x tends along tt e mouthem pnopu rt; boundarf and a few resident es to ti a nerd-. Tha usidunces to ti a nor h are lac ated me stly uphill of the pnojeat mita and scenic vista' ai e ava ilable from the uppers la mei' of these homes, abo ve the exis tin g tree 'anon Ti pnopo'ed home would i a t 1 lock on admersaly aft ect tl use satanic vista'. However, the lower levels of these homes are below tl a irae gamin and the proposed nesidenae would be visible horn these la cations. Project development would reyluina limited gee removal vat am the residence would ba located. Approximately eight mitt e oal and bay trees are pnopasecl to be netained on the north side of the praposa(I resit (Inca and the canopies of tlleia trees would help acuean views oil the residence horn existing residences to the north. 1 hem trees together vaith existing mature Me es on the la wen pot -lions of the djaaent lott to the nerd would appear to have suilfia iently higl cane pies so a s to pnovic a effective `iis ual s tree ring ilon homes Iva r ted a bove. Visual impacts asac ciatad with gcadad .slopes and Detaining walls, and theiu cai sislene`l with the Hillside P evc lapment St; ndandm & Guidalinas (HE S&dG) will be aonmiclened during Atichiteatura and l ite ramie Town st ff has da te➢mined ti a t the projeat's visual afi eats vim uld be consistent with the BIDS &G. (Bradley,1(110; . If c e'ig n chars g es during Ai chill] came a ant Site review alien the extent o f grading on tree removal and Result in new significant impacts, the 1S/MND will need to be na`used. Ti e public will I ave the opportunity to comment on all aspa ats of tl a specific davelopnnenl proposal dutung tl a Anchiteatura and Site review pnoae's. Tl u thane e in visual ahanaaten resulting fiiom pnopa sed grading it evaluated in terms oil the extent oil tree removal (lice Section 4, Biological Resources) mince taco removal would result in a change to views that would ba visible far an eattended period of time, until Ian dseape Nei sufficientlA ma tune. Haweven, ahanpes in tapognapl Jl that nemultfnom pnopasecl g:nrding are considered a tempararJp `usual impact that. is leis than significant beaaume pnemcrnbed neva get tian oceans inane( iately following goading (to addnasa (Iuosion 1 azands) and praliosad aataining wallet (up to six feat high) would be scFeei (Id it am view once ti ey aria aovem d by landscape sic getafot . Conditions wl c ue topographic ahangas would nemult in IaisuaI impacts incluc a creation oil man -mac a cut slopes that aontl r it with nati ra I slopes on higt `risibility oil retaining walls. phase aonditions auie ape( ifiaally addrasmed in tl a H1131&IGI and aomplianue with these ntndeltney to nnniini ie : nth ii uai impactr wiil be malt irud during Aineniiuuture and Site le,iiciw. To avaluate the 1 noject's lla tential visual afleats on tl (I neigl t rhood, the lawn netained CQ nnon Design Chia up (CI CIS to reviews tl e pnojeat (leaign. In brief, cuff 3 do sign review inn Mate( ti at the house is well- de'igned to lit within the unique constra'nti of t1 e mita. Thu only issue vain d by CIDG is the proximity ol tile puopomed house tc the a misting private driveway, whial paavides access to ti e existing house at 1 _`1 Hghlands IImenue. Tha pnopomed house ii located 15 to 24fact it om thin existing dri`iewaA, but singe the drirvaway rise' in elevation as it ascends to ti (I existing uemidenan, the 1 eight of the propasad home diminisha s over the tang th a the propos ed 1 ame. CILIG note s tl at there i ra few, it an`l, de'ig n option' to a melioiiata this condition aaicept to use muted n olors iloa the gum (a.g., not w hite on yellow) to minimia o the apparent mil e of the house. CIDG also notes that use of stone rather than stun ao wou d 1 ra`iide a moue natural apl ('alumae and tie the houma into the site mane. It should be noted that this is a design issue, not an eniuionmantal isnie, and thereiloae, i' not coi sidered any ilurhen in this document. ❑utdoon lighting would ba pre aided on tl a entario r ol the I ame. Pnojaat exterior lighting would not be axpeated to advenmely afi eat nil httime views in the area due to sue( ning provide d by the o xisting tnea cloven and distn nca t etwa en the project and surrounding Hi sidances. In additic n , the 2 oning CIrdint nee N oVEM BED , 2010 5 INITIAL STi1IIlY --19 I -I I1C1HLp11 L AVENUE (IS ea tiara 29.10.0903 51 would prohibit the production ol dineot a r noflea led glans (such al tl at produced by floodligl ts: onto an`I a ilea outside the praject boon darm. - balms (and 9uppartingInto nnationSounaes; Potentially lip -decant Potentially ILInifivant Impact Unless Mtigsilo n Incorporated I lss TI an Sig nil -cant impact No Impact = 4eImpact Resources 2. Agriculture Resources Would the 11roject: a; Cenvcr Brim] Farmland, Unique Harmland, a Ilarm and ol Statewide Importance ]Farmland: , a' shown on the map' prepared punsuar t to the Harmland Mapping and Monitoring HroBram of tl e Ca ifomia Resort] cos Agency, • to non-agrioulta ra use? X b] Conflict mouth axigin g coning lion agricultlival use, an a Willian son AIct contract`? X c; involve other ahanges in the existing enviuonmenl whiol , due to tl eir location ar ma tune, could result in a a nveniia n of Harmland, to non-agriicultunal use? X 'llhe pnojeaI site consists of an undeveloped hillside, gerrenally cove nod with oak woodland vegetation. 71he subject gnog er }I is AOnedloishillside residential u'e. The pnojeat sile's sloping ta pogi aphy limits ils agriiaullural potential. Tharafano, the pnojeat vuould not adversely aitlect any existing agniaultunal resources at tl e:site. Since tl wits is not in a grj aulilunal u'e, the llrojact wank) nol adversely afileat any axistinl a 8riiau itural operations. Issues (and 1uflporting Iniorn ation Sounae') Pateitiall}I Significant Impact Potentially lipniflmant Imp act Unless INitilatian Incorporated I essThan Si1nifiaant Impact Na Impact 3. Air (Iualiry - Waulcl the pnojeat: a; Conflict will' a r absti uct implementation of 11 a applicable aim quality plan? X b] Violate any air qua ity standard a r aontiibute subatar.tially to an auisting on pnojeated ain quality violation! )4 a] Result in a aumulativaly considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant fa n which the pnoja ct region is non- attainmant widen an applicable ledera or slate ambient aiji qualily standard (linaluding releasing amiss isns, which excaed quantitative tl nesholds far a 2 one grecujisona] X d) Hxpose sensitive receptors to subau ntial pollutar t conaenthal ions? X e] [Meat(' objectionable odars affecting a ;rut stantial numbers of people X 7lhe San Hianaisaa Ba}I Anea plir Hain is classified by tl e Hay Anea Air Quality Management Dist iict CAA QME1 a; ran-attainmontfonocaneand inhalaIle parliaulatea (PM10). To a ddress these ea-aeedancas, the B.IPI(JMD, in cooperation with the MTICI and )6IBACI, prapaned tl a /lay,Area 2005 N `IEM1 OR, CH. 6 INIT1ALSTUDY — 1911101-RANI AVENUE Oione Stoats sly (BACIS) in `aptember 2005 and Patticanlate Matters Innplemiantation Sahedaila (PUJSI in Noiiembeii 2009.11 e HAOS is the moil necanlly adogtad regional aii quality plan, vihila the TIME diacuases how the HA./ KIMII implements the [laliilornia Alir Ilesouwices Ha and's ] (1 3 particulata matters con trol ma as ura s. The HAAQMD is cunenlly in Iha Noce Si of preparing the 2009 Baal A) ea C llean A it Alan and adoption is enpeclad sornatime in 20 ]0.'llhe aansis lenay of the proposed prgjacl with tl a molt ecantly adagtad regional airs quality plan, tha BACIS, is determined 1 y comparing the pnojact's con sislcnc]i with the Los Gata s Claneral Plan. Since tl e BACIS is haled on population pnoja ctions of the Association of k ay Alcoa Gavarnmenls ']AHAICI] that ana based on tl a 7own's Clenara Plan in effect at the time 11 a IIACIS was apllralied, ccnsistencN of tlla pnojeat with the Clenaral Plan would indicata consistancy with tlla IIIACIS.11 a pnojeat would ha consistant wilh tha usa and dannitSl allowed on tha prajacl site by the Los Gatas CIOneaal Plan, and tl amueilora, the project would be aanaistenl with the C11. In June 2010, the Hay _Alcoa ltin Quality Mar agament [Iistrfcf(BAIAQMD: adapted naw CHQAI Guiclalines,' whicl spacii y thleaholdi of signiilIicamce lion criiteria air pollutants for I ath construction and operation oil pioposad pnojaats.1lha pra nosed pnoject'a construction and opeeaCanal ernissians ara • estimated to be hulow and compai ed to thaso new HIIAIQMD signiifficancu threal aids. Alccouding to the 'Down Planning Da par ment, tl a puopos ed piojeat would nesult in a nel ti afi is inane a la of 10 dai lj l trips , with 1 AM'leak 1 ours trig and =1 PIM peak hours trip. Miss anrnisnians increases aisoaiated with operation off the gin gamid project would be leis than signillicant sinae the size of the proposed project would col eneead the HAAQMI 's silnifiaanca thrushald levels slot potential significance. Tha HAIAQMD's ai8nifiaanaa thi eahold ion cnileaua pollutant emissions is 325 single-family units for apenational amissions. Alcljacent casidantial uaen au a cansidarad to be sensitive neaeplona. Braga sad goading activities would ganeoate shor -term emi9sions ol criteria gailutants, including suapendad and inhalal la panticulatu matters and equipmunl exhaust umiisions. Under the nevus BAIAIQMD Guidalines, a pnojae'l's aanstruction ernisnic ns arc considered to be Iasi than Significant iH: (1: the projeet's 9iae claea not exec ed the HAAQMD significance thnishold Hon canstrt;ction, which is 114units ibis single -family rasidances ilor this pnojeat; (1) tha BAIAQMD'i Basic Clonsto action Mitigation Maasairas ara implemantud dining constauct'on; and 113; the pnojacl dos not include demolition, aimultaneaus aacunenae oil moue than two acinsl.uction phases, simultaneous cons truclion of mama than ono land use tADa; entensive site nrapanation; on eaita nsiva mato nil l tra nsga rt (mole than 10,000 cubia yards a f soil] .11 e paojea I would meet these criteria so that implementation ol the following measure would aeduae calist] uctian-nelatad criteria pollutants to a leas-than-signiiicani lave': .1. lb limit tha ilrajact's aon.stnuction-melailud dust, aritania palhitant, and pneaursor cimi.usiion:, the follov ling BAAQMD-a econimendad Ilashi Clomstriiation Mitigation Mea sum: shall A a implemented: a. 111 expo: ed sea faces (e.g., parking an as, staging ci leas, soil piles, grac led ameas, and unpaued access lads) shall ba watered two times pc n day. b. f ll A nail trucks trap,spoaiting sail, sand, ar eta cir loose niatea ial off -site shall ba aovarad. c f 11 uisiblu mud an digit traak-out onto adjacent pid ha raids Shall bci niniovad using wetllaxmem vaaaiaim ; tieat .swealleiis at least once pan deal. Me use of dry1IaItivan swimming is llrol iA itc d. d. 111 uehicla sgi eds on unpaved goads .sA all be limited to 15 mill . I 11 ay Area Ali Maw g cruet t Eli strict (BAIAQIv I.)), 2( I(. Cnlijlirfna Enuiaottinetital Quality Act Air Qua lrt,� Guitlelinas. May. N ova ER, 20111 7 INITIWI] STUDY — 19 H1(LHLA1 II AMENUE a. ,All rotadii .i, dnivaw ays, and :uidev talks to 1 e palled shall be at mpletaid as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after! grading unless seeding on sail 1 finders are used. • g• filing times shall be rrainimizad eithem by shutting agluiflmavat off whin not in um oil reducing the maauimum idluag tine to 5 n inutesi (kas aaequired by tA a Calijannia aiaiborne toxins control niaasune Bide 13, lection 7485 of Calijannia Code of laegadatians ICCIRI,I. Clear signage shall be pmovidad 'Or construction x on era as ail cuacess 71a in s. i ll construction egiiipment shall be maintained and proilarlal tuned in aacordanca with mansfactuaaer'si specafications. ill aquipmant sl all 1 e cl ackad by a aemtifed mechanic and daterniiriad Ib ba miming in proper condition pmior to opematian. h. Aost a publicly sign 17 iith she ilalaphone naimbeli and parson to cantac,I at Ilha Lead f genc;l iiagaading dust con plaints. M./Lapendson Shall remand and take corrective action niithin 48 hounds. 7Lhe Ain Di,iitiiict's phone numl er shall also be iiisibla to enaaira complianae iiith appilica.la nag ulationi. tuna' (findJunin rtingI]faimadon Sal Haas) 1otentiall}I Mil natant it Impact Potentially Significant Impact Lintels IVitigaticii Incorporated I ess TI al Significant Impact No Impact 4. Ilia lagical ReseuMces - Would the prgjact: a; Have a substantial adverse effect, aitl ar directly on though ha t itt t modillicatians, an any species identified as a candidata, sensitive, oil spaaial status species in la aal on •egioi al plans, policies, an iieg+ala tuns, an b]i tl a California Department of Fish and (lame al LI.1. Dish ai cl Wildlife Serviica + • X b; Hans a substantial adhiesisa eilfact on anN hip Ian hal itst oil other sensitive natural communi t!I identified in loca on Regional plans, policies, melIsla dons an b!I tl e ( a ifoinia Department of Fish and Qame an II .S. Dish and Wildlife Senviee i -X c; Ha rye a subsar tial a dvetua effect on llede Holly piotecte d wetland.' aII dellined1,ISection 4QcI aftla Clean WlatenAat (including, but not limited to , marsh, vemE1 pool, as astal, eta.) through di: ect nemaval, ililling, hydiologica intennaiption, on other means? X d) Interfana substant- a lly with the ma nement of any native I esidCIA on miglatony fill or 8Naildlife spa aies on with established native Resident on mignatony wildlille aorridons, on impede the use of native wildlille minim/ cites! X e; Conflict with an:i 1a aal paliaie s a is ondina nces pnotect'ng biological resit] urges, srah as a t: ee grasenvatia n policy an ondina] ae? X 0VEMI ER, 2010 8 INITI.dlL STUir1 —19Id IG1ILAI` II AVER TIE Issues (ancl Supgoiting Infoimation leurce u) Pate]itiall}I Siinilicaut Impact Potentially Significant ImpactUnhss Ivitigar'a■ Incorporated _ I essThar Significlnt Impact Na Impact f I Clonflict mutt I tl la provisia ns oil an adopted Habib t Clonaeniation Alan, Is atunal Clommunity Cloniarvation Plan, on other appiroved laaal, regional, otl stoto habits t - e a nse rvia lion plan? . x The sub'lact properly is situated in a nark'w va ley os sicla duainage at between 60 and 100 feet in elevation. An lira ised, meander rin€ i tnea m channel, flowing from a as t to west extends along the m a rt e rn edge of tl a valleTi Hoot. TIN parcel I as a :relatively short but steep bank an the south side, extending downward from Highland Avenue io an apparently h'storicflood torime. The flood terrace varies in width "ram 16 feet to as much as 45 feat between -the toe ol the slope and the south bank of the creek channel. H.1. Hamm & Associates, Ina. prepared a biological canslraints ana ysis for the pooled site in Is ovember 1997; a aopy.ol this nailer is on file at the'los Clatos Caatmuniily Dovelopmant Departrr enl. A reconnaissance -level field survey colas aonduatad on IN avember =l, 1997 to identif}l habitats capable of supporting special -states plants and animals on -site as well as reg ulated 1 abitats. Tha project site is heavily wooded, supporting a dense a antipy of mature native 111015 dominated by California bay (lrl mbiilli lama iaalijarniaa) and coast live oak ((jiieraus aigrijolia). Cltller native tress pro sant on site ale (lalifornia bucl eye V. esculu:a califoainica) an d blue oat iIQuiincu5 doufll i.vii). A cluster of ran -native blue gum fleas (Ez calyi a 51 globule 9) is present al the western end of tt e properly, and a single blue gum is pgiesent at tl a upstream (eastern) end of tile site. Non-native henbaceons species, e.g. periwinkle (I11inca nia jor), daInitiate in the undeestory, particnlarlli an the narth-lasing slope below Highland Avenue. 11 a site does not support any wetland on riparian vegetation, i.e., plant species typically associated with oil nestrieted to aquatic a nvi oa nmen ts. / Ill of the native teas 'facia s pees ant are commonln associated with upland settings and are not dependent an the posenae ol an elevatad ground waters tat Ie. Ti a ctnrly irlentiflarl hive nlant snnries nirl six III inial cnecies tl at al a kunum to na<rnn in the n.nieat vicinity but in I a bital that one not found on 1ha prajacl site. Ike study presents data iled discussions of tl ose species far wul ich: potentially suitable habitail odours an the piojeat site; suulvens wore conducted; or tl e uesa ura e a g enciu s ha ere a rpra ssed pa rtia ular cone ern. Ile tailed discussions aro provided for five plant spaaies that are Lis led b]I tl e state of (lalifornia Native Hlanl Solidly: Santa (liana rod Till t ens (Clarkia aoncinn a siF . autlomia raj , maplu -la aved ahecl a abloom (Sidalaaa rnalaahra ides), we s to re leathenw l a a cl (L ii ca a acidantalis; , Santa Cuuz rn ar za ni to (Ancto:ataphylas andar.onii), and ring tail (p aisanisaz s astutui). Also , six animal species were identilied b]l the study as iledara 1151 o r state lista d as andangare d, tl raatenad, or can dick te speak ., ar a California Species of (lanceen. Al detailed disaussion of ilwo of those speaics, Coal eii's Hawk (Aacipiteai cool arii) and sharp -shinned hawks (f acipitar Atriatu.i), is presented, I ut t} e other fonn species wane presumed absent since them was no suitable} abitat on tl c site foe those speaies. Su !ley results indiaale that althougl the sits stupor s suitable I abitat for a number of species of speaial-status plat is and wildliile, most of these species arc either not likely to ocaur on --site on theirs potential 1 abitat would nol be affoaled. Hlowevor, several if ecios ol hawks and owls (piiotectad under Claliilolalia Irish and Clame Clode lactiou 1101.1) could nest on tl a pJ ojeat site, and could be adve.lsely affaated b}I pea fact aansti action. I\OVEI7BEn,2l10 9 - IN ITIAI STUDY —19 IIIIGHLAIN n AVHN I H The 1997 stt dy was Reviewed and updated by Vlllood Biological Clonaultin.8 IWIHCI] in 2008. '➢his assessment was based an a Reconnaissance-1eva1 site inspeatian of tl e subject ]Inog arty peifarmed on lanuar3 3, 2008, and a no view oil the H.]I. Harven &I Associates newt, tl e imposed site plan, and tiiee imientony plan. Tha WBC assessment also included an evaluation of the pa ential riparian rasowicas on the p. oject site as wall as pra,ject as nsistency with the Cluidelinei and Standards for Land Oda Naar Stnearns,pin and by the Santa Cliaiia Valley Vldlater Aeaauraes Pinto ation (lallaborative QSCIVWRHCI; and adopted 131 the flown in 2007. ]the %IHCI nepost indicates that the 1997 H.11. Har1ley & I Is so oiates analysis of pre ject site's biotin aanstiaints aacmiatel3i described the conditions oil the project site as al served during thetield suniey in 200 8. H ased on a search of the CIalifornia Nattina Diversity Database (CINDDB; and an evaluation oil the subject proper y, no additional analysis loci spacial-sta tu,i species was warranted. The VU®CI assessment also includes an evaluation of the stream channel's potential as habitat fon steel] cad (IOnnorhynchaia mykirs inicleum). Tha anahlsis aoncludas that the slmam course on the sul jacl ptaparttl aould ba considered to pre rude margina I`I suitable hal iti t for steel] cad; hov even, the intorrnittant naluie of the stir]me flows and, mode signifiicant4 the extant of undengsounding of the cl an.nol aonnaating wit! Los Gat s (Track, the potential' fon atedim d suns to accur on the psrrject site is extremely lov . ➢he :ubjeat proper y does not support riparian Beget- tian as dellined by tl e SCV WRPCI. ]The woodland vagetatian on the psopart3 does have an aaological influence on the stream al annel 1 y psa miding wildlille habitat and g water quality. Abe memo oil trees and development within the ripanian zone would thesetore ba ragardacl al having an adverse affect on the stream environment. I-11awever, since no impacts to the creak cl anneI t slow the top of bank would occur, only Iota approvals would 1 e required Jo] this Ilrojact. 1 heRelone, setbacks and compensation los impacts on woodland within the riparian one am at the dis cnetior of the lead agency. Baled on the condition and local context oil the cnsek cl a nnel and rill ai ian hal ilk- t at the Highland A venue psoparty, tl a establishment of a 20-fa a t wide setback between the lop ol ban] and an}I pernanant struatures as proposacl by the project plans is consistent with the (Itiiclelines and Standards for Laiicl Usei Near Streamas wail as stand a: d requirements ol the CUDHG. In addition, establis l ment of a ] 0 -loot wide setback between tl a top ol ban] and paved surfaces is aso consistent witl regional and state guidelines, provided appnopriiatf con tluction and post-eanstructionBesI Management Pluactices (1HMW) are dosigned, implemented and maintained. It should be no tad that tl e project plans were submitted fon neviev and jurisdictional determination to the (lalifornia Dapartn ent of Bill & Game 'IDHIG). 11 e DFICI prepared a draft SIaction 1600 (Clalillornia Ash and Game Cod) agnea ment to a n sure tl a protection of the State's fish an cl wildlife re soure es it the project will Ell stantia ly diver], of struct the natural flow, on cl a nge a r use any material from the 1 ed, cl annel a r ba nk ol a river an stream.'IDta agreemant (included in Attacl ntent 1; lists 20 specific conditions of hermit appnova Ella would 1 e sequined to minimise pnojeat effects on the stream al anneI and habitat lialues assaaiated with the site's 1 ialagical nesources. Although not apart of tl a CEIQPI ramie process, the agreemant could 1 e coni111eted and peymit(s) issued once the CHQP naviiew process has bean completed. Tha C]aIitorniia 1]epartmant of Fish and Genie (CIDFIG) v auld regulate aonstruatian activities within tl e stnea mbed channel (pursuant to Fish and Game (la de Seat a ns 160 ]-1(I071, ensuring implementation o f negluira d pemmit co nditions a nd minimizin l potential v aten quality unit] acts to a Ies:i - than -significant level. NaWIN I ER,201t1 1( INlI AL.4 TUDY - 19 HICIIi11ANU iIVENUE IIre e F e mova lmpa cti . A tI e e suiivey was prepared loll the 'link: ct by 11 a 71a wn' e a one ulting arborist, Arbon Re Kimmel (SIR; , in February 2410. Collies oil this sti cly are an file with the Los Gates Clommuniily Derlelopment Department. 711 e 1IA asscssn en1 pnojeat Oars serve as the basis fo;i the knowing evaluation oil the pro je ct's pa tential a ffea is on teea s at the piopa rty. 711te.111 savoy inventoried a total of 63 trees an the pnojeat silo. Oil these 68 times, (13 are on It a sul jecl p operl y and fide iITneas #41, 49 and fll-f13 are sufficiently close a n the property a djoining the site a s to be i nlln eivable to potential damage dw ing deva la pment [Sea tia n 29.1111.0 995(B', oil the Town's Municipal (lade]. 7 able I resents a summary clesaription of tl a trees inventoried on situ. Table 'I Summary al Tree Inventory NAME TREE HIUN BER(S) ( CUNT % OF 7OTAII_ Blue Eli edam' Blue C i m Eucalyptus Coast Lime aal California Buakaye California Bali Tree alle+I CIal Tc tal 1 3-1, 44 , 8, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 36, 49 , 41, 50, 93, F. 6, lc, 113,12,64-16 45,11 9, 12, 13, 1E-1•0,. 4,2E,31,31, 14, 31, 37-19, 41, 41, 46, 47, '4,55,57,18,E 1,63,61,61 11, 23, 27, 30, 33, 43, 41, 52 1 6 22 2 29 1 9 32 3 43 8 12 E8 110 Source_ Arbar Resauraes, 2010. Oil the 61 tna al gotentially affea ied b:1 tl a project, 29 teae:i (141 TO ("Drees #3-3, 12, II , 15-17, 19, 21, 7 , 7d-'7R, 3Q 3.1-4416n-69 64 and 68) would ha. rarnnyer nr ann it Pmed a locv as a nng13lt nil p.nirtct implemmn lation. '➢nee; in direct aonfliat with pnojeat plan; include the hollowing 20: #3, 4, 17 , 13, 15-17, 19, 24-27, 31-4t1, 60, 61, 64 and 61. In addition to the e, there are ar addition Rule b ees p1 oposed Joe removal: #1-7, 7 8 and (17 . oil these 21 Ineos, lime #71 is hi gl 1J1 worthy oil netentian; howeuee, its retention does not ; eem lea sible as Ina _ion design: taut; is is vat id be nacos! miry 10 aal ieve a minimum setback of all leas t nine le n t finial its ti u nk. TI ere ale an additional faur traa,i planned foil relenCon (limes #11, 21, 22 and 30) lhal via uld be ; ubjectacl Io sa mere irnpa cts from ; ite pieparatian and leading . '1'1 is wa uld se: ult in tl eiiu piematurm decline and instal ilit`I, resultini in a ; aria us sal ely concern to parson; and prapert) below. Ti a AF study nacommenels that trees All and 4(1 also 1 e ; aheduled ibis removal. Tnea #10 is a sill all, dying coast live oak v+ itl a bunk diamelen oil semen incl us. Tnea #46 is a modarale-siaed bay Irae (mulfple lrunki of 11 and 8 inahe; in diammtar) witl Toot not and intarnial decay, a situation tl a I can result in the entire trae flailing. The puoject'; praposad underground utility teenah would aonflicl viitl four la 11 a oaks loca led on II a neighboring me: tarn praper y. ilo avoid jaopandizing tlla se traes, tl e ; action of line beneath the canopies N ovEMBER, 2910 11 INITIAL ST1 L Y — 19 F IIGHLAIN11 ANENT E must be directiona l]i bored by at 'east four feel bola grade. Additiona reaommendalions aiie pliovide(1 I glow. Section 29.111.0985 oh the Town Code 'equities mitigation ion the ranlavai ol twos unless "the ldeti is dead on a hazardous aondition enlists...." Subsequently, mitigation is necessar] to compensate for tile loss oil all ternoved ties aaicelll ion 10 (Inaa'ly dear I , 28 (dead) and 46 Qextensive decay.. AR a so neaommencIs ti la t mitigation a pply to ti ees that would be imputed a nd p'edis poi ad to pmema to re decline and instability. The Town will Acquit a imllle menta tea n of the hollowing rneas me to I edua a impacts a n trees to be detained, and adequatel,l r('plaaa trees to be narnoved: :I.- 14 ith tview and approval by to a Town, all reaommiendallions made by Arl or Ideaouraea (Fed i uamy _I5, 1110) will be implenien;led to eliminate ar minimiza conetrrtctian-'elated impacts on the tries it ba retained. 1 eaommendation. are listed tinders Section 5.0, Aeeammf ndations, of the aaiborial'. neportl. These inulnde raconimendatians under to a Design Cluideline.9 aaction c iddrisaing trca nelention and relocation, soil diaturl ante, mulching, trenching, drainage facilities, and installation of new times. ?Ilhe nepoltt also l rniidea recommendations foal P1 oileetian Measnree bifare and curing dtilielollnienil, anaomd assing fencing, ramol al cf hardsaape, aemoli lion, murk within wee (lanai ie.i, etc. The nepoti,l's rtece mmendations w e included tie A ttachment 1. Issues (and'. upga rting lnfasmatia n Salmi's) Pei nt'all' I Significant Impact Potentially 5 ignielca nt Inlaaat Unless Mitigar on Incorporated Less Ti a n `liinift a t Impact No Impact 5. Culil ural Ile so mites - Would tile pi ojea t: a; Ca use a substar lial adile:lse ahang a in the significar ce of a• hi! toriaalme! ou:ceasdefin('din I'Ill 645? X b] Cause a rut star tia adverse change in the significance ol an aruhaeological rasoruiee punsuatit to 1'146c1.5? A c; Direct :i ar inc ire ctly destroy a unique paleontological mesa urce on site of unique geolog is faatui el A d) Disturb any human re mains, including those intenied outside olllounal cemeteries? )1 Jibe groject site in undevelaged will little to no surface disilujibanae. `llhe proposed c riveway and nesidenae vliauld be located in undistr nbed meas. 'here is typiaaIly a higl ('r potential ion enaounteriing arahaeahigical nesouiices in area; adjaaenl to a river an arc ek. Although the extent of surface distu: t anal at tl a ,lit(' would I e minimal and potential fo: encauntening cultural msoure('s during Brojecl construction would be loud due to its llelativaly sleep topography and 11 e intermittent nalu'e oh this tributar]i, ti e pa to ntial ion sus h :uc Il a urges cannot be cl a mpletel l eliminated due to tha site's pmoximily to a nipariau tnibutarly. The nefone, tl a following initiation measures will be raquimed: 3. In the event tl at aril aeologiaal tracee ara eneaaintened, all eonstnuctit n within a 50-meter nadiue of the find will be halter, the Cbmimunity IIevelopmentDiracloa will bd notified, and an aral.aeologiat will l e rt Wined to axamtine iihe find and nue a apolnopniate nett ninaelidatiens. rOVEN I ER,201( 12 INITIAL STUII'I — 19 HIGHIIANL] IIVENUE �I- if human remains ails di.aaovdrad, the Santa Cllaaa Cat city Canoner will be notified. The Coroner mill determine 17 hether an not the remains are Nativa A meuiaan. If the Cbroneal determines that to a aieraiains ane not subject to his authority, he will notify the Natiiie A menican Heritage C larnrnission, who shall attempt to identif desaendants oj the deeeased Natilie Amenicand. 5. .k the Community Llevalapment Diraator j-nds that to a arahaealagiaal find hi nod a.ignif cant ale: aurae, -PIETA will resume only aften the a ubmittal aj a prelinlinar] arahaeala8iaal uaAort and afteai pnovision.li jar nebauiial and ongoing niani lorinil era accepted. Araliisiona foal identifying descendants oj a cleceased Niriie A minicar and foal rail urial -mill pilaw the Arai —mot . e l forth in CIB QA Guidalinas Sicilian 1541I4.5(eJ. If the ; ite is found to ba a sig nifiaant aaiahaaalagical site, a niitigatie n program mill l e pnepaned and . iibmitted to toe Ca rnmunitj Development Director far annsideratioci and apjiroiial, in conjarmance with the pnotoeol set ja rth in Aublic Ra.ounces Cade Siouan 2.108.1.2. 6. A final uepo) shall be prepared when a f 'nd is da !ermined to A e a signif cant archaeological site, and/or when Nativa American uemains are found an the site. 71he final report a ill include baakgnound injanmatian on the aomplated a ark, a desariptian and list aj identified nedourae., the dispo;iitian and auratian of these rasatiraes, any testing, othen recauerad information, and antic/anions. Issues (and SupgaitingIiformation 9 cum ,i) Patintialhl S4nificant Impact Potentially igrillcant . Impact Unless Mitipti.n Incorporated Less Thai sianif.ant Impact N. Impact 6. Gel It g y and Soils - Wlould the pra,ject (impala people or atnuaMlle. to potential sul stantial adverse ef1eats, inaludiiil the ri: k ol Toss , injury, a r (le ath involving : a) Rupture of a knorni n ea etl quake fault, as delina a ted on the mo: t Ewan' Alqui:-Psiolo Bat thqua ke Molt 7Ioning M all issued by the State Geologi; tfoin the area anbasod on otheii substantial evidence of a known lank? Helen to Divi; iou ol Mines and Claolon 9gacial Pdblication 4: . - X . b) strong seismic Around s1 aking? c) Seismic -related ground lailune, including liquefaction? ) d) Landslid(Is? )1 e; Result in substantial soil anosion on the Iasi of topsoil? f, Ile 1o4a1 ed on a gaalogic unit an s oil that is unit ble, on that would beau me unsi able as a llesult of the 'molest, and potantially result in on- on off -site landslide, lateral spraading, subs idenae, liquefaction on aa!lapse ? gJ Be locale(' an expan; ive soil, as de ined in Tat le 18-1-B oil the Linda rm Building Clods (19 9 41 , cheating substantial irks to little on proparly? )1 hJ Elava soils incapable af a dequa tely supporting the use of septic tart s on alto iinative wiastawatai disposal systanis when sewer a se not availat la for tl a dug asal af +Alai to water? X N OVEN HER, 20111 13 i1tI1IAIJ TUIY—I IHICIHI..JNDAIVENUEI A neiiiaw of the Town'! ham_ ds maps' indiaales that this prq'ecl site ha s a high ahrirll-me 1111otential, very lovii potential fon liqutfaation, moderate potantial for faull auptule (located immediately south oil an area mapped al "con aenttation of aosaismid gust nd deformation" , low potential for see is mic shak'ng, moditmata polent'a far erasion hazards, moderate 10 high potential fon ,nape stability haaardm, end no debnim Bolls haza ds. 71 a pio-ect mile is tl averted in an earl -ewes t dine clion b,l ar unnamed tributary, with the she comp: iced af a noiith-facing slope south af this t ibutary anil a s auth-faaing slope north of this tributary. Site slopes to the nonih oil tho, meal. are mostly oven 30 io, III 1 Da the a raa aloe € -Ilhe southern gno'ect boundar}II iIsoulh oil the cnaek: are a so oval 30%. 11 a proposed driveway and nor hem portion oil the home Mould be laaaled ou slapem of le ss then 30%, while tha soufilenn portion of the home would be located an slopes olio- 30%. 11 a pnoposad grading plan indicates cut on aaicavatian to depths of 1 to 3 fa et. lhene ould be a total cut of 342 cut is yards and ta ta fill af 118 cubic Blau ds, resulting in tl a need to easgart appioximataly 154 cubic yards of material. Aacific Cleoteahr ical Engineering 1IPGU1) aonduated a geologic iaasibility evaluatian of the pisojeat site and pnesentad the nesultm of tl a analysis in a neiart dated March 9, 2004.3 A a opy oil this repor is available ibis public raInk! w at tl a lawn Clommunity De velopmant Dapartment. Tlhe PCIE a iaivatian connisled af a gealagicineca'mains anae as wall an a :ievievi of regional geologic miaps and aenial photos of the site vicinity. AI pleliminary soil investigation Haan gra pared in 1977 by Bete:i E. Monl as Rant of a four - pawn' subdivision off Alpine Avenue, whia 1 included a boning drilled near the wenlem vita boundary. f CIE nate' tl e:ie would be a law polo r tial far Iandmlidii it ta affect tl a mite and a low potential fon tl e prapasad p iojecl to induce Iandsliding at the site baSol d on aneview of available infarmation. PUT s review of at r aI photos and published mapslneporls did not :aaveal the pneaenae oll any active 01 poilentially active fa ults a t tl e s its. IIGH's pneliminary conclusion in that the gmound rupture haaand in low a t tile silo, but theme is a low la moderate pia bability tha t mic los(' z le sloughing of the Iwo -foot high areek ba could occurs during an eanthguake avent. BOB mites that a mite-spaaifia geatochniaal invasligation (inaluding subsurface exploitation) will ba raquined ion full confirrniation ol ihm preliminary canclumians and development ol design-leval gleoteahnical cri terra including) expansive soil maNiemen t, sattlament, soil a:ieep,1 iah gnaundvaale i, depth ta sup) artive materials, and bearing a apa a ity oil the site 1oilsbiock. This prapenty is la caw! in a region af I ugh seismicity. I` o known act fie on inaaffault bases are shown ta tnaueissa tl a subject site based on the published data nomiewed. liiom a leis niia 11 aking slandgaint, significant pa tential seismic Bounces include the: San And. lean fault (lap) roxin a tely 3.11 miles ta the aoulhwest), Sat pint faull (8.1 miles to ilhe moulheast), Ha3iwand fault southaant extension (14.1 miles to ti a nor heart), and Clalaveial fault (16.8 miles to the northeast). Clolleatiuely, tha Bemiocal fault, Shannon fault, and Monte 'U ista fault o ne treated undan iha Unifo: im Building) Coda a] MCI) an a comp a site leis mic Bounce, tl e Monte N ista-Shamion fau11, and it lies within 1.2 miles oll the rile. 'llhe Town retained Geonsatrim Clonnultants, Inc., a geoleahnicaI consulting firms, to :iavievi the BGH study.`' I1 aopy of This review is available fon pul lie review at the 'flown Clommunit}I Development 2 Nolan Alssa aiatas, 1999. L aafil Erasion Potential Map, SA Wink-Swall Potential of Sa ila, lop,. Stability Hazard Map, D abaci Flaw 1ia3o rd Map, Liquefies tie n fya land &lies M all, Saismiia SA aA ing ]yawn reit Map, Geologic Map, Fat* Rupti ire Aaza ad Zdna,i Mai for 11 Tam af14.GatasGoiiemalPion Update. Marc] 20 1599. 311aaifia Gil atocl niaal Engineering, 2004. Gea logic Feasibility Evaluation (Geolagia 1etterRapaat),Iv arch 9, 2004. Goomatrix, Ina., I0Ii 6. P.car RIview -- Game] Judo l JJuastigation and Plat, , Goa lagia Feo.7iA ility Eualiiation (Geologic Letter Report), Proposad Single Fancily hashlencd, 19 Higi land Amanda, Loa Gatos, Califs; inia. Alpn 1 6, 20 0(1. 1` o V 1 NIa ER, 20111 14 INITIAL ;1uI:11 — ] 9 HIC IHU ND A VHNUE .Deg artmenl.'Ime Cleomatrix peen nevi( vs' noted s( ne uat discuepanaies between c a ta in tilt reference and the origina <ounaes noted, and sl ecified the need for a design -level geoteahnica investigation an final construction plan s, memow of thes( by the gtoleehnica1 engineor, and the neoc far al senvalion and documentation 1 y the g(atecht ical aoniultant during a on' truatian. Ta re duce potential geote(1 nical cons tl ai nts an the site to 14 ss than s igniifican t, tt a hollowing me aaune El all be rc quire d: 7. A dasigr -loner goo IecA niaal imiastigatian and fincul aon,iti uctia f plans shall d a coragllateci and neliieji iad ar speced d y Gaomatii b, Inc. (iee Ar11auA ment 7 jar dcitaiilad aiecarnmendci tia nsJ. Issues (and Sugportin 1 lni am z tie it Son tees) I otentiallll 9isniriant Impact Potentially :Iigniliaant Imps at Unless Will ation Incorporated Lass TI a 9ia nilcait Impact Nc Impact 7. Greenhouse Gases - Wou (I tl e project: a) Clenerata grleenl ouse gas emissions, eithe:u dire ctly on inch( ctly, that may ha me a sigmlican I impact on the. a nvi: ionment, 1 ased on any al pliaable thres1 old of signii ican eel NI b; Clanf is t with any appli( able plan , policy o:i re gulatioli of ar agency adopted fon the purpose oil re dais' g the emissions of greenhouse gases? A 'GHeenhouse gases" (sa ca led because oil theirs mole in trapping heat near 11 o murfaoo oil the aar I) omitted by human activit'I ale implicated in glaba1 climate cl ange, aommonly nela1Tcd to as "global wlaHming." TI use g is enha use g as o s a ontl ibute to an inane a se in the to mperatume of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to shod vim velaI th visit le sunlight, but naa:i opaait3I to outgoing terreatrial long vuavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases IIGHCI5; me aaaibon dioulic e, methane, nitrous oxide, oaone, and Neaten val or. Fla sill fuel consumption in he ti anspor ation sector (on-'loadmatan vehicles, off - I ighwa`I mobile soullces, and aiucnaft; is the single largest sour( e of GE IGI emissions, accounting for approximately hall ol GE IQ en is lions giol ally. Industrial and aommercia1 soma es are the second largest contr..butois of CIHG omissions with al aut one-iloujith oil total emissions. Ua Amnia I a s 11 aimed seva ra bills and the Clovernon has signed a t least thrlee exe( utile orders no g a :Ic ing greenhouse gases. The Governor's Offic e ol Ravin E and laeseaicl is in the p:iaeels oil developing C]HQA signil icanae thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds 1 a ve f rat to be o sta l lis he c . GIHG statutes and eau'eutive arclans (1910; incluc o Al] 32, SH 1368, HO S-03-Q5, HO S-2041(I and EO S-01-07. AI 33 is one oil the most Jig nific ant pieces oil enviiionmental legislation ti at California 1 as adopted. Among otheu things, it is desigma d to maintain Ca ifornia reputation al a "national arc interinational leader an eranwi aonsarviation a nd minion rnental stewardship." It ++ill have wide -Hanging effacis on C]alilo(rria businesses and lii estyles as well as Ilan neaahing eJtlects on other states and countries. A unique aspect ol AH 32, beyond itr bioad and wide -Hanging mandatory provisions and dramatic CIHG Ned('ations a se the shun time llamas vrith'n which it nl u st ba impleme sited. M ajos cone I onents of the ! H 32 include: • Hequire tl a monitoring and : ieponting of GE G ern is Sion s beginning with sources os ca to goriea of sou' ices that a ontt ibui a tho most to state wide emissions. • laequines immediate "early action" eant al p:is grams an ti e most readily aontsaIle d GE CI sour( as. • Mandates that by 3a20, Clalifarnia's CIEIG ern islie ns ba reduced to 1990 levels. t\°VEMEER, 2It0 15 INITIAI STUDY — l9 HIGIILAND AVENUE ▪ llbnces an ova: all neduation of GHCI gases in Clalilornia by 1910 40%, iiom brain CIS as usual, over the next 13 runs (by 1020). - ▪ Musi complement efforts 10 act iave and maintain federal and state an bient air qua ity standards and 10 tieduee Toxic air contaminant". Statewide, the flame work Bon developing the implementing rag ulations for Ali 31 is underway. AlcIda' anally, through t1 a (Ia ifornia Cliimate Action R egistr-y. (CICAIRI, now ca lad the Climate Alction h a soma), g enena and ins lustuy-speaifia protocols for a memSing and reporting JHG emission' 1 ave 1 aen da`ieloped. GHCI sources are catagorioed into direct lauraes (i.a. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not aompan i awned). Llira ct sources include combustion emissions tom on-ancl off -road rnal ila sources, and lugitiva emissions. lndi:iect souicas inchicla off -site cleat] icily gane_iation and non-colpary ommad mobile sources. lmplemantation oil the grapused p: a,jectould contribute to long-taiim increases in gneanhouse gases (GHOs) from dinact sa uoaes (traffic ina.ra aces and minor meccas dat y fuel ca mbustion emissions front space heating). Development aacunring as a result oil the proposed pnojaail would also result in athet indu ect opanat anal increases in CIHG omissions as a rasuit of ale ctricity gene]alion to me el ptojea I-nalaled increasas in onantgy demand. Hlectricity generatian in-Calilornia is mainl;l from natural gas -filed power plants. However, since California Mill aits about 20 to 259t of its tota electricity (mainly ii om the northwealern and soutl wesletn states), CIHG omissions associatad with electricity 3anelation could a so occur autsida of Oath omia. Space ar water 1 eating, wate:i delivery, wasiewata:i pro aessinl and solid waste disposal also germ ate CIHG emissions. 9 hart -terms GHICI emissions via uld also be 3anemia d by project-t elated construction activities. Project a a nstt uction would II a nenal e exhaust omissions from offaioad equilltn ent, on a oa d trucking , and construction wonken aammuting traffic during this period, I ut the e emissions are axpeated to contribute minima l i to long-term nu gj onal in a: ceases in CIHIGi. No state agen ay on tl e HAAQM D 1 as adopted a methadology or quantitat.ve threshold tl at can be applied to a speaifia demelollmenl of construction pttojeat 'to evaluate the significance of an individual fire jest'" aontribution to GM emisaia ns, such as those that exit 1 for criteria ll a llutants . 'Ilhe a dopla d HAIAQMD Cluidelino s neaommend that a pi oject' l constnl ction- uclated CIH(I emissions be quantified and a significance determinat-an be made in relation to meeting AH 32-CI1-1ICI i eduction goals. However, the imposed guidelines also quantify careening levels far operational emissions (direcl and indirect sources), and fon pnojeets that n eel all scnaening aril eria, project operational emissions ate eonsiderad by tl a HAIAQMD to have a lass-tl an -significant impaat on global climate change. - 71 a adopted HAIAQMD C1HG scneenin€ cite] ion ilot sing la -fan ihl ncsidunces ie f16 units, and the pnaposed project vw ould be well bolaw this criterion. ilheneilone, the gra jeers construction -related and openationa emissions would have a less -than -significant impact ontl labal elan ale change. The HAIAIQMD encourages impla ni a ntation of aorta truatian-rela'Led [IHIQ,reduction strategies where faasible, such as: using a temative foaled (e.g., biodiesel, alactric) construction vehicles/equipment, local building materials (within 100 nines), and recycling of construction and demolition watt], to tieduae canstruction- related CMG emissions. TI e pnoposcd pi ojeet would also ba subjaat to the exist'ng CAIRIH nag ulation (Title :I of the Ca ifomia Code of Regulations, Section 344 5), which limits idling oldie sol-lueled commercial mote vehialea, and aamplianae with this 1 egulation would further' neduae [IHIG emissions a;sociated viith pnojoct canstt uction vehicles (contplianca, with idling limits is nequin.,d under Mitigation Ma a suns l f in 9 action 3 , Ain Quality). N0VEMBE},2410 - 16 1141'1IAL STUDY — 119 HIi1HI..PI I1 D AVENUE Wh"la the proposed residence v fill be leg uira cl 1 o coni p ly with en a igy eflicier y tap hid ni e nts of the C la life aria En a: i€ y C la cle (7itla 24, Part (I of tl la California Adminis tra tive Clode), the 7a van also repine] completion of the ClraenPoint Plata C Il ecklist (pursuant to the 'owl 's adolltian.of near -fermi polic1l necarurnendatians flom the Sanla Cllara Clounty Clilies Associa lien Glean Building Calla baralhie in �Ipril 2008), a tl ough the Tavim has not adopted ratin€ stl ndaiidi fan private de`aelopmanl.11 a p]ioject a pplicant completed the GjieanPaint Ratad ['beak ist and the psojet 1 is astimatad to aahieva a Clnacnlloint :eating sa o: ie ol 92, vnhich Uwe(' ds the minimum Clreanlloint slating sea to of 50 points . The Clni a nPoinl Ra ted Cl ecklist cons idea' pre fact design alemants, but a so considers ycling of aonstruation waste, comma ni t y plan in g (Lc . ill ill), and ma te] ial sa ura e locations (within 500 mile s). The a pplicant's GneanPoint estimates are included as Attachn ant 3. lmplan entation of ClrcenPoiit standards is cons idena d to ra duce the pnoja at' s imp a el to a les s-than-sig nifia ant la eel since this would be ca n sitte nt with the Ta ven's adopted CIHG pa licies. Is auei (ar d Supporting In11onnat tior Soullcil s) I4tentiill]i siinil leant Impact Pc ten tially lip ifliant Input Unless Mitig ltian Incorporated • Less 7ha. Significant Impact Ni Impact 8. HIa zandsi and Haig ndous M ailenia Is - Wlauld the pnojaat: a) Clneata a sig nifit ant hazard to tl e public or t1 a ensiinonment draw h the noutinc trana'art, use, oaf dii11 a sal a f l alandous materials ? X b) Clraate a sign Hi( alit hazard to the public an the environment it rail gh seasonal lyfail se(Iable upset and accident conditions involving tl e release oil hazardous materials into 1.1 a enema n re ant? X a) Emit hazardous emissions on handle hazardous oaf aautaly 1 azardaus materials, substances, oaf waste vuitl in one - quarter mile oil an existing one proposed school? )1 d) Ha loca ted on a site which is included on a lilt e f 1 a za nda us ma I erials sites compiled pursuant to Clovernmen t (lode Suction t1:1962.5 and, as a result, Ilia mid it (mate a significant hazard to the pal lea on the a nvi: iontnent? • e) Poi agrajectloaated mutt in an airport land usa plat or, whew such.a plant as nut been adaptad, within twio miles of a public airport aliput lia use airlpari, would the projeat 'result in a safety halt rd fa n Ha opla residing a n vnorking in tha project aBaal A fI Far a piuojeat within the fait inity ol a priva to ailutrip, vnould the pnojeat nasult in a safat;l haaand lot people residing a n imark'ng in the project anew? X g; lmpai■ implemantation of an pl ysiaally inter elle.siiitl an adopted amergeray lei [Ionia plan on er:neugenay e, If cuat'an plan? X h) EAposa pea llla Gartman nes to a significant Risk af loss, injury on death inval'aitg wildtand liras, including viihara vaildlands are adjacanl to urban Lied areas ar vnhete residences ate intermixed with wiildlands? X � ovniv BEI] , 2610 17 IN ITIAL STUDY —19 HIS ND AIVENUE ➢he pnojaat siia is not included on any Haaandons Wastes and Submtances Sites Mist.' Since the site is undavelopa cI, the pots ntiai fo i encountering haeandoua materia s dulling pnojec t construction rliou d be low. Therafana, potential public haalth risks would be less thar signitiaanl. Ilaconding to the Los Gatos General PIIan, the pnojaat sits is locate d in a fine hazard al lea. Clenenal Plan f olicy 91.P.2.3 encourag em deaigq and siting of new development in line haaand a raaa ta minimize ha zards to Lille an d paper y, much as fire pievent've site design, aacess, landmaaping and building maienialm, and - ume ollfire supllnaslian tecl nic ues. In addition, tl a piiojeat will be Required to comply with the following atandardi contt road in theTown's Hillside Ill avelopntent Standards acl Guidelines (January 3a(141 ta minimize fina 1 a zards: • Minding iilding locaalions sA all minimise eJ pose ire tci wildfires. • A landscailie plan shall be llronided and will ba n Mien lad by toe Town s ilafj j oai cons istancy x iith the Fine III aaitnienll's neaammended plant list. Ma landscape plan shall era ate dejansid la space astound ihe harms, and ij share is a fire ladder on the 'Amalie) ty, it shall be elintina;led in an eniiinonrnentally satnsitiva manna n. • Denielopma nt shall hew adequate fine access. • Ti e final Landscape Plan for tA a Artifact shall be subject to nniiem and apllnoiial by that .11anta Clara Clountj Fine DiI artnl era. • A dapendal la and adh quasi waif n .anlltlly j oat fire'rot-dation and suppriessian purllasaas, as ra quiratd by tl a Santa Cllara Clountj Fine L enamor ens, shall ba llronided jor all prapeslie.i. • Water jori fin sulll Inessian shall A e availed le and lad sled A c fore any fr aminl may begin. 71 e Hillside Development 9ta ndands and. Csuidelines also provide the following racommendationm or • guidelines Ioii lieducing fire 1 azarcls: ▪ Devi lapmluit should alIoid areas siiA,ject to LIelurn fire dangen. In orcler to achieve this, de-naloprnant • should A a sat back fr ornl tl e crtest of a hill, not A a located on or adjacc nt ;Io .alalles greater to an 30 percent, and riot be located i ii Thin densel:I wooded area.a. Ij tA is is no.l poi siblal, mea.iuras designed to assatral tA e highesa dairea of fiaie prevention and fast effective rr E arts of evacuation and f re suppntession shall be llronided. • Ma fuel load within a d ijan.i ible .apace should A E minin iced Ay use of sE leatiAie pruning, thinning and alea;iing as jullanki: neniaval of flanirnable spliaie.a and del ri.a, nenioval aj dead, dying or hazardous tried., maxi daacl graI.1 s, removal of dead i iatod frani trae.a and sA nubs, and to in mea clown.' (maximum el 35peatoant). • L iscantinzious fuel saztncas shoaild A e ciieatad and rnaintained 11 iitA in a di jansiA la space thorough use aj to a following techniques: thin negatatian to fora discontinuous granipings of !riles ar shrills, limb nee,' up from the ground, and establisl a .i eparation betrf een to a lox lest branches of a iIreie and any ainderstor)I shrubs. • Landscaping within a defensible space shaailcl be designed with jire safetj in mind. LIandscalling in dafen.aiA hi space should be: j nci resistant nand draught tolemant, pnedoniirtan;l/y lox •-growling sA rubs Toun of La s Gata s Ilavelapmant Alllpliaation Suplllamant, Haas rdou s Wa ste s anal Subs tanaas 9 tatemunt fa r 19 Himt land Akienua, Lds (la tas, April 20, 2fl01. - 1' OVEN BER, 201( 18 INITIAAL STUDY — :19 HIGH LAND PIVENTJE and gii aundcaluerus (Ilimit ihri A s to :II peaicant aovaradeI; limi;led nciar jai ndationi (heighn and da-nait�.l- Hrojact (lansistena. With naspeat to building location, the prsoposed 1 ame site avoids the cheat cf.! ills. While masl oi8 the site I as slopes ova 30%a, molt proposed demo lopment is loca ted o><1 slopes of less ti an 30%, although a portion oil the home is loca ted on a ale pe tha t exca eda 30°a . Prop a seal true nemo'aaI and landaaaping will be le litwed far aotitis ten ay with Hillside Pevelapmenl Standai di and Clnidelinu s b! i tile 'Mown' a ran dhcall a consultant ('a iitt input fro ni 1 he f ii e Il a partrr ent) durimg Aiichitaatm e and Site lieview. To min imi 2 e fii e haaands, the Santa (Ira Zia (la uni y F in Da pan ment will IN quire an a utomatia fit e sprimklel system in the p oposed home. The Hi: le Dopar ment will alas ruqui] e that accasa :load and driiveway imprasemenis mae 1 minimum engine driveway tI rnaraund atandanda, and tile piojeat design will be subject to other laquire ments when farm al plan la`aiew is complaied b`.I the Hi: le Dopai tment. Issues 2AC Sunprt1A Information 90U11a0� � I otentially Siggnifcant Impact Potentially 5ignificat it Impart Unless Mifgation Incorporated Lass TI 1 n ai;inifIca1 t Impact No Impact 9. Hydi c logy and Wa tan Quality - Would the pi ojeat: a) N iolate any water quality standards o1 waste discharg a nequinamenta? )l b) Subitantially daplele groundwater supplies of intariene substantially niitl g ro undwa tan racha ng a nigh that II la: is via uld be a net deficit in aquiles volume o1 a lowering ol 1ha local groundwater table lemel (e.g.,.tile plioduction rate ol pi e-existing nearby walls wa u: d drop to a la vel which vaould not suppor existing land uses o1 planned uses for vial iah panmili have bean granted)? • . 31 c) Subitantially a Ien the ayisting dnainaga pattern ol the site oi area, including thna ugh the altei ation of ti a comae of a stream ou loves, in a manner which Niauid iieauit in au bitantial erosion oi siltation on- 01 off -site? X d) Snbitantially a tar tlla existing dsainage latte] 11 of the site 01 area, including through the altei ation of the counse ol a stnaam on riven, on substi ntially incnaaso the pate a amount ol mini aae nunoil in a manners, val iah via ulcl result in flooding an- an off -site? X e) Create on cantributa :iunoilf water vat ich would exceed t1 a capacit]l of axiaMil orplannad stormwatei dsainaia 'Astern s o1 psovida substantia 1 additional soul co s of polluted runoff1 X f) CItlltswise nut stantially deg nade Niatei quality! X g) Place I main g within a 10 0-years flood 1 a zand a na a as mapped on a fadenal Hoa d Hanoi d Ha undany or Mood ]Insurance hate Map or others flood ha mid dalinaation map? X Is OVEN HER, 2010 19 i NITIAL STUDY — ] 9 H1CIHIJ n n AIVIINUE Is9uas and lu artin lnilonrnation Souna ea) ( PP g } Pate ntklly mitcanit Impact Potentially Si g.ifia ant - Imam ctUnless c rporiga oe Incorporated LessTI1r Signptc t t Impact la Impact p hj Place witl in a 100-ye a iI floc cl ha liard area stnuctune9, wliicl would impede an nedinaatflaa(I flaws? X nu tures c cin n� inant isk oi! loss i) flxpoae people or �ll�.. ��.x� � to �, .�('� :f� � , injury on death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of tha fa Rule oil a lama e on dam ? . - X j) inundation by seich i,-tsunami, on mudflowl X Hleva tan s on tl e mile range horn a I igh of about 97 fa et {IAM1I1) at the southeast corner oil the trolls at) to a Iaw oil about (10 feet at tl a northeastern gamer of tlla property. Tlhe site generally aonmists of navir with level floodplaii area and mtaep north- and south-ilaaii JI slopes. An intermittent stream ahannaI, tlnbutary 1 o IJos Gatos Creak, c1 omsa s the a enta n oil the pro ja ct mita from east to west, and dimahanges seasonal flows to a zI-fool with sects ngulail conara le -lined channel immediately nor thwast of the project site near Highland Avenue. - At Himont, tl e 1.011-a al ie project site is undemaloped, bul does include appnoxin a tely 2,3a 0 s.il. of paling far film Highland Avenue right-of-way. ]Ihe proposed developn ant of a nesidenae and drlillewa1l would cover approximately 1 a .7%a of the site 'labout 4,'I(19 squa is feet) with in llenvious sari aces. Access to the proposed reuidanca would be available via a 225-fa of long driveway as wing appre)limately 3,110 r.f. (7.7 %) of the site. Me driveway would ba turiitane and suri aeu water would immolate ti HongI the turfston(' rather than drain off the sunlaea oil the driveway. Runoff ilnom the Hoof and deal s oil the p. aposed rasidence would be directed to a balaw gl ado drainage s31stami which would dnainto thrum enargl dissipatons and infiltration locations on the property fon on -site penaalation. The inaraase in on--mita impervious suri alum resulting tom the pnojecl via d not be expeatad 10 result in a significant change indowns. tlleam peak surface flows o1 runoff `loIumes Pram the pllojeet site. 'llhe Sal to Clara VallaIl Water L islrict IIS(I\I *ID) has indicated that the pioposed nasidenae weisId not dilleethi affect anal Histnict laailit] and has no speeifra requii ements unless site drainage is dinged into a Dis trial fa cility. The laegiona Water Quality (lantral Board (111WQCII ) has a so rleviewed rile pi would site plans and I a indicated tl at the gulp sad residence and dr vewa y would I e sufficiently distant from the a ctiva ahannil 10 avoid tl e need far peumits from the 1IWQCIII.° Tlhe Clalifa rillia Degartmenl of llish and (lame IICIIFCI) would negulate canstlluction activities within the stneambed ahannal 'Igursuant to Fish and Gana Co( la Sections 1601-: (107). 111 a applicant has obtained a Stneambud Alienation Aglleement IIlursuant to 5 action 1(101-1603) from ti a Ca ifernia Da Harts' ant oil ]fish and Clam(' (CIDAG; and recommendations of this agrdement (listed in Section 4, hiological Resoulcos) as well as rniitigation measures listed below would help minimize potential ilia tem qua impacts to a less- than-sigraifiaant Mood Hazards. Aaaolding Flo Federal Erna] gene:] Management Agency (IEMi11) Floa cI Insurance Rate Maps fon the prajacl aiaa, the pnojact mita is net within the :100-Tan iUoodplain. The Santa Cllana V alley 6 Winds, 2011. Electronic ca mn nnicatian (un ail) horn Brian Wines, San llrancisco Bay RW(ICB(2), Jane 14, 2010_ 11 1 V1IMl iR, 1010 20 IMTIAIJ STUDY — 9 HIGHLAND 26IVEN1 E 1,41ate r Ilistrf ct's Malls of flood c 'antral facilities and limits of one 'lucent floor ii g as well a s the Tom n of IJos Gata s Sad ety Bement Flood Plain maps sl a w the Iroje cl l ite doss not lie within a flea cl zone . In andar to determine the effec 1s oil periodic storms on the proposed pnojeatfacilitiea, a hlldra alit anal`Isia •delineatin g the 2-, 10-,and 00-yea floodplainboundarieswas preparedilo:ithepnoposeduroiaclby Schaaf & Alheele l (S&VA , consulting civil engineers 10 the To MID and applic ant I Marc h, 2004). The 1 ydralogic ells nation fon these storm events c alculated peak dlschargles fon a) isting and post-Bro[acl c onditions on 1he subjac t properly using the ICI\I AID pnocdduJlei far flood disci ang e estimation fon shall watersheds. TI a floodplain delineations and hydraulic analysis identifies the expealed limits of flooding ion the dim e sterna events and indicates the molt appnopniate la cation fon the proposed residence. Based. uuon the aonclusions of tl e S&VVI sludy, the proposed nesidenae vciaulcl not be affected 1 y the 2-, :10-, and 10(I-Near flood flows. However, the westelm end of the pnoposed drive wall near Higi land /Ihienue vi auld 11101 ably enc ro a ch upon the 100-year floodpla in . Afteii pnojea t c eve hi pment, the 100-year storm fla ws would iiemain aontainad within tile Jiecti ngulan concrete -lined than el inlmedialely narlhMlest of the Broje ct site neap Hlig hland Avenue. 71 uneilo: ie , no significan t fla a cl hanarc impac is wa old be a nticipaled. Vdaten Qua it) . 1 reject aonitruation would have tl a potent'a to deg nac e local water quality in the adjaaant riparian tributara. Due 10 the Ino,iiniity of tha tributary channel to tl a pliojeat aonstruation area; theiie would be a potential far erasion and down stlearn soclimentation if soil malaria s axposad duffing projec t aonstruat'an were aelidentallal naleased into the tril utary. 1` ew, mono stiingert waters quality regulations oil the Olean Waal Act have neaently bean triggered ba cause the NI DHS 11Natia n a 1 Pollution Discharl a Hlirn illation System) permit pnogiiam 1 a s fai la d to pnoloat benafiaial uses of Santa Cllana (launty's araeks and tl a South San Fiiancisco Hay. Hvidenae includes violations of aml iant water glualiily criteria, h g h conaenlnations oil toxic substances, and ilish aansurnllflan healtl advisories. TI ass new negMations raquinethat all discharges shall comply with Piovisian C.3 , 1\ ew a nd laedalielopment Parfonmance 1 tan duds of Olden No. 112-2009-0074 of the 1\ PLIES permit Bnogram. Have even, it should ba noied that sing la -family home Irojacti tilat sire I at a pan oil a la: eii plan of dovelopinant are speaifiaally eualuded (Seation (I.3.b.ii (2) Clthen Dalielopmant Pdojeats;. Ai a candition of pnojeat approval, tl a lawn has iiequined the preparation and sul mittal of into rim and final erosion ca ntra 1 glans to the Tinging Grin g Division oil the Fa nks and Pa t tic Wa iks Ilia partment. Issues(and 1tlppartingMfg rmationSotlrae0 Pitintiill]1 5ituificint Impact . Potentially iignitica of Impact Unless Mitil atii n Incorporated Less llliau 9i1nificant Impact No Impact 10.11a lid Use and Planning - Would the pnojeat: a) llhysiaa ly divide an astal fished aommunityl N 1) Clonf.icl with any aBplicabla land use plan, polic!1, a c gulation of an agencg v`uth jurisdiction oven the unojact (including, but not limited to tlla general plan, speaifia plan, local caasta p:Iogram, on zoning ordinanaa] adopted far ti a purllosa oil avaiding or mitiglating an envilionmanta effect! X a] Gout]ici with any applical le habitat aonsenvation Ilan or nalural aalninunity eailia rvation plan? X I1 a `IHMB HR, : 010 31 InITTpIL STUIIY —19 HIIGnLANII AVENUE The Loa Gates Clanelal Alan designates the plojecil site a "Hillside Residential" and this cIasigilation a Mows fon residential use a at dam ilies oll zero to one unit Bata ache. 5linae the site is 1.04 act e, the Genera Plan could allow up to ane single-family ra iidance without slope considttnaCons. Hven with nape cons Mena tions, ar innplemei tad uncle' the Zoning Ondinanae, the pre pa sad sing le-faniil`I residence vtiauld be within a lawable densities. The Zoni' g O3 dinanae designates the pre ject site as "Hillside laesidential," which allows 1.5 to 10 acnas pan dwelling %Mitt a minimum lot size of 4(1,000 squat e lee t. Since the proposed single -lamiil]l residence would be Ioeated of a 45,74a square -loot lot, it would be consistent with densities allowed by the Zoning Clydir ance. The proposed . undone(' would s tep up the slogs so tees t it would 1 a Iwo stor'ie,I (maximum heig l t o f 29 feet: at any single le cation, which would be aansistenl with hillside 11esidentia standards. The project site is surrounded by enlisting residential uses. 'Me proposed single-ilamily residential use would be - similar to surrounding single-family residential uses and, therefane, would not Base lard use compatibility_ pre t !ems. TI e Las Gatos Clanena Han does not identify any habits t conservation plates on natural eomn on't]l conservation pea ns than apply to tl a pi ojecl site. - - I; slit s(anceSupportingIrformation Sumo' s) 11otenfally 9ilnifiiatt Impact Potentially Sigi ifiaant ImT a ctUnrass Mitigafon Incorporated IEcsTtan aignificaid Impact No Impact 1-1. M inc ral Pena once s - Would the pno:ecl: a) Aesult in the lois oil a Mailability oll a kilo wn minana resoui ce tl at would t e ol value to the legion and the residents of the state? b; Result in tl a lois ol availability of a locally -important mineral rasourae recarsery Bile delinea tad on a local ganenal plan, Blleci1ic plan on other land use Ilan? )1 Ti a Iles Gatos Clenssal Plan does not idestily any :iegionallq ar isaally-important minera ra;IaI rues on the ptso jecrt Site or in its vicinilli. lssues (a1 cl Sttppoatinl In loans tion 9 (urcas) stintall. i 9igniliaant Impact Potentially Significant rmpaat Unless Mitisation Incorporated Lass it an lip lib ant Impact No Impact 12.IIoisi - Wouldthe pin ject1esultin: a) Hxposura oilpensons to or g aneration of noise levels in excess of standards estat limbed in tl a local genera Ilan on noise andinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? N b; Hxposure of pule ns to an generation ol etsaessive gnoun dtornie vibration ar gromadborna noise leve1s? N c) Al substantial germane' t incliease in and ient noise levels in ti a project vicinity abase levels eiliting void out tlla project? . X NOVEMBIH , 9 010 22 IN TIAL STUB -- 19 H IGHLANE AVENUI I99Uas (and Supl1arting Information Ilamica ll) Patautiallm Significant Impact - Potentially Significant 'mg tat Ualass Mitigai'cn Incorporated Less T] ad Significant Impact Nc Impact d] A : ubstantial temp( rare or pet:odic inure a: a in an I ienl nois e la reels in tl a pi ojea t vicinity a t ove la deli a xis tin g without the project? X e; Hon a plojeat lc caled within an airport land use plan o1, when small a plan has not 1 e en adopted, within two n He s - X oil a public airflor on public usa ail -lout, would tl a pnojeat eaiBose people residing o11 working in the prc ject area to ealaessive noise levels! f) Hon a Bra ja ct withil tt e viaini t]1 of a priivate ai rstr'p, would the Br( jaet cull( se people : eIi(ling on wollking in the p: o-ject area to ealaessive noise levels? X llhe Tom n Noise Ordinance (Clhaptar 1(I) restricts aonstruation aatirlitics to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to /I:00 p.rn. on weekdaAs and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.nl . on weekends and holidans. This ordinance all( limits noise ganeeatiorl to as dHA at the p: opert) line a1 81 (IBJ at 25 Beat. Angject do nstructia II would result in to 'weary sl c rt-term n( is a in a: leases due t o 11 a openaf an of heav}I equipn e nt. (lonstl ucf a n noise sources range from about 11 tc 90 dHA'at 29 feat for most tY11as (f aonItruation equil flaunt, am slightly higl e:l levels oflabatit 94 to 97 ( BA at 25 feel ion certain types oll ea rain aving and impact aquipmeut. li nc ise aontlols are insta led on aoustnua lion equipment, the noise levels could be reduaed to ad tc E 5 dHA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to aomply with tl e lawn Is oisa Q:idinaae. Aesicdentia uses are genera l31 aonsiclened to -be noi: e-sansitiva uses on sensitirla ieceptoi s. llhene arc single-family nesidenues loco tad on mope rtias surrounding the 11naject tits, and tie cla Hest residences are loaaled as close as appnoxima rely 1 0 la et nort east of the 1 roject's northern proper bormdarl. At 1 10 seat, the elasest distance to grading activities, the aWin anee noise limit (09 d1A at 25 fleet) viould lies tilt in maximum noise lar]els of 72 MA al the close st nesiderlaes to the north. Tan ponaiiy disturbance (e.g ., speaah inter' enenae; can occur if the noise level in the intirioi of a builcdinl] ealaeec s 41 to (10 dHA .1 To maintain such interior noise lavels, extariot! noise levels at the ela nesidenees (v1 itl windows closed; s hould no t e xca ad 70 to 90 dHA and tl is elite pion noise la vel is usa d as a s iIl nifiaane e threshold o11 aritarion. Maximum construction noise levels would not exaaed this criteriion. It should be noted that such raise Ievels would 1 e sporadic rather tl an continuous in nature because (Iffiest' t glees of a e nstr ua tin n equipnl a nt would 1 e us ed thrlougl a ut the a a nstl uction 1 ra aess. '.'ha re fona , en' of la ems n I of time rastuictions and noise level standaucls auntained in the Town I\oise Ondinanae v auld maintain a(instluctian noise levels at acaaptable levels and speech intarfei tiae Meats v~ ould not be expiated vul au heavy equipment is operated on tl e pnojeat site, a leas-than-signifiaaut ternporasy impact. Ldng-term noise ineraamei associated void ti a proposed single-family nesidenic wool( result horn imam d traffic along tl a pnojeat drir]ewaA and ne9identia activities on tllo piojeat site (Le., alai ation of ' In indoor noise ■nuinonmants, tba 1 igl est nuisa Laval that arm its ralui.d aonvarsaI c. with III ( gera ant intalligililit}I tl long] cut the naoni is'I5 c B46l. 9 paeal interJarenca is aonsidared to I aaome intaliral le we an normal cannersation is erealilclecl at 3 !eat, tiuliah aJaws wl en 1 aakground raise levels naaed 110 c BA (U.S. Envinonmemtal ProtcaGan Agana)l, bafaavnatian an LelieLa ajIEniiiranmiantalAai.ae Requisite to PnateatPnbIia Hualtl ana l ll/aljIare will am i ddlguati Margin of Safety (Candanse d V(miw ), 1574)_ r OVEN HER, 2010 23 111 ITIAL STUDY — 19 H IQHL AND AVENUE alpha ncas and Inainlanan('e egnillrnant suah as lavinrnavve.:i, blowers, elc.). increases assoaia1ed with ti a project would be "ninon and vuauld nol siggifiaantly or measuilablA ilium ale aml ienl.noise levels in the prajecl vicinity . Noise ganenaled 1,l pra Oct residential activities would 1 e similar to noise ganenaled 1 A adjment on nearby nesidantial uses and would no1 conflict with the uiisling nesidentia noise envinonrnent in 1he neighbarho a d. - - Issues (and Supporting'Info urn atian SOH naes) Pate'tia11}I :Iignleast Impact 1 oten )'ally 9lignifteant Impact Unless M'tifation Incorporated 1 ess Than 54lifteant Impact Ni Impact ]I3. Rapala lion and Ha using - Would the project: aJ induce substantial pa ['illation gnowlth in an area, eil hen di: ieclly (ilor a xampla, by pnoga sing na wi homes am businesses) a indirectly (fora xampla, through extension of roads or a tl en infra structuna)? - X b) Displace s ubstar tial nunsl ars ol existing housing, . necessitating 1ha conctrtiction (Aiseplaaement 1 ausingl elsawhen'? X a) Displace substantial numbers of people, naaessitating the aonslrue tion ol replacement housing elsewhelie? X 11 a pllopos ed piojea I would deva la g one single -fa mily reside nos and, there fa na , would na t no sub in iniens ifiaation of residential uses on significantly incnaasa local on negianal populat('n. Since the p: ojecl Oa is surrounded by axisting residential uses, the pioposad driveway an extension of utilities would only serve the praposad pnojeat site. Access and utilities are aurrentl;l available 10 necidential uses immediately adjoining the subj ea t pna peaty. Con sec' uantly, the grojaet wa uld no induce news grawrI .7ha 'project site is currently undevela 11ad an na exist'ng housing) units v ould be clisplaaed by the project. Issues(an dSun aortiiAWolin' ationSouraea) Potent alb! Sig Nit -mast Impact Potentially sigrMeat t Imilact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Mai 9ignifieant Impact . No Impact 14. Public Suivicis - a) Wllould the project nesuI& in subst ntial advance ph,lsical fin pacts associsted with the provision of new anpi ysically a !Wised ga ve rnmenta i facilities , need fon na w on phyeiaally aliened gonar-mental facilities, the canst:iuctionof wil lab aould cause significant enlanolin' antal impaats, in ardar to maintain aacelltable senviae ratios, nasponse limas on othen purforma nce of jectivos Sol any of tLa public se:ivices: Fine p is faction? X Pa lice [motets tion? N 51ahools1 X Pa r..s'. NI Qtben public facilities? N >\ OV EMBEI , 2110 24 INTFIAIJ MUM/ — .I HICIHLANL IVENUE Seri ices are a urra ntly p ovided to the lieaidentia de velopni ant aroi Yid the project :i its . 71 a Dos Cla tat Police Department and the 9 an ta Cllara Clounty Hine Departn'ellt provide emergent; and pi 1 lie safety serviaea in the piojeat area. Thu paIoject viauid not mignifiaaptly inailease demand llor public sarviaem ,inca this is an in-jIi11 development and seri ices at e already provided to the sure oundin8 area. Tlha 9 ar to Cllai a Count; Fine Departnlant has reviewed the pra'lose cl site plan llor ,site acaess and water supph only and will require: installation of an approved iIire sprinkler system (since requ'red firm flow is not available) in the residence, and cone filiation ol as cess road and drive% ay to nr a et De partmen t fir e apparatus as a ems as d driniewa; tunialiound standards. 'llhe Hine Department no tad that all identified aonditions are nefleated on cunlent plans.' 7lhe Fire Departmer t a [so indicates that the p] ojeatis located within the da signs led Wiidlan d-Urban lnterfa co Piro A:Ilea, and therefore, will t e subjea t to building. a on.trua turn and va etation clearance requirements ape cited in tl a Ca ifornia Building Cbde (Clhapter 7A at cl 9 action '1 a 1A.3.2.4;. harem (and Suggortini Information 9 ounic0 Pctci tia11]1 mi.nifcaut Impact A■tent'a71]l Significant Impact Uelass MitiWatia■ Incorporated I ass T1 ar Signilcant Impact Nc Impact 15. Reciiealion - a) Would the project increase the use oll existing naighbolihood and regional parks or athen. uaoleo tia nal faailitiem sucl that substai tia physical deter -la) : ation ol the faailit; would occur on be accelerated? X b Does the paloject include recreational faailitiem or net uira the construction on elpanmian ol uacieatia nal ilacilities, which migl t 1 ave an adverse pl ysiaal eililect on tl e a nvinonment? X 11 a priopomad addition of one iesidentia unit would inaramenti 11; add sew population to the area, and thereby inareaae the demand fon recreational services. Tlhis incremental incraama would 10 less than sign ilicanl given tl a Iiniall size oil the project. - fi1 �.. _.__ (and c__..�_. r_-■.. _.�. a. - rst IU7 (and JUtltlolting 1111V111IltiV1I our,. Uif Pata.tiall]1 Si ni9i,mit b """ Impact Potentially Iimnifr■ant Impact Unless 1.Ft.nar,,n F""" - Incorporated II ess Than a. ,iifieant '-"!`^""" Impact My. Impact 16. 71ranaporlatlon Traffic - VGlould the nrojar]t: a) Clonfliet with an applicable plan, oidinanae or policy a stal fishing ine as a pas oil a flea tivene s s for the perfa rrn anal of the circulation system, tak'ng into account all rnades of tiar.poltation inaluding mass transil and non-motoriized travel and relevant aamponents ol the airaulation system, in alluding but not limited to intersection:, aEra ets,1 igl ways and ]freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass ma it? • X 8 Santa Clan County Fine F epa rtlneut,1Ieuelop/titsit Review Convni.nts, 19 Hig,l land jl tavule, Alan Review Carivltnnta 10 1271, Fil1i Nurribeai S-(),I- I41, Fcl roary 3, 7010. NOVEMBEH, 21110 25 INI7IAIL 5ITUDYl —19 HIGIHIIPIND AVHNUE Issues (ai d Slipporti i inform tien SOuree') Idea tially 9[endica't Impact Potentially 5 i fl oifiaant Imili ct Umlass Ivrtisatic a Incorporated I ess TI an Sieniftaint Impact Na Impact I) Clod is t with an applia a ble congestion man a genre n l pre gran, incliidln g , but not limit('d to level a f s mice standai ds and travel demand measure,, o:I other st; ndands establishet by the county congestion management agency fon dasigna ted roads on highways - - X a) Result in a hang in aiii traffic patterns, including aithen an it male in tnaff ic lemels ar a char ge in location that nesults in substantia safe t]l riskl? X d', Substantially increase haaands due to a design ileatune (a.g., sharp anneal or clangorous into nsealions; os incompatil la uses (e.g., farm equipment}1 X ta) Result in inadequate emergency mice s3 X fi Conflict with adopted policies, plat ,l , a r p nol rams neg ai ding pul lie tran sil, 1 iaycla, or pedestiian facilities, on otile urnise deans asa the garformanee a safety of such laailitie sl X Thu la run's 'llraf ic Impact Pa licy (Resolution 1 991-174) spaciflas t0Is t a pnojeat with a ti aflic impact of 19 on les s additional PIM on FIN peak hours Ilriips could be appraved with(' u l a comipraheniivie Mafia repot if it is determined that tl a benefits of the 'raja ct Io the 'flown Would outweigh the impact of inane asad raff ic. Howeve:i, the pnojeat would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation ilee. Tha proposed single lamilal nasidance would result in a net increase of 10 trips pen dal, vtiith 1 trill) occurring during the AM peak 1 a ur and :1 trip occurring during the PM peak how. PIcconding to the 7ovv n's tiafi ic determination, traffic generaited by tl e piloposad piloject mlould nepilesent a minor impact and no additional traffics ludic s would be nequine d. The pia posed -driveway would be app:iaximately 211 feet long and would wry frani 12 to 20 feat wide. Tha Santa Cllana Clounty Hine llepartmant has reviewed tile proposed site plan fon access, and date rniii ad that it meats the Heparin! ont nequiilentants.' Tha Town's coning Clydinance would inquire pilo'oision of o parking spaces fon the proposed single- fariiilMl residence. The Hillside Speaifia Man (HSIII inquires loan addifanal.ipacts s vul an no on-9tn('at Banking is allowed.11 a HSP indicates that the driveway may ba used to provide this parking, amcept where a 1 a r a substantial pant of the ne s idi n ae is mole than 150 feet tom a safe and adequate a cc('ss noa d. The flrojcct's dri,lewa]i would ba approximately 225 lent long aiid tl ereilo:ie, pankini an the driveway would not be allowed. the pnojeat p:iovides two park'ni spaces within the El amp , and three parking spacial an the driv('way area dineatly in front of tl a p:oposed garage. `phe'llown permits tandem pailking a rran g email is on tl la p: ioposed driveway and, theneloi e, the project via uld piuovide requine d parking aonsisient will the Hifi nequ'rements. b OVEN BER, 2010 26 INTTIAIL97UF1ii — 19 HICIIID NI]FIVENZE Construction lmpaats. Piojeat construction via ulcl entail 142 c.y. of axca vation and l 88 G.y. of fill, iloi a net encavation oil l54 n.y. Enport of 114 c.y. of material off -site could gananate up to 13 truckloads on a total of 26 ona-way trucl trip (assuming 17 c.y. par 1 aul truck;..Since the Town will piiohibit haul trunk operations on local loads between 7 a.m. ancl 9 a.m. as \mull as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., truaks operations would occur tI.9 hou] s par clay. Assuming apllnoaIini a tely : to 7 trunks Gould ha filled pen hour, a total oil 2 to 4 trunk trips par hou: i or l 2 to 24 (luck trips pei da:i would ba gene ra ted ilon apll noalini a tely Ito 3 walk days . The 7a wn will negl iri the agplia ant to worl with the flown Pau ks and Public VV o: ki .LIepartma n t Eng in eer ing Ins pectors to delis e a traflfic a onti ol plan to anon safe and effic ie nt tl affia f la w under per ods when soil is hauled an on off the pno,ject site. This would inolude, 1 ut would not 1 a limited to, pro Visions ilor tl e dews lopenlown a to pima con stnuction notifies tie n sins n a tug the da tc ii ar d time oil conitrn ation and hauling activities, on providing adcdit'ona traffic control. Alll trunks 1 auling soil, sand, and otllar la ass debris viill need to be convened on at laait two feet oft eabaard must be maintained. This requirement viill naduca potential traflic sailety hazards la a les;i-than-significant level. Iisii i (and Supportini In lonmation 9 awes: ) Pa teu t a II31 Sianiimaut Impact Potentially lignifLiant Iml act Unless h hill atian Incorporated Less Thai Significant Impact Na Impact 17. Utilities and Senile e Systems — Vi ould the project: a)1= xca e d wa stemmata' ti eatnna nt 1 equinements oil the a pplicabla Rai ional V1llater- Qua ity Conti oI Hoai d? X b; Raquii e or 1 eiult in the construction of new wa ter or warlawaten tncatmient ilaailitias on ealpanaion of existing iaailitias, the construction ol wl fah could aause lignifigat anviranmenla offaats? X c; He quire on i eault in the a onsttiuctii n of new storm water Mainz ge iaailit'es or cipansion oil existing facilities , the aanstruction of vohich aould cause significant en Tura nmental a file a ts'I i1 d: Hama sufficia n t \mats n supplies available to serve the project hon., i/1st11]I UntitiliILItom arid resources, Ili YIJ new on expanded entitlements needed? )1 e) Rasu t in a detanmina tion by the wastewa tallow a tment pnovidar, vs hich serves oil may serve the pi aject that it 1 ai adequate capacity to sei ve tl a pi ojects pnojectad demand in addition to the providers enlisting gommitntants? )l f) He aei ved b:i a landfill with suifiaient parmittad capacity to aacommodate the grajacts solid waste disllasal needs; X g) Qompl` I with fa decal, state , and log al its tutes and negula tie i s vela tad to solid waste'. X t tilitia s and sa rvia es are currently provided to esid antial uses on mpg rtie s s urroun ding the pi ojea t site. Singe this prajact would be an in fill dilielopmcnt, na major off -site utility impnoverncut' would be anlpectad to be Paquin] d. Flll utilities (watan, seviar, electricity, aas, and telephone) would be enrtanded 1: om existing ilacifities in Hiil land F venue undo the diivevlay to tha p: opoaed home. lY OVEN BER, 201 Q 27 INITIAL STUDY —19 H IGIIILA ND AVENU E Issues (and Supporting IafarmatianSairDeis) ➢otentially sianifiaant Impact Patent' all)! 5 i gnj fiaa nt Imp it Unit s Wigs 1'cm Incorporated 1 •.ss T1 an Significant Impact Na Impact 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a; Hoes the pnojeat have the potential to do grade the quality of tl a envillonmant, silt stau t'a ly aieduce the habitat of a fish of wildlife agecigs, aauae .a Lich oil wildlife population to drop belay' sell -sustaining levels, thieaten to eliminate a plant on animal community, iieduee the number oil ea s tea t the tang e ol a nays a r a nd an g eaed plant a r animal a eliminate imliartanl exarnplas of tl a majoe peinods of Claliilorniia history or prehistory? X . b) Does the pnojeat hava impacts that ale individuatl3 limited, but cumulatively aoniidenable1 ("Cumulatively aonuide"'able" meal s that the inanamental affeats ol a project are eonsi(Iaiable when viewed in a onneation with file eilfecii of past projects, She affaats oil other aurrent projects, and ilia effeeti of probable futuae projects)? X a; Does the project It me enrlitonniantal affects wih.ah will cause substi i tie advarse e ffects an human t sing', eithen directly cr I indirectly? X i`(1)1EMA11R,3Oil 28 INITIAL STUDY — l 9 HIGHLAH D AVEN UE �IHC ITIOIN ATTACHMENT 1 fll 5ITIREPIMHEH AIIIHRA1ICIN CONDIIIICINS �DHCIEIv1HHR 8, :IO(I3; ANTI RHCOMM His DA➢ICINS F RCIM A TRHII TCIRY BIND 1VIIVIHWI OH IIHH PF CIE OSHD N RHSIDffivCH All 1 {I HIGHVAI` r AN EI` U E LCIS GATOS, CABIFCIRF' I] Hid A RB OR RIES CIUF CO FHBFI VARY l 5, :ma VI is Paige Intenilionallly I afil I ]lank FROM FAX NO. lac. J 1 2003 06: 16PM Pa STATE QF CAI IFORNIA THE g[scijl le s_ e;GENcy DEIPJsIR1MENT OF nth- At i] GAME ClNTF Al COA 9T FIE ION Ile ll 944-957 D Mulneq of& sa: VIM- omit EEOX47 Ya L NTWI La, a ALIFa RNI/ 141g9 Sala etMiran: :19 9ILVI'RWDO T11A 11 L IA FA, CAL IROI h IA 94a 5S ARNOLII fiRHWAR N!_CaL3FFt,)OVFRNOR Angelo Orphan 1091'neatel Ile, I E of Lds (Was, CIA 95130 'otif rayon Number. 1600.2003.5246-3 t named tributary, $. la nta Clara Count31 HROJEC1I DESCRIPTION and 1 MINIM CONIC TIC NS 11 merit tian The prgc ct is beam( at 19 High and Avenue in the to a a f Le s Gatcls in Santa Ci era Co y. Tl e pno j e a t include; construetior i of a a ingha family residence adjacent tc an untamed tributer) tcl Los Gatos Creek. Thu driveway veil be instal ed na close than 110 feet from tap of tl a cheek bank. TI a maids Ince will be no cla sex than : d feet a any point a ong the creak bank! Ippraximateij 15 tree s vr'11 be remo c Cbudiia:1a ns 1. V tort within the streamhiparian ccl rridon :hall be ea of Ined to the period Apri 15 to C Icy ober 31. 2. TM project shal be done accc cling to tied plans submittec to the Departtnent with the prgect tiotif Ication. 3. Tie disturt anae orl rema gal a f vegetation sbal not exceed tt e minimum necessary to complete operations. Pig cautians shal be tat+ en tc avoid oti er damage to vegetn t on by peel ple dot quipraent 4. Tile aperatoi aliall avoid IIoti at the ver) 1 ea r minimize) the remor•al t f all ti eas an c the distulbance to thdiir root systems liotentially impact z trees shal be monito-e4 tor a per c d of f lve i151 years and n p aced with native trees which are suital le ecological y to the I pilajee t area Hor each native trec that is rent oved or disturb d, tree,) shall be replace( with nativf trees only ate minimum 3.1 ratio (replaaeme : la si ). Far earl non-native tree that is remoi ec oil distu Ibed trees shall 1 e replaced wid native ti ees one site at a moult inn 1.11 rat'o (replycemer t :loss; . 5. Elva getat on retool ,a will a ecur eta -eon February 15 and Angus 1 ai qualif ed bid Iogrst at:Iall condual pre -construe ton sun eys fall nesfn8 birth no more than I two week pr or•lo Page 1 'a j Osara:or•s »ziiala DAt� Igrrtpd1a'ed:tdI bar 27, IAA] Natflicar;e_ Njr 261L-]ad1.1-5]119-3 Rd v_i red Ds canter!. S. 2a03 FPO11 MIlido . : Del c. 11 20E 3 06: i G'ti P6 Dane preps-_ tivorrembtir :u, 2003 1 dviaad 2 eeen-the r 91 ,k003 canstrucl ion. linesting sting 1 irds. nnu found a 50-fool sae liti s buffo' should be estat fished around ti € nes t, a 300-fc oi r2 dins buffed' in the case of hawks and owls. 'THe area al ouki be kneed and avoidet until the ;'oung hare fledged, a;l dett mined by a qualiflee 6. A ausegetat 1 ion plat al a l be 9 ubmitlec to tha Da partment d' II Fish I and Game far 2 pploval. TYIe rerIagetat'on plan al a 11 be s pprc vec by the Berl ailment prig r io cc mum a naemen i of co nstrue tie n aetir'ties. - 7. ']to ensure a successful tevegetatlon effort all Oar td shall be monitored and main, tthi ed as necessary frnl flue years. All planting shall ha ve amininnnn 011 SO % survival a the end oil 5 years and 51 a 1 attain 051 cover after three years and 7f % cn verage after 5 ] fears. If the sun ival as dlor cover requirements e not meeting , ti ee a Epa s, tba Operator is responsible fa rref Inclement 1 Zan tiny adeittieual wa erg, weeding, invasi ie a xottc eradia 13tfon, or any other practice, 10 achieve these requi ement_se Replacemeni platts shall be monitored with the same survived' arc growth requirements for fine years after giantinna. An art ual statue report on.the tttif go tion sha 1 be praeidec to they Departmo i of lllish and &ante t y December 31 of earl year. This rep( rtshall include thei survival, percent ce veer, and height a f both tree and shrub spa deli, Tile number byi species of plants replay et , an overview. of tile revertation a Bart, and the meta od us led to assee t these 'arm -seam st all also 1 a included. Htlotos from des'gnater F111o10 itationti sha1 be included. a. Disturbed areas a1>Ia11 be reveggtated with propagule s (seeds, chute gs, divisions] of loll ally-coi1ectec native lams . If locally collect& native plants are neat available, sterile o.usl ort lined tevailleIafonplants shall a used Gsereal I alley, Regrew. Thus:. Disturber areas Gi'Istll be protectec with correctly instal ed erosion cantle] a eases iNtel straw, caeanut fiber erosion control Ulric, coir logs, straw)_ 9 . Upon cmnple ttioni of c perationa and/or end et awe weath ei all construction Material gild urdebris shal bereanovee frolnitlestreatnchannel tee an area not sgtled to inundation- 10. Ma to the onsa l of any storm event that may impact the project site, a straw 1 ale sedimen barterer shall be biota led in a trend bd low the l rn ject site. The sediment barrier shall be maintaineed in operating eat; diction ihE ughout that pe pd of construction of the project This ine l udea,4 bud is not limited to, yen oval of accumulated ail and/or ref laceoaent oil damaged feel es. ] 1. Silt °elnvoi measures sl all be utilized through' ut all phases olthe project where si: t and, oa earthen fill threaten to etc ter Wa era oftt a Sta e. Si] I control , trt cturel shall be amyl toted foe effectil moles$ and she I be repail ed. or replaced as n eec ect Build up of soil behind the fen& shall be yen o-.*e promptly and at.y bra3ehea or rendemeir ed areas rel aired a once. Page :I o1 15 Opar:It or"s ini t•; a; e _ Prot/ f Iaat:Iau Mara .I600-]acm-5246.3 FAX NO. : Di a . 1 a 2W eta: RPM P5 12. All expos c:d/distuabed areas within the plojeal she shall ba stt bilizei to the greateit entent possil I. Erosion cennof m assures, such as, sili fumes, straw I aybtlee, gravel on anal lined dliahes, nral a;I check l are, arid htosdcastec straw sl a I be tried where ever silt lac' en imam m has the potential to leave the work site and enter Stale will etc. Hmtlsion cants of measures l hall be ilonitorei during ail d after each storm el ent Modificat'a ns, repairs at d impel -era enil to erosion cantrc 1 measurt s s hal 1 be made whenever it is n ecded 13. Preparaticni sha l be mat a scl thatrunofilfidm s enp, credit lc suffice: will be diverted into stable areas with little err sign potentia or cog tainec behind erosion central structures. Erasion control stn: ctures such as straw bales and oil siltation control fence shall be I laces and maintainer until the threat a fesosion aces es, I. If tile Operator needs mars time to complete the autl orized a ctivity, the wort Iperiod xns y be a 'cicadae on a day-to-day basis by Niareitt Grelkm at Q707)1944-j 59, cm the Yountvillc ofila c a =' 107) 944.55 0. A copy ofthi! agrees eat must be provided 1 o the contract ea and all subcontractors who work within the stream zone and must ba irl their) postlession at the work site. 111. 11 mateda s and or constnicfon equig mean shall na t be stockpiles es stored where tb ley could be washer into tha watetl or where they will cover aqua tic os riparian vegetation. 1; . Del xis , soil silt, bark rubbish: creosote -treat ed v+ ood, raw cement/ea aerate or washings therein asphalt, paint or other cc acing n erial, oil or otl er petrele+ m pp oducts, et any other substances shish) amid i e hazardous 1 o aquatiie life, iesu tins from project relaiec activities, shall be pi erented fream contaminaling the suit and/or ea tering the waters of the state. Any oft! est materials. placed with's or where) they may enter a stream am Isla, by ()Jenne' os any party woskingl uric er cot tract, enl wit) I the petmisi ion of$ e Ope±atc s, shall be reu oved immediate ly. 1 a. The santractoi shall toot dump aril Iittal os ac nstrtu tier debris within the riparian/stretm aonel All such debris Ea d 1.1m to shah be I "eked up daily and propel ly disj of ed of at am. jµupwIt 1 rAts. 3 9. Den arhnent pen'somn I o:l its agents mt y ing es rt tf le wort site at any time. 24 . Tll a Oilcratea is lick le foe compliance with the l ern's of this Agreengeul, inn hiding violations committed by tl c contractors and/or sul central lors. The Departmenn reserves tb e right la suspend construction activity desdribedis this Ispemerr iftl e Del artmtent deterniii es any of the k Wowing has oocuirat : A)_ Failure to comlp l}l v rith aryl of the cork itiontl of this ?!Igreomen 1I lnfanbaf'cmpravidec in supporl oftbe Agreement is deterni ire d by the De pattir east to Rage ] of 5 DIa1 a PP sparse 2.14avember 23, 2(10J Revise( December 8, 24143 oporalx 12211ia;e Notitlaat +Tc2 fiber Yse n-; C FAX Nt L : Dec. 11 2033 06:17R PSI 1 e inaacllzlate. Cr). information be comes .11 veils' le to the Dc gartman : has was n nl known vi hens pncpari ng tile egin< 1 conditions! of this Agreement (including, bui not limitsd ta, he oe currence of 3 to to oa tderal y lister ;rpee ics in the area. a r risk to eessources rig t previously observed DJ .Tl a projea t a:i described in •Ihe Iglrcctr ern has changed ar cc ndii ons eating fish and w'kllift resources! change. Any violation of the terms a f ahisi f lgreen east may rest It in The piioject being stop/ ed, a citation beingissued, c-`r cliarges belt g filed with the District Attorney. Contractors and subcontract( rs may ai be Iial le stir iolat►ngtl.e eer.ditiona, of This agreement Amendments and Rea end Tie C Iperatael abet] notify{ the Department befog e any mocl'f (cations are made in the pilojoct pin submivled to the Department. Project no dlficationa may require an amendment or a new• notificah( n. Tlsis Agreement ii transferable to subsequed owr eel of 'I he project property by r c uestinfan amendment. �o realm/ the Arreene aril beyond the expiration dale, a written reg ues far a renews nr ust be si: bmitl ex tc the Department Ql d00 Prdgraml Host Office Box 47, Yotmtville, California 9455 9) fon ca =ideal trot at least 30 days be fare the Agteenc lent expiration date. Arenewal requires a fee. The lea Sche a ule can be obtained at www.dfe.ca.gov/1600 on by one at 4707) 9444.1520. Rdnewa] of tl e ori,dna A ant are is suer at Ole disci etas n of the Ddpartn ent. Ala ma dify tl eprajec t, a written request sat et atnendmcn,l mull be submitted io the Departn en! 1;I 6( 0 Aragon], Pos Office Box 47, Y ountv'ilel (I eliforrua 34599; . Tile fee for an armada ent iq line -half tr'A of the ariinR1 fee. Amendment! to the origina A8 eement ere issued at the dislcretion of the Department Pagel eI os Dale jiraparsdiNawmaben 2a, 2003 Resdsed Decembez 9_ 1Aa] Opt Iry oil- Snitia3s 9rd t- �.iCar%{OII ATIUMber (boa-21a3-!I24fl-3 Fro hia. Dec. 11 213E 3 06:17PM P3 Neale cone tliu, Ilou near ma proce& with construction until yourpiopo:lee prajecci has Munergoue CEQA taiAnti aya She Depan morns sigos the AA reemenl 1, the unit; ei LN%fine4 SUMS , IJ l at ihe eh) a is ale a fi nen dnscrr a�Ibtnitti,zI,v�Ihe.11eparme�ialfor ClEptionoftleproyecll'am ieiiiew, ,leading to an Agieeime,t, and agree to irnplemeniI Jibe co hove requini bythe Dells rtn tut asi'aril telex rs ecy llroieed pith Mir JIrojactunt;I�IfieDellurtnents sJibe A see#ent P Iwill not 4 tile CAE QA revienl may rest, in die addition ofrtleamireslto thet 10s� ar4oniefinn im tern! comJlensatefcrsfetaiJcant �invi:onme,Italimpacts: !project to avc,ia� m el cr Opnrator'i t ame (grim] (Ijiui toil's s gnatare: Signed tb c dap of 2110 Page 5ol 5 Date prepaaeid:r0VPmhet 23, 20d3 RA -aimed Decent.h4 r 8, 2002 cpel ato) 's int:az■ Notzfiealion 147wIlbor 160E-2083-52,1t.-:I DavkIL. Babay, Aegis -tared C onsulting,4rd oiiiat 1 el ruarl IS, 2110 All others trees not mullioned in this ICction will pole ntia I be adequately 11nolealed, prorlicled the :®commendations pre:enled in the next section one eaiefil1b1 followed and inaomporalad info the pi o]ecl plan: . 5 action 29.10.09811 ottthe Town Code prolusions mitigation tom the nemovai of tree: unless "the tree is duad on a haian a ill condition aaiists...." 9 ubseq uenlly, miligation is neess ary to a ompens a 1I a foe the lass oil all removed trees exa a pl fat 1110- IInear ly dead), 21 (]dead] a nd z (1 IIexlensive de cayj. l also i ecommand mitigation apply to lreee 1ha1 will be seuanuly in !laded a nd preclispo; ud la pnema lure decline ar d inslal ility. Plea: e nufar to Seal ion 9.1, item 11, far fur hen details. 5.0 RECICIIMMEN DATION� Rea (mime ndal ions 11lies en1 ed wilhin this s action are based on plans no n iia wed, and serve as uidulines fan avoiding on mitigating impauIs to the teens being eatained and removed. 31hem should be c331111lly folla vit d lhraughoul tl e development ptoeuss, and arse sut jact to to)iision upon nevieviiin8 any additional am nevisad plans. 9.1 Dean n Chi idelinea 1. Tl is vapor should replace It a nepor currenll]i shovin an 51 aels'ii••1 and I (the map section is 1he same and can I emain). 2. Tl a maps on Sheels T3 and 6, and the graphic 1 ars on Thuds 2A, 2F1, 7E and 6 a: a no1l Flo scale and should be adjusted accordingly. 3. At the bottom aenler el lime 13, the ieatongular 1 a)l shauld be modified to on'il discuss oldie 99 trees menlioned far either memorial or optional removal. z . Reaormandalions presented in 9eclion 4.0 of this nepa ii1 st aulcl also bu fa Iiowad. 19 Liighlar d.Ininua, Lois Glata.i Pagai 6 of 11 Tinvn of Lus Ghtoa C oni nzini0 Llelielapnleit Llepartreiwit Lla�iid 1. Bad JJ.gisterad Consult"ng,4rd mist Fhbruary.1=, a0,1Q 5. llhe pope: ed di: sipale n lal a led a "B" an Sheet 13 muss be moI is d beyond car a pie; oil net aim d trees (on omitted fnom the design). Addilionalll, tl a anticipated loaaiion, oil drla in lines ca r nee -ling ta. the dissipa lens should alga be shown, and e, to blished out: ide f la m berm a tl the canopies a 11 meta it ed Ines. 6. flua to 1he arnaunl oil significant lice: along the prop asecl mouse of lhe undargnound utility lWench, the applicable Ala ns : hall specify 11 at the ulililie s will be dinectiona 111- 1 oned by a lint faur feel 1 elow existing : ail glade; the gnouncl above anal tunnel mu: I nema in uncli5 tut bed; ar d a cce ss pits a nd a ny a bove-pound in filar Irue tore ile.g. splice taxes, meteiand vault: must be established bc1and the trees' canopies, unless appuaved and pie-delenmined on -:its wish the Town's consulting andAan a lie nl's piio jecl arl a ni: t. - 7. IJndeiiground utilities and say iiaes :hould be established 1 ayond a TPA. Wreiie this is net feasible, the seation of IineQsI within the TPA should 1e tunnelled an dine liar ally-1 a rad by al least foul fa at below existing gnada; 8. "Ilhe home des* muss not Beguile the memorial of signifcani blanche frail tneels that would otherwise be planned for netentian and pnoleation. 9. •Tlhe dnainage 'design pen tl a pnojeat, including downspouts, mu, t not nequine walan 1 cling disc has aged ben a alh os to wands the a anopie s of rota ined tiees . Tha axception to t1 is is whene water is disa hanged dinectly into 11 a existing ahanneI. :I i . Tha a onstr uction a 1 a n a ppnoved ne'laining vial! benea lh a 1 ra e's a ar opy . I a u ld adhere to tl a fa lIo wing guidelina s : a. 11 the wa 11 is supporting fill, a past and above -grade beam design should be employed, in which no soil is axcarialed os isencl ad 1 atween the posts Rji.e. a no -dig de: ign except var iaaIly far the post:: . b. Ili tl a wall is supp orl ing existing g rade, a r is ra ut beyond the vna11 should not exceed 24 inal es (jsharinll rrii111 a neaossar) to acl iarie this). .11 Higl Iancltluenue, Las Cla tea Page 7 of Tel r of Los Glata.1 C Iomniunit} A+n•ulapnrantElnpa to ent David L. Bc bd y, Regjstaaied Cons a ilting Ard oa U,i t Fel ru iy ]I. I, 21 JI0 11.13IIxaepl far trees All a 11if removed), 28 and 46, mitigation is necassarjll to canigensa le fan the, loss of 1 lees removed, and should also apply to trees de term fined by the "pnojecl anboris1" {see 91aelion 5.2) to have bean severely impaa led and subject 10 pnemalune decline andbr initabilitr . Pen Seclion 29.10.0981 of the Tawr.i Coda, this shall be clel erux ined 1 J 1 1 he Parks and Public w onks i epartr. ent and all nevi Aces sha 1 be planted prior 10 final insp anon. 1 hey mull la da ul lu-slaked wilh nil ben tree lies and all form of irrigation shall be of ar automatic drip or soal er hose sys rein plan a d- on the sail surfs a e ar c1 not in a sle c ve. 12. Tl e fiitune landscape plans should ba rf viewed lot tree impacts prigr-to agpre}is1. 1:. Thu lands a ape design should inaongc rate the following guidelines: a. 'Jude auhl la avoided beneath an oak lnee's aanopy; if necessary, i1 should It eel a blisha (1 a minimum die I ance 1lsom an oat 's trunk of seven limes its diameter. Any plant material installed 1 aneath an oak's aanopy should 1 a highly draught -Tolerant, limited in amount 1Isuch as no more than 20-pcnaen1 of the aanopy at ea), be a I lc ast five to tan fact from the trunk. b. Within the selbaak, 11 suggest a fours -inch layer of (ease wood chips or other high -quality mulch is used as g aund coven i1no gorilla hi- ir, bark on 1 ock/ste IIlaak plastics an olben syntllatia gnc and coven sha u1d 1 a avoided. N ulch al ould be plaaed no elasen Than 12 inahas filom a lnee's trunk. c. .rrigalion aan, overtime, acluansely impel the oaks and should 1a avoided. :Irrigation far any new plan) matanih 1 beneath tl air canopies should be a 10 v- volume, drip-t31ga system 11 al is all imsegularly Ouch as only once ar twig(' pen weak), and temporary 1Isuah as na mane lhan tl tea yeas). ]Irrigation alould nol strike vaitl in 11 to 1,1 inahes honer 1he hunks al other trees. d. 1 na n a hing foe irnigation o1 lighting should be a stablis hed ba la nd. the tree.' calla Bit s. 111 an31 are neaessaiy, They should la in a radial di action to the tnunl s, and oslal fished na closer than lhnee times 1he diamelen all the meanest Irunl; ill this is nol possible, the lines can be placed an tog a>i ai is ling soil gawks and a a ue nc d wilh wood chills of other mulch. 19 Highlaucl Avencw, Lds Clata.i Page 8 aj 11 Tawn nj Loa anal Can nninitl Lle elapaneait Llletla; tenant David L. Babdy,1legjsten red Consnitin81 Aiibwiiat Fedn aril 15, 2(110 e.. Stones on mulch should not be planed against the trunk: oil retail o d ou na w tires. Hlastic mound aoven shehl be avaRio d belle aih canepios. f. Tilling 1 a neath the canopia s should be a voided, inn luc I in g poi wa o d control. g. Handel board a s t1 o r e dging material proposed bar e al h the a s nopies she uld I a established on top of existing soil g ode (such as by using ver ical slai�es1. 5.7 Plra l i a tin n M E asui es ha Ina and dui ing fl evelopmenl 1 I . Due 1 a 1he close proximity of aativitie s among 1: c es, an individual entitled l y the 1nloinatia nal Society of iIrboiiicultui e (]SA; - la be named the "project arbo] isi" - should ba rein ij a d by the applicaui l ar ovm an to a ssisl in implementing arid a chie) ling a oil pliant] with all ti ee prole a lion measures, as well as Haag are a comprehersive "finati ea piles e: valion rap art" following completia r of the a a nslr uction phase (per Sea. 29.10.1000D a f 1ha Tlown Clode; ; a copy should ba s ubri itted 1 o the 'Down. Any Imes ry pbllow-up visits tug gestf d by the arbonist should also occur. 11. All least two weeks prior to any grading on silo clearing .work, a pre -construction meeting shall ba l old on••sille with 1he pnojeat ant grist and aonlraclor to discuss via ilk pnoaedui ex, Ina removals, pi oiection fe ncing loaalions, limits of grading, staging areas, ra i tes all across, mulching, via le] ing and olhei items no gai ding miligalion. Pnioi io ilhis mooting, the appnova d limits of giiading should be slaked, and the appiiaved removals marked. 16. Thee mato dive fe ncing shall be installedmien' 1 o any grading, sunfaca s a i a ping on haavy equipment arriving on site. its precise 1ooelion must be delenminecl and its placement appnova d by tte pwgjc et ant o:iiisi (in the farm of a Ietten submitted 10 the 'flown; prior to the issuance ofa grading or aonstnua law palm it. It shall be as nipriscd of six -fool I igl al a in link mounted on eight -foot ta 11, tvaa-inai dia ten steel posts that awe driven 24 inches into iha giiound and spaced no ni ire than ]Q feat apart. Clnae establisl ad, the fencing mull amain undistt ri ad and be maintained thiioughout canstiuclion unlit final inspection. Please note fencing beneath a treu's caropy should be eslablishad na mare than two feel from a notairung vralI and diiveway, ancl s bi fa e1 from 1he l ome's foundation. a9 Highland Avenue, Lai C latds Pdiga9 di 11 191VA of Loa C aids Cann 71 pityDeveliipmient Depdriment Aai idL. Bal by,.Idegiatared Consult'ngs rd oaii,lt Febntiary 15, 2010 17. Unless oiherwisa approved, all construatian aalivitias must be canduc led outside the ili nced areas (elan a flen farming is t ems ua d] . Tha s e activil iea in cluda, but ale not limit d ta, tl a folic wing: gra ding, shipping of topsoil, ti Cinching, eq uipm arj cleaning, stockpiling/dumping a l malaria Is, and aq uipment vehicle al u: anon and packing. 11. shall be displayed on 8.'I- by 11-inch sign: (minimum) and atlachacl to tl a lancing event' 50 fc el on the side llaa ing aonslnucl ion activities: "Warning — Ti ea Note(' flan 2lone - this fence shall not be t emoved. Violal ors are subject 10 a pena Fri! accanding to Tavin Clode 29.10.1025." Tl ass signs sha11 be poslad priori io gnading commencing (asaentially, al lhe same lime tied fancing is area lad] . 9.Pnion 10 camnencing damolitian, I neeommend a five-inct layer of coatis& wiad a hips fron a it ee servia a company is manua 11;1 spre a d within the designated fenced areas. the wood cl iiI s must nol be placed against lhe tra a s' trunl s and sl all nemain thnoughout aonstiuction. 20. Pnion to heavy equipment being used to a xcava to s a i 1 fa n the hand, dnivewa y and mitaining walls, a one -fool wide, three-lbat deep trench (on 10 the aequinad daptl, vsihichevar is lass) shall t e manually dug where 1 e neath a It ee's canopy. The tnenal should be dug whew excavation would occur alosasl is the Irunt s, and axposed noola cleanly leveled on 1ha ties side of tl a soil cut. Roola encountered with diameters of tv+o inches and pencil should ba treated acaonding to tl a prajact anbonisl. 2:1 Elxaapt as dksaribecI in tla neaammandalion above, any apprauad digging on tnen c hing t aneath a a a nopy shall be manually 1f a rtu tied. In the event 'loots of tv a in ahes and gneata r ac e encounta roc! dwiing tl a pnoca sa, the pm ja cl art a'list al all ba onsulta d fon alp na II niata aatia n I ra a is a 11 this size should nemain intact and nol ba damaged). 22. Soil appromad far excavation beneatl a canopy should ba pilad awaN loom and la yond a canon) I. Willa re this is not Ina( 1 is al, the soil a a n be placed on a tarp, p1:Ivmood on mulah. I � Highland Ai ienn i, Los G ato,i M aga ! 1 of 11 Town of Los C atii Celnin ninital Lllereltipniwoit Lei min lent LI avid L. Ba b l y, Registered C lonsniting Allot iat February 15, 2010 22 . lineal cart must be la ka n by equip mu ill a penal ors to pos itia n ti a it a quipment to aria id the tiunks and branch(' 5 ofireen. 4. Any allpro'lad activity' sequined beneath a trea's canopy llwilhin and I eyond the denigrated fenca(I areal) must be alarmed under the direction of the project arbonisI. ]Ihe pnojacl arboais1 should alma ba setainad ta periloiim mot tilt! site visits fan 41 s using compliant a 1blue pnol cello] ma asrues. 11.- Any exin tit g , unit s ed linen on pipes 1 e neath the ca n opiem oil rut ined trees s hould be abandanad and out aft at aaiisling nail gnada. (I.Each niaomtr.endation pnemenled within Sea tian 5.1 of this nepont and applical1a to the grlading, canstale lion and landscaping oftl e site shall also be followed. 1. All ivy shall bu clea r a cI a ff and a I lu ast two fa el from tha trt t 1 s of ralained treas. `p he removal of ivy, plants or shnubm benaaih the canopm of a setainad tree should be m an wally parilorrrled with great a are taken to a void exa a val ing ma it during tha pra a en 5. Largo mhnubs beneatt the canopies of rat ined Ira am ai (I bay nd the proposed home faatpnint mhould be crttto grada. 1 I. Supplemental water shall be provided 10 the nets in Was prior to constrr alion or demolition; ... the n,�+ •�,r,�,.�,i.+ shall determine the cific tree r „+a .,il 'water U..111Vii.1V1i, .11fl project 1. ..i.ivi ioc . t1rii} ..i...� iiiiiii... Lxa.,. .fll ..11.1. .i..1 �, amount: .J1 and allllliaalion method'. 39. All true Mauling shall I e parponmed unclad the (lineation of the pua,jact art arimt, in accandanae with the mas1 roaenl ANS: standandm, arid IN a Ca Iiiloinia ntate•Iiaenmed tnea service company that ham an ISA certified art ariil in a supenvimary rate. `➢he ompany seeded should ale o carry Geneva' (liability and Wort am's Clompens a tion insumanca, and mt all at ide I )I AID ] ZI11.1-2001I 1I1afet}I Clpematians). AI1I pnrning should I a limited ta the nemoval ail deadvvaa(I >_1 in diamatur; heall;l limb viuighl redu a I is n; and clearance lion the home, hiclem and eq a ip rn ant. I51 Highlaaicl Aiienua, Las Glata.i Page 11 of 11 7atan al Los Glam.' C omnninitjl Llleilartment Llavid 1. Bad I Cloti,itiltingArb iriat If, I I. (I 30. ]Ihe disposal a I harmful produals {Isuah a s cemenl, paint, chamiaals, oil and ga soline) is pm hibited ben(' ath canopies an a nywhene on E i1 e -that alla ws dnainage bet e ath canopies. f lent icicles should na t be used benea tl the twee i a nopies; wham used on site, they should be Iaba lad far safe use nean glees. Prep an('d I : David II. Babby Ru€ lrstkirC brz! ukingiArd ort. it #391 Boaf k -CEi rllifid d Masikir A rt ori.t #RIE-91111I Dale: &b:inary 11, 2010 1l P. ighlaaid Ai +it ua, Lis CI to: Page .I2 if 1l Tc ivn (y Liis Glato.i Clomttninta t Llepartnient INTTIPIL STUIIY - 19 F ICinI.p1NE I AvBNUE ATTA CE MHNT :I IIEHR RIF VIEW CHI GHO'IIHCIHT ICIAFI IN ES IIIGA II: C IN IT D PLA I PAOAOSHD 5III` CILHFAIMILL'I T1ESIDHNCIE 19 HICIHFIANII AVHNUH LCI9 GA'IIOS, CALIUCIIINIA BY C, ]NCI. PHILI F , 21CI0E Th:9i flap Inil eintianally Leift B1 ank Gaom at rix April 6, 2006 Hnojecl 8449.036.0 Mn. Fletallar Pansoni flown of Los Qa log Pails and I ubllc Wonlrls 41 IV Has Avenue Lds Gatti California 95031 RE I I P R 2 o ;i i FILAIN1NiNG tJlVISCN Subject: Aee: i Review - Geoll echnf cal Inva stigal ion and Flans Geologic 1laasibifty I valuation IlGeologic Latter Report; 1llroposa d Sing e lllamily Residence 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, California Rlelera na es: 1. John Bien Ara hslea t,1Ilans, Sheets] to 5, dated 1,12E /05. 2. 1lacifla Claotaclinical Engineering (IjGE;, March 9, 2004, Geologic AaasibiiFty Evaluation, Ilropo: e d Residence, 19 High]' and Avenue, Los Clata s, Calf forn'a, 8 pages. Dear Mr. la]lsons: Al your request, iIaomatrii Consultants, Ir a. (Gee matrix) has performed a review oflief('ranaas 1 and 2. Reileilence 1 includes anchileclural ar d landscape plans and does not include pralirnunary or design leval aiviLstn clural plans. Tl endow, ihls review does not include a rleview of the goal echnical aspect s of design -lava I plans that a re normally at bmitl ed with the building pa rmil appliaatior . Referena e 2 addresses the ga ola g;ic feaail iiity or the pnol osad I rojeci only, and is not a design -levee geoI clink] al investigation deport ion the prloposedprojeat. 'Ilhis lot ar is based an aun review of the Refarenaas 1 and 2, and presents the ]Iesuhs of a ur review and provides 01171 review aonnnants. Geomz trip II as not visited Iha subject site as part of ami review. (ICIMMEN7S Me proposed pnojact consists a 1 ti e conlstrEl et:ion oil a new two-story, sin gle••flamily residence with ai taeha d g at age, a el f an, and long drivewayylparlcul g a re a a If Hight and Avenue. Relerenlce 2 indicates ti al tl u propert3 is undavelopad, but the Reilevence 1 IISheat l; shows the dashed out lima of an existir g Q?) 71a sidenlce and de1 aeha d garage. Me proper) Il is la a a 1 a d on the na rth east side a it Highland Avenlue in -II a hills south(' a st of Los Gatos a nd a ons ists of an irregular -ill a pa d parcel that is essentiallN bisected by a west-fk wing chair age. The property includes a por ian of the driveway to 25 Highland Avenue located along the soulll boundarN of the pnoparty. '➢lea praparty nortl of the dna'nage :includaal a moderately steep Qslopes g>lealen than. 3 0`io , soulth- facir g slope with relief of about 3 2 feet. The property south of the drain age, pro posed far 211 I \Aletster 9trier, 12tI Fla or a a Ida n , Califa rnia 'I 411 17 -30d Tel 111.463A 1a1 Han111.+16]Ai11 www.ge arm a trix.ca m Mr. Fletcher f arsons Town of Los Gatos April 6, 2006 Fag a 2 &ilk lapmenl includas 3'cime ganti' srlopin timid -along the drainage' and moderately stew" (jslopas graa-lorThar 30%), north-fac:itig ailopesbelow High and Aver.ie. Relief in this area is al out : 4 feel. A portion a f the piiopa sed na siden ce/lganage is toe a to d within slopes ggeate r'LI: an 30tio. Refener.ce 1 (Slieel2Cindicalesthat a partor- alllhe pnopaseddriveway isiloaaiadwilhin the 100-yeas flood ph in. Na gfadir g an is inaludad, t ut gladir g (lent, into tl:e north -facing slap] and rata ininig walls will be ra quired. Santa Cilara Formation beds bald is niiappad alonl tha drainage (Moll at and odes, 200]), and au no eats a ilaull _juxl aposing lianci scan Complex melange on the north fra m 13rana iscan Clamplex volcanic roclls on ti e south. The Tlown Geologic Map (1`IolanAssociates, 20(2), maps the area narih ofllie d&iaim ge as ald alhvia l fan deposits. No large landslides are mallpad on tits pFlioper y. TIFl e S a ism is Haz aad Zones map ante Los Ga1 os Quad' fang e (Cla iiornia Ga olog is a I Surtia], 20( 2) India ales tt al some oflha proper is Iocaled wiihin an "Fartl quake-llrlduced Ilandslides" zone. We nola tl ai the Seismic Hai and Zor, es map designations are based, in part, on s lava aleepness (llolential for landslides), and do niol necessarily mean that landslides ara, in fact, mapped on ti a proper y. The so ale of the map is a so not alwaapprapri a1e for making situ specific deierminalionis. 1 ha Towr.i Slap] SiabiliI i Hazand Map (Nolan Ailsociales, 2002) indicates Iha I the proplerty is in a low ha: and area. - Tlie pnalllartN is located in a seism'iaally active region. The alaseat known faults are tsacas of the as live Berrocal fault zona mapped at out 100 feel n orth, and 1. 00 feel north of the piloper y. Illenafame, llle polenilia1 for fault gfaund rupture on the proparty is aansid('red to to low. 7 ha aativa San Andi leas taunt zor e is mapped about 2.9 miles southwest of lha proper y. The property will be subjected 10 ter) sti ang 10 \ioland ground shaking from a filture large earthquake on ti e r, east y San Andheas fau11 zone, or ors ono of the o1Ner major active fault a in the region. Seismic design lllanamel ens per 1997 UBC apply 10 the proposed pnojecl bud are not included in Reference 2. Ra farena a 2 a ona ludas tl al, from a faasibiliiy standlloinl, tieprapose dproject is•feasibla, ar d pilovidas the following cor.clusions: I; the ha2a]Id assiaa:ialed with g3oundruplure is conisidered 10 be low; 2; the proposed pro'ecl ti till be aifecied by sti or g ground shaking, bud the hazard aan be miiiga lad by inaa rplora ting appnopriate seism is design panamelens it iha design; 3) tt e has and of giound iailuse is consideiied 10 be :low axicepl far "micro" sloughing of drainage banl s; 4. the landslide hazard is a ansideredto ba low;5; atherpal erlialHuai cssuch asexipar.sivesoils, sattlemant, sail cheep, high graundvkia1es, supportive ioundaiior dalllth, and bearing capacity of soils/rock can be adequately addressed in ti e deiign•lavel hive'sligal ion report. 1:WPwject18400s181411 I49.03 IF tter84'9A3d.da Mr. Fleichei 1 arsons 'flown of Ilos Gatos 16Ipii16, 20 0(1 Page 3 CONCZ ' S] ONS We hE va. the follow iri g E pecif a conclusions with rasped lo Refe11erice: 1 and 2: 1. The property is highly constrained by steep slopesgrgeatee ttan 30°%0;, regained selbaalls, t1 a 1( ( -yeah f ka ( d plain, and ' 14) the df.vewa y to 21 Highland A venue. The popes ed project will requ he glading (cul; into : tap (pleat en than 30 °r0; at d retainir g walls. ]It is not a la ar how the pilopoE ed piloje ci AA ill mitigate the poiential flood hazard . 2. Thi ee dis: ipater: are shown orl iha Plan; (Railer ence i, Sheet 1:. Clne is 1ocE tad an the slope above tl: e plop ( sed drivewE y, an d two one located along ilia c rainage wiith'nl the 10 0-•year flood plain. 3. Referenia e 2 gene] lly addne: ses the geologic feasibility oil 111e prc po: ec IIIrojecl, anti ouigh eveiial. disc] epancies ba tween dal a in the refer ence and tl e original :I c vice: ate holed. A design -level 0 aotochill aal it vasligalioni and fir al construe lion) flans ate iiaquired for tie propo: ed project lirion lo the is smancs o 11 th e t unldir g permit (Is;, Geomlctrim Consult ants ill ould review the de igrl-level geoleahnica inves liglataioni report and file finial cc n truciion Plans submitted with tt e building perinitQi) application'. Br or 10 tt e is: uar ce of the building permilils: , the go c leahni.cal engineer should review att y 'Down commend and life final c( nstraction 1 ions, including 111e foundation and strt chiral plans, in conic rr n ante of the lions with th ei1 i geoi a chnia al angina a ring necomma nda tion a, and submit a Plan Review letlen to ilia Town. Ilurir.g consinlcli( n, the geoiechnical aon:uiltanl :tic uld observe and document the i(iota ahnlaal engineering aspaa1E of the aonstruation, including g>lading at d &lain age iniprovemnenlls. Brim to piojecl final, the geoleehnical eansulltannt should submit an "as -built" consln ation obser41a1iorli lettearlo the Town_ 1:11 riject\Be'ICs1E4491841I.13iIV eziiaw_Letter 1,149_C3'I. Ioc Ms. I le tel ea Pau, ions Town oillas Gaios Apni16, 2006 IIage4 CLOSURE We ka ope if is palovides 31ou witi the information y of re quire. Ills a se call if your have an y qq ie stions. Sinoarely yowls, GEOMA TRIX C I ONSUL1IAIN TS, INCI. Robert H. V41lrigkai,1111.D., AC ., CIEG 962 5lenioai I ngina tiring Geolagist 1dF ro ject18000s1844118441.OJ QUlMview 1 etla 8449.0 3+Ldoc INITLILSTUIIY - l9 HIIQHLAIND A\IENII E A IIACHMEVT 3 PRELIM/IIr ARN GIREHNPCIINT CHF t IKLuS1I (PRIG -CI IR71IFM(IA IICII\ ES1IMA7119 7 his P age IJrnteniiianally Left II lankl M1 �. • Greet 'omt Rated Checklist: Sine iei Family Thee tlilltadthe vttratdsgreert'incorpcatedintoIhahome,Ahome fsonlyGreenPofn! Rateai ffatt feahwea ere v�lfled i[>J�Cerlilied [ir enPuln( Rater thraunii Bulid U ereoriyGreehObla ;I ted)s proNded a a pubis se,Y>ceby Ada"green, a processional non-prollt'whoee missfen)s to-prnma�g fio M yr energy slid resource egidard11uJd0ngs In California.. 7henlinbi i n iequlfements of GreenPolnt.Reed ne:serit)cation of 50 or mare polnIs: Earn the following ,r mfrimum points par category, Energy (30), I1ldobrAir QvaltylHealtr(5}, Resources (6), and Water (9); and !'meet ttieprerogiilsltes A:2:a.H10a J2, K7:; and N.1. Projects meant measure 34:'Obtain EPA ladder alrPLUS Certiflcalonshonid aubnaNrallyMeat the rat{ulrements of 29 other measures; when 3,1 k chosen, Nisi 29 metauras w91 be highfi edtit* for *sr nanval�fenoe The crliada for ga, green bk rip 45)1$1sted below tie dascdbed rn GteertPot tRated Single Family"Ratingf anteVrdemora4iTomiaicnpfea5e41-060 4b5ikUtgreon.orgJgreefipoikrated .'Sir taOlin ifY,14i;.HomaAAla—ng. e2+1 •ffi = •. �L3� :J`i. efPnlilt RA A aflOg4A►1:-o.P sUt}_erxt sa'Fie TotaIP4lhts Targeted. _t) I SEP 7 aoid TC[v N C]F LCI I GAITCIS- KANN Ii atiVISICIN -.. Enter Project Name : I. � $ `.- - - - _ Notes .-• _4".-ProtoctTopsoil'and lie drhiza Ciefupiiu8 01 Ex1sling Manta &Tress `;n,,5 a:Protect Top and Fist sa after Cciartr w6on - `b. L6nitand Demeai .Cof stiuttlan'FootprGb fer.Maxlmutn Protection .VD„ 1 . Aflr3 1 - DEverVRooyeTamb 5ltaeorlstfucgcri Shasta .... ibteiudlna Greaa Wilts and Ex1'stlrin Struciiires} - a. Regoiredi D1rert 5D%'.(faywtilgiit) ofAA Conslinitah end Danioptlpn Waste (ilacVding rft8use}: _' b _DivaJt �00i .aiAspi�allaMconcie4e-sad 65%(by weI tit) at Remaining l4tatertals aI?Iveit.1Q0%ofA4phsilandCatereteand60%{byweight)ofRemoldng.Mstedais UM ,,,, r', . ^z�"}'' .-s • R .-- - - r 3 x Clix :' F.r -o$ ,D",s 3..Usa Recycled Content Aggregate.(IH1nlmum•25%) a,4Vatkwayiand DrivewayBase b Roedway.eeseD,h` F si,• ac -i,-i0 , 1 I. , .- 4: Cpo1 Slle: Reduce Heat island Effect On"Site O'hi 1 I - • }...<.19 4,?, i S.Cen66uctionEnvironmental QualtlyfAenagement-Ptan;Duet 'Sealing, 7and'Pie-OctimentyFlush-0at itsaeatl aregWreinentassociatedMr .J4`1A1API • .. _..S& . D:?z, :2 - - Total Points Avelabieldgi i.a124,0:t . . 7II 1 'Slag._P_lace .MlnlmPortfand amei>t In Concrete wt h Recycle Fly Ash andtor• 12 kfsa Frost -Protected Shallov(Foundationln.Cold Areas (GEC Cgniata S s ....Zone 161 Y 2. r;� I Use RadonReslstantCOnstruetlon- '° PTids credit is a reutAmnient aseltlated with 34: EPA LAN- (•Q r t. wc` 1 ` s 4; inatalamin lla Foundation ate System K II 1'Ttifs credit is a rea irettie 1f associated with J4: EPA LAP) 55d ru --: 2 15: Molsture Mina:Acid Crmrtapeca ti-5...." -['ibis Grr tts�recti er3.assedated Wffi J4: EPA IAPI -y 7' •6: Design and SOW Shucturat Pest Controls a.lnatalTerneleStidds&SeparateAf Exterior Wood -to -Concrete Connections - b: Alf.PlantsJtave Trunk Base, or Stern Located At' Least 35 Insheo from Foundation sa : e¢ 1 c„TB 015 Total Paints Available in Foundation.=12 =ai0': . r ri' I�1 :� _ :- a._-•_-_, , :'r „HI,, ram: I : - d t . • - — Enferfa the % affsndarape area(Projects-'wllh less than 16% of the l site area (Le. fetaI tot she)esfendseepe.areaarecappedsi8palnfsfrthefellawingreeesures:CllhrcughC7end C9 tWauah C11: ; s.;e•; - Greer, Ftanbtar-Water Naiads {Hydrezentrio) a0 - L t I. L 772:Mulch . -; Au.PtanUng Badetothe Greater of 3 Inches or Local Water - ordinance RQdukelli9pl .1 -x I I( Ill 1g 7 3:.Construct Resource-EHictant Landscapes a No Invasive Species Listed by.Cal-PC Are Planned! b.NoSemSpecfesWeiReglsre'Sheanop {Otl7d rApo(op � S o �Tolemnt California Natives ar) l ee tenon len l peel es De =-;0'`` .: : 1.',.:, r 1 : DM ,1O E . 1 r.'.0 ,(` 4. Minimize Tin -I En Leadsrnpelnatalled by Builder' S:Turf Sha8•NotBeirstatedanSlopes Exceeding t0%and cOverhear Spr'Nleis Instated inAreas Less tlh9r! 8 Feet Wide •-b.TtulisSinatPeicenlagactLandscapedArea(2Paintsfer533%,4Pointsfors10%)- _.:z •:- -iitr;•:4•ti-Fi.•:,... :row' Oct $1. D 1 5.Plantshsdolrona. 0 1 f 1 )' •-6:installHigh-EffietancyInrgaUonSystems - a:SyrsbsrillesOnly Lo*F1ow Dip. Beaters, ofSpatnklers .b.SYstemHas SieretMaOrar-Based) Controller x,Lt l_- - Vil IN 3:0:' 2 ,.e,- :,,t.. ;-,,:0: • 3. - : r <.. 7: fncorporatoTwo inches of compost in the Too a to 12-Incheo of Soil (3`.1 B: Rain WaterHarvasing System a. Cbstem(s) is Less -Mart 750 Gabes' it CLSteint's) is 750 to 2,500 Gatons c:Clsterh(a)1sGteaterT ert2,500.Geller* -, ,.O• _ . : -r - �`- , 1 ::, :37. r . :0 , 1 :r : r,,,,, >::0• • - 1 ,e. MOH 9, Irrigation Swam Uses Reeyeted Wastewater ..2.20v 1 _ — , i TSD 10.:SUbmotedng-for l:andacape Irrigation =•0-•-- - 1 11..DasfgnLendscapetoMeet Water Budget at!natal!IrigatonSystem ThatW11BeOperated al57C%6eferencaEll .{Prere sitas,for:Credttare C1.and C2.) b.instal•hrlggatiarS�!�atemThetWNBaClperaledats5091 Nelemma Ell (PrerearlstteiforCreddere 01.II2.tux C6aorGb.y .3.:4r 4 `,r a °4,` a;. x* t , •':� r -= `= , 0-_: 1 A 1 uild It Green S Ingle Family Chec list New 111 n e Version d.( Page I of 10 2.: Use. Ettakonmon tally Preferable Materials for 70% of Nori Plant. Candscape.Elements-and Fencing A) FSC-Certified Wood. e) Reslalmed. CJ Rapidly R enewal le, 4I F eayr ed.Ct Men El Finder40Intesicanietai 3, Reduce.Llght Pollution by Shielding Fixtures and Directing Llgtrt Total Po nta Available In Landsea • : = 35 "cit °. EjEPiil? 1.-Anpl .OptIpalYaiueEngineerIng. - �br���„t� a Place.Jols}s, Rafters and Strom st241nch On Center MfiltOsiffiI b. Coot -end Window Headers are Shed far Load p. Use.QnN Llingie Stud4 Bemired for -Load 2 ConsbvdlonM9tAhal.Eifkclsnclas. a: 4YatlLand FionrA3Sernitflee n9 sold Wal3 Assemblies) we OBRGeied ;Para -Crgrn SL 1 ( of 80%Square Feet) is .1dddarCa+rmonerd9 Ale De a/MadAssemtled to die Projectt{Mirdmurii 2590 3 UsaEnRlneeredl.tr#nber: a Fn�naered Eseams and Haadaia' . b Wood WOiSEacwWeb Tnase.,for-Floors c.En{lit aredLtlmb for Root Rafters ' 'a78E11"f d.-Engineered otrinleP inted Studs for Vertical Apokationa e. Odented'Strand Board for Sibling,- liClianted Salad Board for Well and Reef Sheathing kCIffITIOWN4: Insulated Headers 5. Use PSC.CertUled Wood OilKTEICfAtt. a. Dirriereioni-Eraiabar Studs and Tmber0' 411mM 411 %) isthaiTSOME, b. Pant P.rodeals adinimlrnt 4U%) 6. Luse -solid Wall Systerime (Includes SIPS, ICFs,-&Any Non -Slick From* Asseml tyl .Floors I . walls c_ Roofs tomaempAi magrepat 7 Energy Heels on Roof Tniases (75% of Attic Issotaliori Height at Outside Edge of Exterior Wall a Install Overhangssad.Gutters INMEIElgiti a Mtnirncan 16-InchiOveit all 5 and Gutters. i - b..atiidmum 24-Inch Overhangs and Gutters S. Reduce Pollution Entering the Home from theGarage F'T is credit b a reegiternent associated with J4: EPA IAPI rTBb.4* a. till Garage Exhaust Fan OR Bud a Detached Garage I I . Tightly Seal the AU Barrierbewveen Garage and Living Area (Performance lest Reaufred) 3 :1 - .s Total Palms Available to Stnrctural Frame and Building Envelope = 36 0 IIngle Ramllyt11 sc5 is! ©Builll Green New Halle Veasion4.1 Pa se3of111 -- - Enter Project Name . .c It.�F� .?-. giant _ swru _ � g d a. Notes -i- 2 .. :.e :.§1 U64Erill"nrn°it lliYPr firabli Dkidn9 . • is; 2..FleshingInstatlationTeehlieraiSgeeiliedandMittrt-PartyVerified lrRris credit is a reafn%nenta9Societed with J4: EPA IAPI PP: ;Y r 3: 3. Install a Rain Screen W-If-yst ': 0 : 4. Use Durable end etc i.Caiabustible Siding Materiata 0 < _ ._ - : 0 5. Us8 Dureble'eed Fire Resistant Roofing Materials or Assembly 0 - - Total Points Available in Exterior 8 :• ... - .- 1Installhisulatton.with 757E Recycled Content re. Walaetllnt$ b, coma °,h_ MoTEDOsiU.: 0 ` . 1"• -IVCOMIROIS- 0-c L }I 1 �Fleers , = I 1 'total eti Points Available En _ en= 3 .p;'� ili .,. 1 Distribute .Der iee561.1ut.WatetEfti lly (Max.5 points, G1a hritnetargileita.for G1ti-e) -a.Ansuiata4itHot waterPipes- ._-_ ent esteciated wi 4: EPA 1API •- • .-. rmrstratilt is a r ireinwith _ b. Usa Engineered Parallel Phanhing - c. Use Engineered Parallel PiurnbIn9 with Demand Cornea ed-CEiraAalien Wop(s} _d. list Traditional Trunk: Blanch and.TWigP]wnbing With 1 em an Cl ntm ]ed Circulation W 0 x _ . , <5-r, —"�.y4Y - t 1 +a it aRttgi 3;i 0 •1 . BQrm t3D i OT- - - - - . 1- .- ,,. , ;i� ':` 1 - 2 . ." 7BDt 5 - - e. Use Dentrai Gore Pttanh4ig IR 0 T 1- 1: . 1 -. 2. WaterEfficlantFleturap-._ . Ey=k, - I T&tt $ a. High EtHclenc yStimiiedieads 52.0 Gallons Per 1'4inuts (tyre) at 88 par • b. High Efficiency BaUtroemPaucets.s'1.5gpmat8(ipsi c. H1tJr1 flclency Kttclteit and UtOgjr Faucets a.o gern - t4(1 3 . 01 1 .t - Pak �?;� I 1 - . . .rc 3,11ustalIOnlyHlggttEfilc}agoaellets(Prior-Ftushor51.28Galions.Per FlusIU 1.1 t 2 - Total Pei : Available In P , 2 0 `, : �t _ -1. Properly Daslgn HVAC.Syetam and.Parfcrm DIagnosdc Testing a. Design and lr ail wide Systom 1n'Ai:CA Manual J, D, end S Reeonanendatioris Piths Credit a regrdrefner$assoeiated with J4; EPA IAPI b TestTotalSupplyAirFlow Rides 1 ihEs credit is a re nt assaelatad whit J4: EPA LtP1 c TI*d Plity_Tearing of.MacharilealVeriilation Retailer IAt (meet ASH RAE 02.2) a3.' . \s ' n l�.%. ,4 q _ �r�8.: J • ", O :r r+ `?1 - .-4-.-iiliilliftr4 ' %0 • 1 _ 2..lesta1ISos18dCombustion Unite Ms credit 1 a requirement associated with J4: ERA IAr 1 a Furnaces - b. Wafer lieaterrs ;'• - c W7DD1 =r;0 1 2 ' :?illIBD I'_," It -' 1 2 riaTqiin3DMI 3.. Install High Performing Zoned Hydrenic Radiant Heating. .. - '"l'' Q-, 1 1 f t t ®Egli,' II Greer' E Ingle Fami1N CI acid of Hew Helms Versien•I.1 A.Ege 2 of 11 Enter Project Name 4.hi tallHlgh-EptOlentyAIn.CondttiaAing'WithEnvlienmenfaly :tersaeRe 5. Deafen and Install Effective Goalie* a. lnstaq 14VAC.Usltand 0uctwarkwinjin Condil10nett Space b. Use DuctMasticonAil toittJotrds»dSews ... Ilbi$ dditISa Teouliornent associated with .14 EPAIAPI O:.PresslxeRelievetheDu*.i.iELS eni "a<<;,.i.rr._;u•_.e.^-ted•wida •E'i LAP 6 -IrJ! F1igh-F_fllelenc7liYAC Flher(MERY 7. No Ftreplate OR IaetelI Sealedtiea Flroplaoe(s) w th,EHlelanty Rating gn.N CSA5 nd - - a 8: titstalE NER Y'ST - -Batliiooraffaile on Timer OrHumidiaiat 9 InsiallMechsniWVenigetfcnSystem Toe point na Wait; '4P.ohits) a Install ENERGY STAR Gang tens & Lk t lgts In LTvinnAreas & Atl eedmoms b. install Wtio[B House Fanw h VEanable peads (CreifitNotAvsSabie.H HZe Chosen) c. Adorned Cantta1led ted 5 . .Vadabie Co 10. Advari46ii Moelt Ideal Ve itillatled fat: M e. Required: Oaspis rcetirifh ASHEiAE622 Mad a picot Ve nfi labon Stand arils (as -adoofied.lnTrale 24Pett$) Tips credit is a reaofrement osculated whit:l4: EPA U',PT b.AdvancedVialatbnPratlrses4ContalionsOperation; Sons-E.lmtt.Mi Witham Ef cieosy. MhittroonVeab'ia@an time, Homeowner instructions) c , .m eeilroem snit l ivl • Are5s-o Homa 11: Install Carbon Monaxtd iAlarm(s)(ONo Camtwslion Appliances in Living Space and No Altashed Garage) rea 3or9.rA 111111111111 1NIII1M1♦®1♦ 1111111111111111 01111111111111111 ■ 1111311111111111111111111111 eta Notes • 1130Nkei MSEEIMINIMMIN E11111111111111111111111111111111111111 ii 1st®11E1111111111® 1111111111 DY1-4`;1a,7 13z4Isa V _ #0 TOW P..'•-llvaaaltle In . _: Ventllal(ori end Alt Condition! '4. 27 2 ]ns[all lflflrtng Cottdult fol•Etiture PhSEovotta161ristallatfon &' Frovlde 3.. Offset Energy Consuiiiptlon with O» nite Renewable Geiierattan (Solar PY, Solar Th9frtal, Wind) v _, eri: l r.s m11_i. , . - =.- • .f . a 4•.- • it TototAvallablePointstii:RenewableEna i= 27 111111111111111 Single I larmily Chet klist 0 Budd It 0 reel New Flume I Iuriii Page 4cr10 Enter Project Name 1fBiiAdingEiivelopeDliailnastlaEvai(iaHarls _ , a VerffyCiiallyoflnsatasteitIn!t 3adonti hermalBypsssChecidistbeforeI tydsi ITadsp t(sa_re4A en)aSsodat8divf>fi:,t4 EPAIIIPI b,:yoaseP,ass413kwo.D-,aarTasE ("Cl�eredt[sa raltdtament assodated wltt=t44: EPA iAP1- c.:BlowerAaarfieseils iota Max 2:5.ACIAQ for Oribatanced Systemsi$upply or Exhausq • or Mat orBalorwe. Syialems(2,To1a1Po1rttsfar.J1b.andJtc.) 4:01130t* " it f{oi}sa Passes Coii b tIdh Safety-Backdra.Tesk �y 2Roqutred: BiclldingPerfomranaeEicaaatItt11 e'24(M1illre ml157%) fr . st ^lEritar fG Peroe++tkethir-mail T e_ 24._P'etsts faY Everv't%r Sew than Tleiv 41- 3 Da&gn and Bulld Near Zero ErrergX Homes t Y? I rrier1711ibbarafa6lnds..nkVareirfe(2.indmaxtrttUm ore colitis) 4: Obtain EPAindoor sliP[gs.Ceftifcatiha f%telA7ao,4its:rl9f_ uttna7ale24aertannani readcvmm di • 5: Ttve24'Prepared and'Slgmedlars CAPEC Corffed Eilargy. Plana Eicarniner(CEPEI' Pattielpatla`ii'Iri-U41141P again' itilt;TtdrdFartyPlan Revisal/ . a ErrerOY Efodenayr.Pmgiam.' ["ENs Dread li a regidremant assndated 'filth J4 -aIIA fAI 1 b:Renewable.ergyPmgrernwttihMM.30%Ieta [TM nTfa1il IMO Aerfordn - . ' :. 1-01311 A4alatila Poing to 8 1 Osshrri Entryways to Radtke Tr8aiiard-In Cantaminents 2;Use Low.VOC or Zero-VOC Pala (Meodnium 3 Points) 3.-1.0 ;VOC Inierier WaAWCeitIng Palm ._ jc50 Grams Per Liter (sal) VOGs Regardless -of $been) r1Ws credit Is a reatlfemsta<asrwcisted with d4: EPA IAPI -I ZeraVQC: VOCa ReoerdleasofShean - 3 AUsa tevwVOC Coatis pe#hat N(aet SGAO310. RuIe 1113 M1r LIvi �.77 ... 4 .Use Low-VOC-CauEuss; CortetriietionAdhestves andSeatarila that West SCAgMD Rule 9168-:-; - - Notes 0 PerfoatercA=45t geri taBagEeg5. Use Reeyeted Content Paint El SO lit I nen 2 9 Ini It Aamily 131 eckllst New 1 ante Version 4.1 Pa4 a f _ of 10 Enter Project Name S. Use E ndronataidtaay Preferable Warfare for Interior Finish A) ESC Certified Wood, B) Rectalmed, C) Rapidly Renewable. ©j Ruled -Content or I7 Finoer-Joirdad F1 WON a Cabinets 5C%M rntrm) b. interim -Into (50% la-sktaan) c.Snei (Ka L 1) d. Doors (509bidsitmurn): ,b TBDr i . e. Cauntertaon t50%i�kiimum) 7iRigged: RadiiOaFetineldeh)ldeInhiterlorFlnlsh—Moot Current. 'CARS AtlaniaTwdtConhOI timbre (ATOM) tar Coinposlta Wood FcrroatdehydeLimiis by+Mendatory Gompliianise I ate P'Tlw cr-ft Is a reatirsolentALLAkAtn4l lt.145 EPA IAPL 8. Reducefnrmaltlehyds inintertor Fltrigh.:Exeeed Pore at CARR ATCM:4orComposite.Drood Forraatdetlide Llmlhs Prior'ta Mandatary Comollanap pates DAV 0. DOM (9O% klnssrtiem)'.iMt t Cabinels'& CounteEt9s (80%KitlabOuroy {g9 i o, taiertorTrhn arrA'Stiali4rNi 190% At)i am 9. Atlas' Installation of Finlsfie3;.Tastof Indoor Air Shows Formaldehyde Levellt7ppb r :1 1. Lisa EmAConsrentaiy_Preforable Flooring i Minimum 15%Floor Area) ' 2z � A) FSC-Ceilliied' Wood. E) Reclaimed or Reliidshedi C) Rapidly Ror awable, DtRecycled.Cnidenf,E)Exposed Concrete,.F)Local. Flooring Adhesives Must 2.Tbemtat Mass Floors (Minimum 50%) 3. Low Emitting framing (Section 01350, CRlGreen Label Ptu!. Fiaerscura ['This crecM is a requirement associatd with.14: EPA IAPI .. - - - - - - ' Total Available Perms la Road' e 8 1flrtstail'ENERGY'STAR DJ b -.. 2. Initial ENERGY STARCIotties Waster a.'Magts:ENERGY STAR and CEE'Der 2 Requirements (Modified 'Enersn*Faetar2.0;Wator Factor 6.0 or lass) b. Meets ENERGY STAR and: CEE Tier 3 Requirements (ModifiedEnenry Factor Water Factor 4.5"or less) Total Available Points :hi Finishes = 27 3, instal ENERGY STAR Refrigerator mmTBO =u a. ENERGY STAR Quall8ed&<25Cubio FeetC pa city oevrEO h. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 20 Cubic Feet Cana city ® Build It 4 reen Single len Ily4hecliist {tags d af10 New Home llerslan .0 . ,,_.ter: u• . (T Enter 'Iw Project Name is . t� r 's, z 1 Hares 5.rtattinti ltfW$lacie ei11t or�CompoatlllgCento ", : 1,:lil Sf-tn RdcVding Cesltas ' 9 1- �k BBI I b: euitt-In'BamCosHn€t tliior 0: �_ . -. S.lnsta0 High-EHfeaey ilitit is and Baskin.LlBhtintl Spstam a. InstallEtlicacy Lighting Hk b..Instal a.l ntdin $Yster i to IESNAFOQtCancee Standen$ or lire t:lnhllis41 Consonant TBDf 1 0 : TBD3S 4 9* " • • 1 Total Available Points in A ±,•' enoes and r:u.i.' - .13 . x , 1.R9+dradE, ®liiepoiaEa:Si[eanP4lntRslattCherklisttnBlueprints .- l Thki credit isa rariltremaid essonlaled with34: f A�Pi E . _ R zf» riMi0TOCKPA 2'Pre-ConstrUClionKigk:ONPo nnWithRaterandSubs u-41 n .1 • . -.. . - J:E-,°? 3 HOn ebeilidefs Uanagenient Stenaro Certftsd Green Building: -•:pfofe�ipn5is•� - - •b- ..1_ - - _ - :�! '?l ., 4.DavelopHortiernrnerMenUalot.Oraon'Fealurta1Danalltsand.Conduct Walkthrourihe' 1'RdsoredltteareraiirernerAauuciatedv4Ut:l4:EPA IAPI " �; 1.- t- I Arr nitar OR Paelpa#e in attma-ofllsa 5: Imtall a H`Sy 6maatafrrt lllortt • Woln9 2[QfilleID • A R - Total Available Pokes n giber= 6 =Sko = ... - - a 1 oavaroplrmosites figtfiBEtirle • :I.Profe4fe an Urban Intl DevdopraQnt. hx 1 004131 d • 'Li; HUnrefsYD Leioo nest hi 4 YAM 1T2Ina of a Melon Transit Stop • 0 014RIMOSS0 2 Butld`ori Dendeneted Browntlald Site `?O» 3 4 . 3; ClearlorMorriai.,9--Keep Sim In.Cheek a Cluste iliran s for Land Preservallon i b. Calseira Maoism's bylnWa'eakie Density (10 Units Per,' o tareater) o. Horne Size EfGrSency r ` I ErrkrAverageUnitSquare.t=botaga: p.FedetbvaralieMinh&orBedrnomslUrlt s ... 0 1: . 1 -0• ' 2 2 0 ._ ' _ 8 . *,Ac•OYA'Al u 4 s. N"-Y- O 4: Malin -Mr Vralliiii-g& BiOVelliitl a SOS Has Peate%rian¢ceesa WHhtfl 112 M11e of Community Services: TIER 1 fader Numbeto('u• erv4Ces Within V2 MUe 1}D46re 2)CammuYI(Cen1er 3)PuhBcPark 4)Drug Stara 5) Restaurari &)Siilibe 7} Library B) Farmer's Market li) AiterSchool Pro{aanis . 101:Cosverdence Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold T1ER2• Enter Ntentierel.SeMcasW11h1n`1/2'M11e 2 Worship B)LauridlylGoanArs a}Hardwalo (nes31G)Rn i) Part Office B) Senior`Care Fedl'sty 0) MedlcalIDrs • 10) MairCare 11) CommareEsl Office orMa[ot Emniaver- 12) Fd1 ScalaSurserrnerlist 1..S Services Clsted Above (Rer2Survices Cored as 412 Servica Value) 1:.inen&sListed Abavit(Tier 25erv1cesCount as1/2SendceValue) a 3S; 0 trt ,. i +'P. 5+ a• ,r t ;-a -$f �. . _ O :; 1 O Hull I I Green S in gIe Ran tjI Q 1 eel Rst I Ies' 1 Ionia Version' 4.1 I age a cl 10 Enter Project Name b_:Develoonterilis:Connected *Oh A Dedleated?edesklan Pathway tb_Plade3 al Recreational interest-Wilhet 114.IWO c. hated,Tratik-Caimfng Sbatetdes (Mblinntrn ofTwnj; - Designated Blade Lanes'are Present on Roadways; - TerfFaut Vehic)e Travis: lards: Skeet C 94-Glcaestto_SiteareLocatedLOSThan 309.FeetApark -SVaet':e 1400as-RismbleStits: Fl:-Raised P•row4ents or Rem biands 5. Design for Safety B. Social Gathering 44TBIT e. A4 Rome From frirtrances:1- eve YlaWS tram tt e.h 1¢e 1D Oulslde Capa75 x. s b: Al Hana Pratt eitaliag Dart bB Seen born -the StreeTerictrar from Men - r>. Dopern<;w-RBOV s.Went Pottiesynk iotlsf)toSteelsandPuhleSpaced •res,..1STBDIWkl d, Deveodritentfixn,d'eSeSadaiGatfditieSaaoe : G. Design for Diverse Fious6lito ds t6e;.i5 aPrelsquIaiie for 6b= and 6a.) aid] Homes Hasek Least OieZara-Men Sairaftve b. Ad Nein Floorinterior Doors & Fassagagaya Have a Minimum 32-Inch Claw Passage Space c: Locate Hail -Belli cc the Ground Flcor -d.provide Fs i-Furiadd mindependerdReMalUnit: T rl.AohleniableP• Irye•inLyrDesiinK&Plan ,a35 vingIBEIsea 7Hiiifah IL Stfe t. Stomnar to Conic : PrescrIptro PI th (Mak'rmaa of-3 Rol Is; Mutual Elotu lli a wth PAZ)` ,-514aTEIDISS a. Use Permeable Paving for 25% of Driveways, P dos an Walkways 4:6N-kaiwol4 b. Install RIEHRetsndonand f-dhehonF'eatnes iTBtF c Rate Downspout TA'dgh Peimeabie (andscace ffirelBraM d. Use blenteaitti ngRocang Hercule FBl7 a. itoriatie Smart5lasettifinivey Design. 2. Stdm* nrster Gondol: Performer Path (Wiggly En:halve with PA1): Perform Sol Perpaladan rest and Gantiav and Treat135%of Total Annual Runoff C.Landscape t,MTBD 11, Meet Lend tiandstaaas noway Requirement D. Structural Frame-6 Building eilvetoP'3 1. Design, Build end Maim Slrechual Pest and Rol DoMrals a Locate Al Wood (Skiing; trim, Shuclure) At Least 12` Above Sod b. Al Wood Framing 3 Feel from the FouldalionIs Treated WO Borates (or Usa Factorf-?npeenafed'Materiais) OR Ways we Not Made of Wood 2. Use Moisture Resistanlldatariaisirn Wet AreaS: Kitchen. Bathrooms, Utility Rooms; end gayennerri rim isa requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP1 E. Exterior '#`aTBD -11.egetated Roofmura 25%) Build it Breen - R s115K Ite t} 2 i4 -1 1 2 2 Single Ilamb l(Iheckilst Pair g.at11 flew Hamt\iirslai 4.0 Enter Project Name AW:NW VI fries Westway,at Miteirecak awartgrille /50118811811 gosratit* rgATIElreet .ovnElinue *aim' WashotatAi-ninwro (Conalniated Wetland, Sand Filer, Airoblo System). 4, Campo:314g crWateelias Int lel Diehl Water Heat-Recavant System 8 :Install a HolWater Deaullortioalot - • HeallniVVentlieden,and Air Condit:letting HuiCifetrol Sijeteint(Ottlyp Card:tugs Humid/Marine Crenate Zones 1.1:13 ,6.7) cretlitls irectiaiaient baseelalecilmlb:14: SPAIAK )(1831313138 2. Design HVAC System tollertual Tfer Minister Design 'MAIN:YAML Materlale Meat SMaRttniedi &ailed the number-orpotrits..gp 165 odds) N. What - i-e3aTSDHIP. 1. Detailed D urabittr Ptan and'Third,rlatty Vedfcalion et Plan tmeternentation • • - - -- — 2. Eduta liana! Siellandet olecrelGreeriFea Urea clEtHelErk*1 b. Inalle.Buldine Educational Sloane MP/sted Gren a. Prortiolten of Doma aifing Praollees 3. Innovallem Mat innovalitre measures Itemeet green building o.Ent 4 Me nteetter a peiret.4 eaoft catetery tor a maxim* of points for Ma measure In tits . - blue celisj..Parts achieved ei3turrin ?Abe eutomaileally101 in hated on theme; -of the " ''' ' Mpted byluildli Green 1 mwrapsea trindVatlenl, Gale& km-to`41Poliefecrleht:Eribaktese4Miori here A-1--M-imartr-,ft,...m.i- &Joe,. lim-racioks trinciVelidnaGeleAtipite4pelretelkafpter-deserMlierthianttWaiM4V-MI, tHeIrBak"81 teritriatidric_EdeittiliaG*WaVrinteEnteklideriOrei lieteval1A-K%tr4-grt.4iVattt. Ter_r-gt.'s T,..!-.ce IIIOTEMIRS latioVohrEnIer-ip Ita-PainIke IIIIhV.E0tetdescrialon htirePkt• -:3,-V.VW,...4frAPInva-:;-T-IMI.igiII (pg.: musDlela initte/9110lk Entetio 0:01--PedribiatrighkatterdeSITFPII0 Kertarlawilger-i1.41.s.iia1/2Ner- 94(P-1-4 Points in innovation 33+ Notes 1 2 2 1- I 1 5 I- 1 2- Summary St It ( reen Total Tii*Ave0pnle POWs' 4 300-4i0c Categorlea mum Peints R int eCa des 'SO- lf) SO 5 Total Points.Achiev6d fl o 1 1 '0'41.14 -07e0; 93+ rAt4-'11 IA. -PA 'MVP 44 Single F2 milm Chec list Mew Him" V€ role e 4.0 I age C at 111 Enter Project Name Praject lies not yet mat Ma`ioli9Wing TecomManded minimum requ)rements; -Total Project Scare of At 5o Paints - Retrigred meesures: -43e: 50% waste dr rersibn by Weight 411Oa: Comp?lanae: with ASHR..4E-62.2 Mechanical Ventilation Standards ,12:15% above PM ;14, 4(7: Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish — Meat Current CARE A TCM- far Composrfer Wood Formaldehyde Limits by Mandatory Compllanra: Dates F+tt:-tncoiparate.GmenP_oi if Rated Cheatts! into blueprints - Minimum points in spec)Hf categories: -Enemy (Opnts) 4AQinealth (5 polnls) - -Resources (6polnts) -Water (9 points) ©Ea 11 C Teen r Tin I Ingle 11 ni6y Ctw..1{11.st P2Qi 11010 I lew Horne Version , I.! GECO Grasscfti Environrnento Consulting Marni F. Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Planning Division 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 August 15, 2016 SUBJECT: 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE CREEK AND CEQA ISSUES Dear Ms. Moseley, Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) has been retained by a group of concerned citizens to review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and creek setback issues associated with the 19 Highland Avenue project. We submitted comments on the project as previously designed on June 2, 2016. This letter presents an update to those comments, based on a review of the currently proposed plans. On the basis of communications between our client and your office, we understand that the Town intends to use the 2010 CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Similarly, based on email communications, we understand that the Town and/ or applicant now considers the applicable setback of the proposed house from the creek as 20 feet (increased from the previous 15 feet). This letter addresses the appropriateness of these determinations, as well as overall adequacy of the CEQA document. In summary, I have concluded that, based on a review of available information, there is no evidence supporting the use of the 20-foot setback (the appropriate creek setback on the project site is 25 feet), the Initial Study is deficient in addressing the setback issue, and the Town's impermissible CEQA process has resulted in a denial of resource agency and public review of the proposed project. Creek Setback Issues Town-Required Setbacks The Town of Los Gatos is a participant in the Santa Clara Water Resource s Collaborative (SCWRC). The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S) was developed by th e Collaborative to protect in-stream and riparian water quality, resources , and habitat. The G&S contains the requirements and guidance for de ve lopment adjacent to streams. The Town Council adopted a re solution implementing the G&S on February 20, 2007. Specifically, th e Town adopted C hapters 2 and 3 of th e G&S as Town requirements. Chapter 2 de scribes how 7008 Bristol Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705 EXHIBIT 3 1 (510) 849 -2354 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 2 August 15, 2016 streams a nd setback zones are delineated. Chapter 3 describes stream protection policies and require ments, including required stream setback s. The Town is responsible for implementing these standards. It is required to rev iew potential impacts to streams as part of the development rev iew process. Projects adjacent to streams are required to be forwarded to the SCVWD for comment. As detail ed on p. 3.8 of the G&S, to minimi ze impacts to streams, structures are required be setback from the s tream. The required setback between the stream and the structure is called the "slope stability protection area ". The "Slope Stability Protection Area" is an area between a structu re and the stream2 . STABILITY PROTECTION AREA Stream with Little Structurally .l Ephemera l or No Hardening Engineered System Stream Size of Protection 25-20 fe et 1 5 feet 10-15 feet Area (as measured from Top of Bank)4 Notes: Potential Additions to the Slope A. For a large lot (greater than 10,000 sq. ft), add 5 feet . (emphasis added) B. For a large home in which the FAR triggers a discretionary review, work with applicant to ensure that impacts such as drainage are redirected away from a stream and pursue opportunities to increase the slope stability protection area to better protect the stream (and home) from impacts. For example, consider decreasing the required front yard setback in order t o accom modate an increased rear yard se tback/s lope stability a r ea. 1 Single Family Unit refers to both (a) new single-family units on existing lots of record and (b) new s in gle- family remodels/rebuilds as defined by local regulationsjpolicyj guidelines 2 In addition to protecting this area, BMP's should be used that are refl ective of Guidelines and Standards, for activities adjacent to these areas where discretionary review is used (i.e redirecting drainage away from the stream and no r e m oval of native riparian plants 3 A ''structurall y engineered system" is designed to provide slope stability. It may be a concret e-lined channel (U-frame or trapezoidal) or a s tream substantially modified with riprap, gabions, structurally engineered sacked co ncr ete, etc. 4 Area measured for Slope Stability Requirement to be measured based on location of Top of Ba nk, whether stream is on or off of property. A detailed in our June 2 letter, surveys by both Michael Wood and Pacific Biology found the creek to be intermittent and not ephemeral. The Pacific Biology Report was included as Attachment 1 to our June 2, 2016 letter. The Wood Biological Consulting report was included as Attachment 2 to that l etter. Both are hereby incorporated by reference. As described above, an intermittent stream is subject to applicable setbacks applicable to that class of stream. In the case of this large-lot site, applicable setbacks to the structures would be 25 feet because, in addition to the stream being "intermittent", the lot is a large lot (i.e. over 10,000 sq. ft., as defined in the SCWRC G&S). Proposed decks and stairways, 2 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 3 August 15, 2016 as well as portions of the house itself, now overhang the setback zone, further reducing the de facto setbacks of the house. Therefore the proposed setbacks do not meet the Town's requirements, and the project must be redesigned to meet these setbacks and limit project impacts to the creek. In addition to the setback issue, under the current plans, the bioswales essential to assuring that project runoff is adequately filtered before entering the creek have been substantially reduced compared to the previous design. The previous design included two 40'-long swales, and one each of 30', 25', and 10' lengths (total of 145 !near feet). This has been reduced to one 35' swale, one 25' swale, and a 20' swale (total of 80 linear feet). Absent a hydrologic analysis, it is impossible to determine whether the reduced bioswale capacity is adequate to treat anticipated runoff. This issue should be addressed in the IS. Improper Regulatory Agency Consultation As discussed in our June 2, 2016 letter, the Town failed to appropriately consult with regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and public trust responsibilities for wildlife habitat and water quality. Instead of involving the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board through the standard CEQA process, the Town allowed the applicant to send an eight-sentence letter to each of these agencies 1 . That letter included neither biological reports nor proj e ct plans. It simply stated "At this time, what I'm requesting, (sic) is correspondence from you (sic) dept. regarding any requirements, permits/policies etc. that may have changed since the planning approval for this site in 2010." It is our understanding that the town continues to consider the agencies' non-response to these letters to constitute a lack of concern over the project's potential impacts on affected resources. As discussed in our June 2 letter, these letters do not constitute adequate agency consultation and the agencies' lack of response does not indicate lack of impacts or lack of agency concern. No documents or plans were provided to the agencies to review. No setbacks or riparian zones were identified. Further, for projects of this type, the CDFW typically only reviews planning-related documents through the CEQA process and then only upon payment of its required CEQA document review fees, or through its Streambed Alteration Agreement process. The RWQCB typically also typically responds via the CEQA or permit processes. The Town's failure to correctly implement CEQA on this project ensured that the agencies would not comment on the project. Failure to Correctly Implement CEQA The Town apparently is relying on the 2010 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a previously proposed house on the site as the CEQA 1 Letters from Ed Pe rs on t o the Ca lifornia De partme nt of Fish a nd Wildlife and San Franc isco Bay Re g ion a l Water Qua lity Co ntrol Board dated january 28, 2016. 3 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page4 August 15, 2016 documentation for the current project. In a May 24, 2016 email to Dorothea Smullen, Mamie Moseley, Associate Planner, stated: Th e Initia l Stud y and Miti gate d Negat ive D ecl aration we re circ u lated and adopted in compliance wit h t he requ ir em e nts o f CEQA in 20 I 0 . No comm ents we r e re ce ived. The document was adopted by th e Pl an n ing Commi ss ion . As d isc ussed , th e IS and M ND d o no t exp ire. Th e propose d project conforms w ith th e anal ys is prov id ed w it h in the 20 I 0 do cum ent a nd w oul d be s ubj ect to th e Mitigatio n Measures f ro m the a dopted MMRP. Re -c irc ul ating th e d oc um e nt w ould be inconsistent wi th C EQ A regulat io ns . T he a d o pted doc um e nt co nti nues to be av a ila bl e fo r review wi th in the public file . Staff did reach out to bo th C DFW and R WQCB after we tal k ed last to see if they had any comments that they di d not provi d e to the applicant wi thi n the 30-day p e r iod ~. No a ddit ional comments were provided to s taff. The Town's CEQA and agency consultation approach fails to meet the most basic CEQA requirements. First, it is important to note that the current project is not id entical to the previously proposed development considered in the 2010 IS/MND. In addition, at least two new biological resource analyses have been prepared for the current project. The current project has setbacks that continue to not meet Town requirements and the current project design differs from the 2010 design both in design and placement of the house and driveway. In addition, new biological information has been developed since publication of the 2010 IS. Although the Town has conducted biological reviews of these setbacks, the peer review identified the need for additional work r egarding the setbacks, and the Pacific Biology report identified additional sensitive resources on the site not previously considered in the old IS. The Wood Biological Resources report, prep a red for the 2010 IS/MND, also classifies much of the part of the site p r opos ed for development as "riparian" habitat, yet the 2010 IS /MND did not address this potential impact. The general public and the State resource agencies have not been afforded an opportunity to comment on those analyses via the CEQA process. The 2010 IS/MND also states that the project plans have been reviewed by CDFG (now CDFW) with respect to a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAE). This was incorrect in 2010 and is incorrect with respect to the current project, neither of which applied for such an Agreement. This deficiency remains applicable to the current project. Further, the 2010 approvals have lapsed and the applicant has changed. This is clearly a new project, the approval of which triggers a new CEQA review. CEQA defines a project as an "action", which is, in this case, approval of the proposed house plans. The action is not a previous approval. Therefore the CEQA process begins de novo. As detailed in our June 2, 2016 letter, CEQA allows use of a previous Initial Study, if applicable, to a new project, and sets forth a specific series of actions that a lead agency (in this case, the Town of Los Gatos) must take to comply with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines 15063 describes the use and required contents of an Initial Study, including the use of an earlier 2 Bas e d on the lette rs sent to the regulatory agencies, it was not the To w n w h o r eache d out, but r a ther the applicant As described above, this appro ach to agency cons ulta tion is v irtually guar a nte ed t o r e sult in a n o n- response from the agencies. 4 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 5 August 15, 2016 Initial Study. Regarding the use of a previous CEQA document, Section 15063(d)(3) state s that the IS contents must include, Identification of environm ental effec ts by use o f a chec kli st, matri x, or othe r method prov ided th at e ntri es on a c hec kli s t. .. are brietl y explain ed to indicate th at there is so me evidence to su pp ort the e ntries. T he brie f ex pl anation may be eit her t hr o ugh a na rr ative or a reference to anothe r info rm at ion source s uch as .... an earlie r EIR or nega t ive decla ration . The CEQA Guidelines also set forth requirements for agency consulta tion with responsible and trus tee agencies (Section 15063(g)), a nd a specific process fo r adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sections 15072, 15073, and 15074). This process involves circulation of a Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, public and age ncy review of th e IS/MND, and consideration and adoption of the MND. The Town has sidestepped the required CEQA process in favor of another process of its own making. This is expressly prohibited by CEQA case law. In the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin decision (December 2004), the Court of Appeals ruled: Re liance upon mi tigat io n measures (w hethe r included in the app lic at ion o r late r ado p ted) in vo lves an eva lua tive process of assessing those mitigat ion meas ur es and we igh ing th em agai nst potential env ironm enta l impacts . and that process mu.~t he conducted under estahlishetl CEQA standards and procedures for EIR.~ or n egatil•e declarations. (emphasis added) As clearly stated in this decision, a Lead Agency must perform its evaluation under the procedures established by CEQA , and may not make up its own parallel CEQA process. Should the Town choose to rely o n the analyses in the 2010 ISJMND, augmented by the more r e cent biological resources reports, the CEQA process for this project would be to prepare a new IS/Notice of Intent to Adopt and MND (including the new project plans, setba cks, new biological analyses, etc), circulate it to the public and applicable resource age ncies, consider public and agency comments, and then, should the Town choose to approve the project, adopt the IS and a new Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that Town's substitute process is impermissible a nd fails to meet the public and agency involvement and goals of CEQ A. Conclusions As summarized above, the project continues to fail to comply with required stream setbacks. The Town has failed to consult with applicable state resources agencies, and fa iled to m ee t CEQA procedural requirements for impact assessment, public and agency disclosure, and review. In addition, based on information provided in the Wood and Pacific Biology reports, the 2010 MND does not accurately characterize the stream and ass ociated riparian zone. The reduced bio swale capacity also should be evaluated in the IS. It is my profe ssional opinion that the project should be re-designed to comply with the Town's creek s etback s tandards, a new or revised IS should be prepared, and that document s hould be re-circulated for public and a gency rev iew according to CEQA 5 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 6 August 15, 2016 requirements. Please feel free to contact me at 510 849-2354 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Richard Grassetti Principal Grassetti Environmental Consulting 6 Lisa C. Roberts 78 Alpine Avenue Los Ga tos , CA 95030 lroberts@.rehonroberts.com 408-859-7585 August 1 0, 20 16 Mary Badame, Chair Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Me lanie Hanssen, Commissioner Matthew Hudes, Commissioner Tom O'Donnell , Commissioner Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 1 I 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Appeal of Ar chitecture a nd S ite Applica tion S-15-077 C ontinued Hearing Set for Au gus t 24, 2016 Dea r Commissioners: l reside at 78 A lpine Avenue, Los Gatos. I am one o f the appellants ("Appellants") in the above-referenced appeal (the "Appeal") of the decision of the Development Review Committee ("DRC") approving Application and the Appeal Site Application S-I 5-077 (the "Application") by the Applicant Ed Pearson ("Applicant") regarding 19 H ighland A venue (the "Property'') des igned by Bess Wiersema (the "Architect"). I am submitting this letter for review and consideration for the upcoming August 24 hearing on the Appeal. l believe that a beauti ful home can be built on this beautiful site, and I look forward to having new neighbors who will enjoy the neighborhood as much as I and my family ha ve fo r the last 28 years . It is not Appellants' right, or job, to design or redesign Applicant's house. We as k only that whoever builds a house on this site complies with the law, including CEQA , as well as the Town's very thoughtful and important guid elines govern ing hillside and creekside development. I. I ntroduction and Request At the June 8 Hearing, this Commission gave Applicant the choice of whether to accept a granting of the appeal and the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Town Council or to revise his plans. Applicant elected to revise his plans. The members of the Commission worked hard at the hearing to articulate their concerns to guide Applicant's revisions. As discussed below, the revised plans demonstrate that Applicant did not take the Commission's concerns seriously. Rather, it appears that Applicant merely chose to revise his plans in order to avoid the immediate granting of the Appeal and in the off~chance that the Commission might accept de minimis changes the second time around. Also as discussed below, Applicant failed to honor the Commission's request that neighborhood input be considered in the revision process. Rather, Applicant and his Architect effectively excluded Appellants from the process until only days before the date on which this submission was due for the then-set hearing of July 27 , 2016, and then essentially presented the revisions to Appellants on a take it or leave it basis. For these reasons, as discussed below, I request that the Commission uphold the Appeal and deny the Application. II. Summary of Commission Comments and Directions at June 8 Hearing The Commission of course is in the best position to recall and characterize its comments at the June 8 hearing, but set forth below is my understanding of those comments and directions based not only on my attendance at the hearing but my thorough review of the video proceedings including most importantly the deliberations of the Commission. As concluded by the Commission, as I understood the Commission 's comments: I. The structure must be substantially smaller. 2. The structure must provide a 20-25 foot setback from the creek. 3 . In revising the plans, Applicant must comply with , or at least make a serious attempt to comply with, the LRDA. 4 . In revising the plans, Applicant must also comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines including their impact on FAR. 5. Applicant should consider the concerns stated by Commissioner Hanssen regarding the amount of retaining wall. 6. The structure must fit into its natu ral surroundings. 7. For both his protection and the Town's, Applicant should consider whether he can rely on the CEQA report that is several years old relating to a different project or whether he needs to do more to comply with CEQA. 1 As discussed below, with the exception of a change in the creek setback, Applicant failed to take to heart any of the Commission's comments, and, even as to the creek setback, the change is inadequate as explained below and it also results in an even deeper and more material encroachment o f the structure outside the LRDA.2 III. Summary of Defec ts in t he Revised P lans a nd the Proposed Project, I ncluding Appli can t's Fai l ures t o Address t he Co ncerns Sta t ed by the Commission Appellants may need to provide further information at or before the hearing, but, based on what I have been able to determine for inclusion in this submission, the revised plans fail to address the Commission's concerns and the project is otherwise defective in at least the following ways: 1. The structure is not substantially smaller. 2. The structure does not accommodate the required creek setback. 3. The structure even more seriously intrudes into the area outside the LRDA. 4. The structure still does not comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines, including their effect on FAR. 5. With the possible exception o f the driveway retaining walls , the revised plans do not meaningfully alter the project's reliance on retaining walls and/or other unnatural grading. 6. The structure still does not fit with or respect the site's natural surroundings. 7. Applicant has incorrectly elected to continue to rely on a stale CEQA Report. 1 I provi ded my stat ement of my understanding of the Commission 's comments in a June 23 email to Applicant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. I did so in an attempt to do my best to move the revision and review proce ss along . By then. over two weeks had passed since the June 8 hearing. and Applicant's fiance Ms. Cind y Mc Cormick had advised that there was no news to report because Applicant's Architect was bu sy. (We later learned from Applicant that he and his Architect did not meet for the first time to discuss what plan changes to make until June 25.) Given that there was only a period of37 days between the June 8 hearing and the date , July 21 , for submis sio n of material s for the Co mm ission package for the July 27 hearing and that it wa s already the 151h (and soon to be 17'11 day) of tha t period without ac tion by Applicant and hi s Architect , I was concerned about the delay and its imp ac t on our abi li ty to revi ew and respond to the revi sed pl an s. In his June 25 res ponse to my email (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B), Applicant sta ted that he had a different int erpretation of the Commi ssion 's comments but did not explain in what regard. ~At the outset of the June 8 hea ring , I presented a letter to this Commi ssion, and the letter was discussed, but it does not appear that it wa s forma ll y added to the file . Attached as Exhibit Cis another copy of the Jetter for inclusio n in the file . 3 8. Applicant has failed to address other concerns properly and legitimately raised by Appellants, including the proper preservation and protection of trees, reduction of e levation, and conformity of design to Town guidelines. Each of these issues is discussed below. IV. Applicant Has Failed to Revise Hi s Plans t o Meet the Concerns of the Commission and the Appellants, and the. Appeal Should Be Granted. A. Appli can t's Revi sed Plans St ill Overly Maximize Size on a Site Callin g for Non-Maximizatio n. The Commission called for a substantially smaller house. Applicant reduced the square footage by 8.45 percent (i.e., from 5,077 square feet to 4,648 square feet). Under no interpretation is that a substantial reduction. Further, in light of the comments by the Commissioners regard ing the size and its multiple negative impacts on the project, it is inconceivable that either Applicant or his Architect truly believed the Commission was really asking for such a de minimis reduction.3 Nor would the other changes made by Applicant have any appreciable effect in reducing the size and mass of the house. The revisions merely nibble at the length of the structure, reducing it by 2.5 feet, a negligible amount given the extreme length of the structure. Similarly, Applicant's 18-inch reduction in elevation, only on the rear end of the house, while a step in the right direction, would not significant ly alleviate the massive presence of the structure on the site. This is particular true given Applicant's simultaneous plan to encroach even more deeply than before outside the LRDA, into the s lope , and closer to the road, in order to increase th e creek setback without materially reducing house size. Size was arguably the most signi ticant concern expressed by the Commission, and it was certainly the most encompassing. As stated by Commissioner O'Donnell , size is his biggest problem with the project, and, even if everything else were perfect with the proj ect, he still would be concerned by the sheer size. Moreover, size was identified as the primary culprit for numerous other material problems with the project, including the lack of the proper creek setback; the violation of the LRDA requirements; the violation of the Hillside Development Guidelines; and the interference of the planned structure with the natural environment and setting of the site. As noted by Commissioner Hudes, the setting of the site is very important to retain, and -------·--·-- j Notably, neither Applicant nor the Architect denies that they were asked to make a substantia l reduction. Also, notably , Applicant has effectively admitted that the reduction was not substantial in his jus tification for not readjus ting the story poles to show the new design. As he explained after a July 16 meeting, the rules require adjustment only if the plans are modified substantially and the plans were "not substantially modified." 4 any decision by the Commission on the project must come down on the side of protecting the environment that is there and the unique natural setting that makes the site so special. The Commission's direction to Applicant and his Architect, both present at the hearing, was clear. As voiced repeatedly by different Commissioners, Applicant needed to design a "substantially" smaller house, and, as Commissioner Kane put it, a "nice house that fits." Appli cant has not done so, and, just as Commissioner O 'Donnell pointed out w it h respect to the original p lans, Applicant and h is Architect arc still trying to maximize size on a site that calls out for non-maximization. Applicant has failed to omit a single room from his plans. His house remains a fou r- bedroom (including master suite w ith his and her closets), five-bathroom (including powder room) house with a Jiving room, great room, study, deck and balcony, and other such amenities as a wine room, a spacious laundry room, a kitchen with island and prep bar and desk an d a pantry (albeit now renamed s imply "pa ntry" rather than "butler's pantry"), and an oversized a ttached garage. Effectively , his design s t ill follows a cookie- cutter developer's checklist of maximum luxury. Appellants believe that Applicant does not need such a house to make a profi t. The Property is a jewel, one that, as described by Commiss ioner Hudes, is "at the base of a hollow created by erosion and a stream." There would li k ely be many buyers who would appreciate a house that respects, rather than overwhelms, the rare beauty of the site. However, neither Appl ica nt nor his Archi tect appears to ass ign any weight to the value, economic and otherwise, of a reasona bl y sized house befitting the natural setting. Indeed, they conti nue to maintain that Application is entitled to develop the site to its maximum . Applicant still contends that origina l plans complied with all Town requirements (as stated in his June 25 email to me). His Architect contends that Applicant "actually has the right t o build a 4700 square foot home on this property," apparently referring to the current proposed size of 4,648 square feet. She also maintains that Applicant has the right to all the "current amenities" includ ing an attached garage. The Architect maintains that the house will now look like a one-story from the road . Knowing how much Commissioner Kane enjoys hyperbole, 1 will offer the fo llowing: this is li k e saying th at, if you built a tower emerging on ly one story above the crest of the Grand Canyon, it would look like only a one-story home . The front of the house wi t h all its mass would be in full view from the road; the alleged one-story view would occur only higher up the road about midpoint of the side of the house; the house is clearly and obviously built deep into a high steep slope; and, un less you keep your eyes closed during the fi rst part of your drive and half-closed for the remainder of your drive {so as not to notice the ditch between the road and house side), you a re not like ly to conclude that the h ouse is a modest one-story. 5 Furthermore, this masquerade is not even arguable from other perspectives of the house. As noted, the full mass is on full view from at least llighland Avenue at the front side of the structure and likely at the back side as well. The view--and the mass-is perhaps even more profound from the perspective of properties on Alpine backing up to the subject Property, many of which extend downward into the hollow shared by the subject Property and view the property both from the level of Alpine and from creek level. It is my understanding, under General Plan CD-14.3, ·'[a] maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation ." (See also HDS&G p. 36 ['·Three-story elevations are prohibited"].) There is absolutely no dispute what the structure as planned by Applicant would look like: an exceedingly long three-story edifice extending between the road and the creek. Because the visual cannot be denied, the Architect has resorted to the invisible, arguing that the structure is not really three stories because the upper floor is not stacked above the garage. Town Policy CD-14.3 does not address the invisible but the visible. The structure would have a devastating visible impact on a natural setting that, as concluded by the Commission, is very important to retain. Town Policy CD-14.3 is expressly written to consider visibility from all elevations . From part of Alpine and all of Highland (in other words, from all perspectives of the Property from the public and adjoining properties), the structure would effectively destroy the natural setting. This is neither proper nor necessary. Less profit motive and more sensitivity could easily result in a design with materially less adverse impact on the site. B. Applicant's Revised Plans Do Not Accommod ate t h e Re quired Creek Setback. As noted by Commissioner Hudes, the evidence presented at the June 8 hearing that the creek is ephemeral rather than intennittent is not credible, and a 20-25 foot setback from the creek is required. Based on the Commission's statements of concern regarding the creek and the setback, it is also apparent that the Commission rejected Applicant's argument that the 20-25 setback rule is intended only to ensure slope stability but is also intended tor the protection and preservation of the creek and surrounding habitat. (The Commission will recall that, under Applicant's expert's reading of applicable law, nothing would preclude a structure right next to a creek as long as there was sufficient slope stability.) Additionally, Applicant and his Architect were urged to try to accomplish the creek setback through reduction of the structure rathe r than by resort to the LRDA. As noted by Commissioner o ~oonnell, reducing the size of the house would make it easier tor Applicant to meet the intermittent-creek setback. The Commissioners did not specify which setback was required, whether a 20-foot setback or a 25-foot setback. However, in line with Commissioner Hudes 's comments, it appears that the testimony of Appellants' experts rather than the testimony of Applicant's expert was deemed credible, and Appellants' experts' testimony clearly stated that the 6 25-foot setback is required for this prope rty.4 As testified by Richard Grassetti of Grassetti Environmental Consultants ("GECO"), for lots over 10 ,0 00 square feet , such as this one, the required setback is 25, not 20, feet. (See hearing video transcript starting at approximately 1:41:55; see also GECO June 1, 2016 Report p. 1 ("the appropriate creek setback on the project site is 25 feet"].) Applicant's revised plans still do not comp ly with the required creek setback, for at least two distinct reasons. First, they provide for only a 20 -foot setback, when , as discussed above, the size of the Property mandates a 25-foot setback. Second, Applicant's setback, even as to 20 feet, is illusory. The Architect did not consider either the health or preservation of the creek or the protection of water quality in her creek setback re-design, and her plans show it. As she adv ised (at a July 16 meeting), her re-design was based on s lope stabi li ty. In other words, she continues to maintain that the sole purpose of a creek setback is to maintain slope stability. Based on that approach, she has contrived a novel and completely illegitimate setback re-design which is contrary not on ly to the purposes of the creek setback but also to any normal or standard understanding of the notion of a setback. Specifically, the Architect moved only the footprint of the structure 20 feet away from the creek. She then recaptured the otherwise lost square footage by cantilevering the structure back into the setback area. Even if the cantilevering were from the highest floor (what she calls the second but which visuall y appears to be the third), it would intrude in th e setback, but, in fact, it is extremely low -l ying (according to the Architect, only approximately 4 feet off the ground). There is nothing magical about 4 feet; under the Architect's approach, the cantilevering could be one foot , or even one inch, off the ground. As long as it does not touch the g round (or affect slope stability), it would meet the Architect's view ofthe setback requirement. The same absurdity follow s from the Architect 's approach to how far into the setback the cantilevering can extend. Here, the canti levering reportedl y extends 3 to 4 feet into the setback, alone improperly intruding into the required setback, but again, there is nothing magical about the distance selected by the Architect. The reasonable corollary of her approach is that the cantilevering can go as close as it wants to the creek, as long as, aga in , it do es not affect s lope stability or touch the ground. I am hardly an expert, but it would be very hard to deny that a creek, creek-bed, and surro unds would be affected by the installation of a structure within the setback not only on the ground but also minimally raised above the ground. In both in stances, there is intrusion into the setback and interference with and impact on sunlight, plant life, and 4 1t sho uld not be for gotte n th at the rep orts in favor of Appellants ' position also include a May 26 , 20 16 report by Live Oak Associates th at was part of the Town 's file and erroneously not revi ewed by th e Design Review Co mmittee in con nect ion with their co nsi derati on and ap pro va l of Ap pli cant's application . 7 habitat, as well as myriad of other things that may be considered by an environmental expert (and that were surely considered when the creek setback rules were made). Nothing in the creek setback ru les provides for this approach . To the contrary, the approach is inconsistent with the language and purpose of the rules as well as with any reasonable definition of setback. The 3-4 foot intrusions (which are actually, based on the proper 25-foot setback, 8-9 foot intrusions) result in only a 16 to 17 foot setback. Both because of the violation of the setback in this case and because of the dangerous precedential impact of accepting a setback rationale that would literally obliterate the setback , the Architect's approach should be rejected. Applicant and the Architect's solution to the setback issue is a contrivance devised only to maintain Applicant's desired , and inappropriate, house size; it is not protective of the creek or in compliance with the nature and purpose of the setback requirement; and it should not be accepted by the Commission. C. Under Applicant's Revised Plans, th e Encroa chment Past t he LRDA is Worse and Even More Improper Than Before .. While the Commission did not set an absolute LRDA requirement on this project, there is no question that, based on the comments and opinion of the Commissioners, Applicant's first and foremost task in seeking compliance with the LRDA Guidelines (while also complying with the creek setback requirement) was to substantially reduce the size of his house. Commissioner Hudes stated that he had not understood Staff to have said that the LRDA needed to be exceeded on this project. Rather, he understood that the LRDA was exceeded only to retain the size of the house. He further advised Applicant to take a serious look at the LRDA Guidelines and use them as a way to plan a project that is more approvable. As discussed above, Applicant continues to insist on a house that is too large for the site, and, therefore, the primary method by which he has (still inadequately) increased the creek setback has been to make even deeper and more drastic encroachments outside the LRDA . Initially, Applicant claimed that, under his revised plans, his LRDA encroachment was only 1150 square feet, but, later, estimated it as mo re like 1170 square feet, but, in any event, there is a 40-45 percent encroachment outside the LRDA, a nd, even more notable than the percentage, the structure would now literally hug the side of the road resulting in new and/or exacerbated problems. Under the revised plans, the structure would be rotated and relocated to cut deeply in to the steep roadside slope, taking the place of the retaining wall and exterior walkway set forth in the previous plans . In other words, where there was to be an intervening space between the house and the road made up o f the walkway, retaining wall, and a narrow band of leftover sloped planting area near the road, now there would be no open space between the house and the narrow planting area , the house would seemingly rise stra ight 8 up from a ditch, the structure would be only feet from the roadway, and the narrow sloping planting area could not even possibly allow tor any kind of remotely natural - seeming screening from the road. One of the goals of the rules governing this project and compelling Appellants in this Appeal, and, I believe, the Commission, is the desire to respect the site and p reserve the site's natural beauty, p resumably not just from within the site but from its surrounds. It is very hard to imagine that that goal could be met by Applicant's redesign. While "hugging" is normally a good thing (the Architect refers to the structure as "snuggled in"), houses are not supposed t o hug the road. No amount of Western Redbuds or Toyons or Wild Lilacs will disguise th e proximity of the house to the road or the enormous mass of the structure. This is a s ite to be respected, not conquered. The solution posed by Applicant is driven solely by desire for size and should be rejected. D. Applicant's Revised Plans Fail to Sufficiently Reduce the Am ount of Retaining Wall, Result in Other Vio lations of th e Hillside Development Guidelines, and are Associated with Further Disrega rd by Applicant for Preservation of the Property and the Creek. App licant asserts t hat he has reduced the overall le ngth of retaining wall from 653 feet to 210 feet. According to the Architect, he did so in two ways, first, by effectively pushing the house up to the slope at the road and having it act as a retaining wall, and, second, by re-planning the driveway and fire tum-around area. The result of the changes cannot be judged merely by the relative size of the reduction. The original 653 feet was an astonishing amount of retaining wall; the 210 feet of retaining wall is still significant given that, under the Hillside Development Guidelines, •·elimination of retaining walls is a priority ." (HDS&G p. 19, emphasis added.) Moreover, the methods for reduction a re troubling. With respect to the s ubstitution of the house foundation for retaining wall, while this technically reduces retaining wall per se, it in tum defeats the twin goal (and mandate) of the Hillside Development Guidelines to keep grading at a minimum . (See HDS&G p. 58 ("Grading shall be kept to a m in imum].) The further shove of the house into the hillside through unnatural grading rather than following the natural topography f urther violates yet another requirement. (See HDS&G p. 36 [·'Buildings shall be designed to co n fo rm to the natural topography of the s ite"].) The driveway and turn-around revisions are troubling for yet another reason. In order to create his revised plans, Applicant denuded the area designated by his Architect for those structures. In doing so, he effectively created a cleared construction site without a constructi on permit and in the face of neighborhood controversy regarding the placement of the driveway and t urn-around. 9 As noted abovet on June 25t we were told that Applicant and his Architect had just met that day to discuss revisions to th e planst and one of the revisions was reduction of retai ning walls. The very next day, Saturday, June 26, Applicant (by his crew or other laborers) clear-cut the proposed driveway/turnarou nd area and the creek next to it. His workers removed the entire understory of the area and dumped so much mulch from the clearing into the creek that the creek bed was not even visible. Applicant failed to notify us that he would be clearing this area, and, as he later acknowledged, his failure was deliberate. (See Applicant's June 29, 2016 email to Marni Moseley stating that he had considered notifYing the neighbors but decided not to.) More importantly, Applicant also failed to notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as pointed out by Appellant Ms. Dede Smullen after she learned of the event from her niece. Under California Fish and Game Code section 1602, such notification, as well as application for a permit is required for any such activity. (See Section 1602 [requiring notification and application as to any act ivity that ~'may ... deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake," including both episodic as well as perennial streams].) After discovery and complaint regarding h is activity, Applicant cl a imed that he cleared the property to eliminate potential fire hazards pursuant to Town and County requirements. (See Applicant's June 29, 2016 email to Ms. Moseley.) The claim is manufactured. First, as noted above, the work occurred immediately after Applicant's meeting with his Architect an d their decision to reduce retaining walls, and, as the Architect has since commented, the revisions required considerable review of the topography of the driveway/tum-around region. Second, were Applicant truly concerned about complying with Town requirements , he would have cleared the property by June I , 20 16, which was the Town deadline for taking down brush for tire protection, after which noncomplying property owners, including Applicant, were subject to a fine. Third, were Applicant truly concerned about fire protection (rather than about his plans and his project), he would have cleared his entire property. At a minimum, he would have started with areas far more susceptible to the start and spread of fire -such as the hillside right next to the proposed driveway/turn-around area. That hillside extends up toward Alpine and the houses on Alpine; because of its slope, it would act as a fire tunnel; and it is-and has long been-in dire need of clearing for fire protection , including clearing of long- dead fallen trees. Rather than focusing on that, Applicant literally stopped his clearing at the base of the hillside, going only so far as necessary to clear his planned (but not yet approved) construction site. Applicant has now finally acknowledged h is obligations under the Fish and Game Code and reportedly (and belatedly) applied for a permit for the work. Regardless, the activities commissioned by Applicant for denuding the Property, dumping into the creek, and creating a construction site before issuance of a construction permit, must aJI be 10 considered in evaluating the good faith of his reduction in retain ing walls, as well as his disregard for the preservation of the Property and the creek. E. Applicant Still Refuses to Comply With CEQA. At the June 8 hearing, both for the sake of Applicant and for t he sake of the Town, the Commission gave Applicant the opportunity to reconsider his position on CEQA. He has elected not to take the opportunity. He continues to assert that he can rely on the 2010 CEQA Report, with the only requirement being to submit an internal addendum. Applicant has claimed that the addendum would be enough because the proposed design is not materially different from the design at issue in 2010. Indeed, by Ms. McCormick who is advising him on this question, he opines that the current project would have less material impact on the site. The environmental reports and testimony by Appellants' experts at the hearing cogently explain the need for a new and/or updated CEQA process in either case requiring recirculation of the Initial Study to the public and governing agencies. Additionally, the following points are critical: I. Ms. McCormick's opinion regarding the environmental impact from the 2010 design and t he current design does not substitute for professional , agency, and public review and satisfaction ofCEQA requirements, particularly since it is indisputable that the current design is different from the 20 I 0 design, including in size and site placement. 2. It is likewise indisputable that the site itself has changed. Applicant has now verified that, in fact, the creek was moved since 2010. Additionally , as set forth in Exh ibit D (as discussed below, the analysis of Applicant's tree protection plan), at least eighteen trees have been removed, and numerous other tree-related changes have occurred since 2010 including tree growth, tree demise, and other changes. The years since 2010 have included years of drought and El Nino conditions. All these changes (and more detectable only by a professional environmental consultant) are material and li kely have resul ted in additional material changes to the site and its habitat. 3 . There is the concept of a "stale" CEQA. Applicant's refusal to address the problems associated with the clearly old, and arguably very outdated, CEQA report is a disservice both to himself and the Town. F. Applicant's Tree Removal, Retention, and Protection Plan is Deeply Flawed. Exhibit D attached hereto sets forth separately my comments regarding Applicant's revised plan for tree removal, retention, and protection. As set forth therein, the plan is ll outdated, incomplete, misleading, fundamentally flawed , and against both the Town Code an d proper tree protection standards. G. Applicant Did Not Work With The Neighbors; He Presented Hi s Revised Plans on a Take It or Leave It Ba sis. As set tbrth in the official minutes of the June 8 hearing, the motion made, seconded, an d passed by the Commission was "to continue the public hearing for 19 Highland Avenue to the hearing of July 27,2016 in order for the applicant to work with neighbors and consider design modifications." Applicant did not work with the neighbors. Applicant has now admitted that Appellants were actively involved in review and discussion of his plans prior to the June 8 hearing, explaining that his Architect's claims to the contrary at the June 8 hearing were the result of a "misunderstanding." Appellants have been equally involved since June 8. As the Commission will recall, the continued hearing was set for July 27, the then earliest available hearing date, at the Architect's request. This meant that there would be only 42 days before the next hearing and only 37 days before the date for submission of materials to the package to the Commission for the hearing. Particularly given the time constraints (as well as foreseeable concerns regarding busy summer schedules), Appellants were very active in attempting communicate with Applicant regarding his revised plans. As noted above, prompted by Applicant and his Architect's lack of action on the plans, I sent my June 23 email to move the process along, as well as numerous additional emails toward the same end. The other Appellants also sent communications and otherwise engaged with Applicant in an effort to learn about the planned revisions, set meetings, provide input, and try to seek a resolution with Applicant. As discussed below, when we were finally provided with the plans, we attended two meetings, on July 10 and July 16, to discuss them. Throughout the process , Applicant exhibited no interest in considering our input. As noted above, he and his architect did not even start working on the plans until weeks, after the June 8 hearing, specifically June 25 when he reportedly first met with his Architect to discuss revisions. Despite our requests , he refused to provide sufficient infonnation regarding the planned revisions to allow comment (saying only such things as the size and retaining walls would be reduced without any indication of how and by how much). Applicant failed to provide the plans even by the date that he 11nally promised , July 7. He finally provided the plans at a meeting on July 10, a meeting at which he had promised that his Architect would be present but that she did not attend. Applicant did 12 not make his Architect available as promised until a meeting on July 16 , only days before the submission date for the then-set July 27 hearing. Starting the day after he provided the plans to us on July I 0 and for the first time, Applicant threatened us with copyright infringement if we shared the plans with anyone, even, therefore, with our experts. Applicant allowed only that Ms. Smullen could provide them to her in-laws (whom, at least her mother-in-law as named Appellant, Ms. Smullen is representing in this Appeal). His Architect repeated these threats at the July 16 meeting. She expressly threatened Appellant Dr. Anthony Badame with copyright infringement liability if he used the plans to create overlays for presentation to this Commission. She made this threat even though the plans had already been submitted to the Town for review and public posting and even though Staff later advised Dr. Badame (after consulting with Town counsel but without thereby providing legal advice) of no known prohibition against Dr. Badame's use of the plans for overlay and presentation to the Committee.5 Most discouraging, however, is the fact that Applicant presented the plans on a take it or leave it bas is. He sought no input before the revisions, and he rejected all input after the revisions, including input on the matters addressed in this letter. The sole apparen t aim of the meetings was to go th rough the motions of appearing to work with the neighbors. The sole substance of the meetings from Applicant and his Architect's side was an aggressive defense of the plans. V. Concl usion I believe the site is a beaut iful one, as do the other Appellants and all of our neighbors, and I also believe that a beautiful home can be built on the si te. It is close to the high school and town , and I imagine a family with school-age children enjoying that home and the natural setting for many years to come, just as my family and children have enjoyed our home. While we have had our differences with the Applicant-a developer whose goal is to maximize h is profit from his investment-I recognize that he is entitled to invest and build. We have also had our differences with the Applicant's architect and candidly did not take well to her statement to the Commission that the site is a ''pit" which is a challenge rather than a blessing, as we see it. s Neither Applicant nor the Architect explained why they were suddenly raising copyright concerns, but the following is notable . No such claim was made at the June 8 hearing or thereafter until July 11 . No such claim was made when the plans were provided to us at the July 10 meeting . The claim was not made until after, at the July 10 meeting, I happened to ask whether Ap plicant would make the site available for an architect to revi ew. There docs not appear to be any basis for Applicant 's or the Architect 's sudden concern with copyright other than a desire to preclude independent architec t review, preclude instructive overlays such as presented by Dr. Badame at the June 8 hearing, and deprive Appellants of the opportunity to provide information helpful to the Commission in deciding this Appeal. 13 But I and the other Appellants have worked hard and sought to cooperate with the Applicant and the Architect to get past these differences to assist them and the staff to obtain approval for a home that is befitting that beautiful site. Unfortunately, Applicanfs house is not that home. For these reasons, I would ask that you uphold the Appeal and deny the Application. Thank you . Attachments 14 From: Anthony Badame [mailto:abderm@qmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:19PM To: Sally Zarnowitz Subject: Re: 19 Highland Hi Sally, Thank you for requesting that additional infonnation be provided for sheet A4.1. Please also request that the existing grade be included given that this grade is used in determining building height limitations. Further, existing grade changed from the original posted plans to the plans approved at DRC. I have attached sheet A4 .2 of each of these set of plans for your perusal. It is important that existing grade be verified for accuracy given the discrepancy. Sincerely, Anthony A4.2 ,,----N,...........-..,,.......v.,--,W,4,--,4...--.4.. BditOWC,A 1M [I --.. . .... [.. -.F>C,A-AZ•F , . . • . e:111.51M0 4 r"..nmi • rroli • ^IRACA 3- SECTION !If•PER [RAM I },1-41N FL(...314 ,- OMR, .001 f —4. 5-:6E1.7.XN meirarox BAD,: 5-ft P,Ftcs,asic BUILDING SEC TraN •Z • MALMO - • • 4- EECTION 6- SECTION 1..1111.1.0011 aiRffiFft - — • .••[-' A4.2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank The purpose of this document is to provide simple , concise , and straight forward responses to the comments, dated August I 0, by Ms. Lisa Roberts. We will respond to additional comments from the other appellants as those documents become available . Additionally, my team and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. RECEIVED Attaclunents: AUG 1 8 2016 1. Neighbor Meetings 2. Neighbor Emails T OWN OF LOS GATOS 3 S f h d · 1 gth Pl · C . . H . PLANNING DIVISION . ummary o c anges rna e smce une annmg ommtsswn eanng 4. Excerpt from Page 3.9, Chapter 3 of Guide lines and Standards for Land Use N ear Streams 5. Colored Rendering 6. Arborist Memo CEQA It is our understanding that the Town has prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, although we have not seen the addendum as of the writing of this letter (8 /17/16). Commission Comments and Direction at June 8th Hearing We agree with the appellants that the primary concerns of the Planning Commission were with regard to the setback from the creek, the length of retaining wall , the amount of encroachment outside the LRDA, the bulk and mass of the home, and CEQA compliance. We differ as to the degree of change expected . We acknowledge that some members of the Planning Commission requested a smaller home , but the discussion of floor area was not a consensus and did not represent the bulk of the conversation. This is not a significantly large home by Los Gatos standards. Moreover, the perceived mass of a home is affected not only by the size of the house itself but also by the design of the home and the size of the lot. The home is located on a large Jot and is tucked into the hillside. The home will not be significantly visible due to its location and topography. The project, as proposed , is appropriate given the constraints and shape of the site (long and narrow). We acknowledge that the building encroaches outside the LRDA. However, the LRDA takes many constraints into account including topography on slopes over 30%, drainage courses, visibility from offsite, and significant ridgelines . This home is not on a ridgeline and is not significantly visible from offsite. We contend that an exception to the LRDA is appropriate because the proposed location best responds to site constraints, providing a larger setback to the creek, reducing the length .of retaining walls, reducing the number of trees to be removed , and reducing the overall mass of the home by lowering the home into the slope and stepping it into the hillside . We feel that we have made significant changes to the project as a whole (Attachment 3). We believe that the creek setback was the most significant area of concern and we have redesigned the home to meet the 20-foot setback recommended by the Town biologist and the Department of Fish and Game. By moving the home further from the creek, we were also able to save several trees that will contribute to the stability of the creek bank. We trust that the CEQA Addendum prepared by the Town satisfies the requirements of CEQA, given that the project as modified does not create any new significant impacts not already mitigated in the Negative Declaration, and in fact reduces impacts to the creek. £Xl:ilBlT 3 2 C reek Setback We acknowledge that there are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un- named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability 1 , ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes, and on-site conditions. Furthermore, creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In this case , the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previo usly determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. Regardless of this flexibility, the home will be setback at least 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the s ubject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition, the driveway and paved surfaces will be setback a minimum 1 0-feet from the top of bank; consistent with regional and state guidelines. Appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed , implemented and maintained. With regard to the cantilevered section of the home and deck , buildings and decks may overhang or encroach into a creek setback but "may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank" (emphasis added) per the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streaml (Attachment 4). Consistency with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) The appellants have stated that the project is not consistent with the HDSG. We disagree. Architecturally, the colors and materials h elp blend the home with the natural environment. The home is responsive to site constraints most notably the creek setback. The design reflects the hillside setting by stepping the home into the topography and including natural wood materials. The home is "neighbor friendly" in that the size and topography of the site provide natural privacy. The home will be designed for sustainability and fire safety. The building height is compliant with Town code and the HDSG. Breaks in the fayade through articulation of wall and roof planes help reduce the building 's mass . The rooflines are broken into smaller components and are generally oriented in the same direction as the natural slope of the terrain with the exception of a few shed roofs that are used to reduce height and building mass . Massing is further minimized through the use of neutral tan and brown colors and materials repeated on all sides of the building. Taken together, these design features reduce the perceived massing of the structure, as illustrated by the colored rendering (Attachment 5). 1 Page 3.8, Chapter 3 of Guidelin es and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and revi sed Jul y 2006 2 Page 3.9 , Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and rev ised July 2006 Neighborhood Input As provided in Attachments 1 and 2 , I have made considerable effort to meet and communicate with the appellant s and incorporate changes requested by the Planning Commission and the neighbors. It is the degree to which those changes have been made that is in conflict. However, I believe that the current proposal before the Planning Commission is fair to all. These changes include increasing the creek setback, reducing the number of trees proposed for removal , reducing the amount of retaining walls , reducing the footprint of the home , stepping the structure down the slope th ereby reducing the height of the home a s seen from th e road, redesigned the 2nd story office massing, reducing the bulk and mass on the creek side elevation, reducing the floor area, increasing the amount of wood siding , and providing more undulation in the driveway. On June 12 1h a few days after the Planning Commission meeting, I met with three of the four 3 appellants on the property to discuss the project. When we asked what an acceptable floor area would be, we were told that it is not the appellant 's job to design the project and to "be creative". Cindy and I then had some time to discuss the neighbor 's feedback as well as our own needs prior to meeting with th e architect on June 25 1h. Following our meeting with the architect , we indicated it would take time to coordinate with the architect, the engineer, and the surveyor4 . While we made a determined effort to get the plans completed sooner, Ms. Roberts has expressed her frustration that draft plans were not available until July I 01 h. As provided below, a complete set of printed5 plans, colored renderings , Arborist Report, etc. were provided to the appellants on July 12'\ giving them nine (9) days to review the plans prior to the July 21 st packet submittal date and just over 2-weeks before the July 27th Hearing date (respectively, 5-to 6- weeks before the August Hearing). Additionally, I made my Arborist available to Ms. Roberts for any questions she had (Attachment 6). In addition to holding meetings with the appellants and my architect, the following items have been provided to the appellants to assist them in reviewing the project: 1) A complete set of architectural plans 2) A complete set of civil plans 3) Colored landscape plan 4) Colored 3D renderings from seven angles 5) Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and August 24th proposal 6) Arborist Report and follow-up memos 7) Phone call between Lisa Roberts and Arborist 8) Staking of new footprint on subject property 3 A s eparate meetin g was pre vious ly set between Dede Smullen and Cindy earlier in th e day. 4 Re fer ence June 251h e mail on page 2 of20 of Attachment 2 5 We as ked the appellants to re spect th e architect's copyright and were not comfortable providing PDFs until we were confide nt that the plans were final. We provide d a link o nce they were a vailable online and part of th e record . Tree Removal, Retention, and Protection Plan Please also see memo from Arborist (Attachment 6). Per the 2016 Arborist Report , the subject property contains 86 trees6 , including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot. Seventy-nine (79) mature trees (92%) are to be retained. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. The project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal (#s 8, 13, 21 , 27 , 30 , 38, 39, 40 , 62). Preservation of tree #s 27, 30 , 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Twenty-two (22) trees will require tree protection measures during construction. Based on the site survey comparison with the 201 0 Arborist Report, we acknowledge that the previous property owner removed 18 trees including 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24 , 26, 28 , 37 , 64 , 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55, 58 , 67). The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. Although not directly affected by the project, one tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles , is half-dead , and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17 , 21 , 25, 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems . Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean . Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. 6 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed). Neighbor Meetings 1. 3/11/2016-Met with Teres a Spalding and presented project to her. We discus sed project for about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if I could screen it with some tree cover. I agreed and said it would be in my final landscape plan. She then gave me a letter dated 3111 /2016 stating her approval and support for the project. 2 . 3112/2016 -Me t with Badame and his wife . Presented project to him, they both looked at it and had no comments . Said they would get back to me in a couple days. Badame sends 12 page opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29 /2016 . He did not contact me with any feedback whatsoever. 3 . 3/19/2016-Met with Peter Rehon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home . He mentioned that he fully supported the past owner Dr. Orphan and his project in 2010 . He stated that he fully supports me being able develop m y site and looks forward to having a new neighbor. Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to meet with her. Her main concern was the retention and protection of tree #30. We emailed several times during the first week of April2016, that is when she sent me the tree #30 contract. 4. 3/26/2016-Meeting at the smullen 's house. Ofthe four appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were in attendance. Badame and Spalding did not attend. 5 . 4/6/2016-Meeting with Dede Smullen at her home to discuss issues regarding the easement that runs through my property. The Smullen's use this easement for ingress/egres s to access their home at 25 Highland . We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all where easement states it is. I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into it. To date, she has not contacted me in any way concerning this issue. 6 . 5/7/2016-Meeting with the four appellants at the Smullen 's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding were not in attendance . After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot oftime preparing presentation and received no response. At 2:45 on the same day, Anthony Badame sent text saying sorry he missed meeting and would like to meet. I replied at 2:46 saying "I would be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime . Following the May continuance, and June gth Hearing: 7. 6/12/16 -Cindy met with Dede Smullen 8. 6/12/16-Met with Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding on the property 9 . 7/10116-Met with Dede Smullen, Lisa Roberts , and Anthony Badame at the Smullen's house to discuss the draft plans 10 . 7/16/16--Met with Ded e Smullen, Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding at the Smullen 's house to discuss the submitted plans Emails regarding Meetings and Plans Page 1 of20 On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:03PM, [19 Highland] wrote: I hope thi s group makes it easier to communicate given everyone's bus y schedule. And hopefully it is also a bit more organized than random emails. On Monday, June 13, 2016 9:51 PM, Cindy wrote: Hi all You should receive an email inviting you to a yahoo group. This group allows us to email one address that is dispersed to all. It also retains all of the correspondence in one location for access when you want it. Hopefully this will eliminate lost correspondence. Group home page: Group email address: Cindy Invite Email will look like this : You have been invited to join 19Highland group! Join this group! From: Cindy Sue Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:47 PM To: Lisa Roberts Subject: Yahoo group Hi Lisa Ill send you another link. Calll me if you have any issues. Check your spam folder for "yahoo group" You should be able to just click on the button "to join". Anthony was able to join using hi s "Badame" email account so you shouldn't run into too much of an issue .... Cindy Page 2 of20 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Cindy wrote: P.s. You might also be able to join by clicking on the following link , then requesting to join ... https:/ I groups.yahoo.com/19Highland Cindy On Jun 19, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy: First, I want to ask you if you would please thank Ed for removing the signs facing my pr~perty . I very much appreciate this. Second, I do not believe I have received an invite. I checked my junk mail as well. If you would not mind sending me another invitation I would appreciate it. Thank you, Lisa On Jun 25, 2016, at 2:36PM, [19Bighland] wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Ed and I met with the architect today. We will be making the following changes to the plans (in no particular order): -Increasing the creek setback -Reducing the length of retaining walls -Reducing the footprint outside the LRDA -Reducing the floor area -Reducing the number of trees proposed for removal The precise numbers are a work in progress . However, we wanted to at least let you know that we are making all o(these changes. The plans need to be drafted by the architect , reviewed by us, revised by the architect, and then coordinated with the engineer. Cheers! Cindy Page 3 of20 On Jul1, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Cindy Sue> wrote: All- Let's find a date after July 6th to get together to discuss the plans. You can assume that you will have the plans no later than July 7th -.so feel free to schedule as needed to give you adequate time to review the plans. I've created a doodle poll to help in this endeavor. I 've included a number of dates and times, so hopefully we can find something that works for everyone. http :I I doodle.coml po1Vvh9 g4r8 gg8 gzmsqd if you prefer to have the meeting with Town staff, please let us know and we will try and arrange something during the day that works for everyone. **In terms of the design changes, Ed wants this site and the home to be beautiful, like many other projects he has worked on in Los Gatos over the last 20 years . He takes great pride in his work and his attention to detail. Just ask any of the current I recently retired Los Gatos building inspectors . From: Cindy Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 5:04PM To: 19highland; Lisa Roberts Subject: Re: group meeting Hi again Ed and I thought it might be helpful if we had two meetings. We could explain all the changes to you all in the first meeting. Then, you all could take some time to think about the changes before we meet again. So, hopefully we can find a time to meet next weekend to present the changes. And then you all can pick a time after that to meet again. When you go to the doodle poll, be sure to expand the full calendar. There are a number of options available. ***Also -please let us know ASAP if you are ok with us moving/removing the logs that are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. Best, Cindy and Ed Page 4 of20 On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you for your emails. I am still unable to join the Yahoo group because my email address is not recognized, and I appreciate your copying me on the emails. Thank you for setting up the poll for meetings, but I would like to suggest an alternative. My experience has been that it takes too much time to set up meetings by poll because there are too many choices over too long a period of time and by the time everyone gets their choices in their calendars have changed. Can you let us know when you and Ed are available so we can go from there? At this point, I am generally available during the days this coming weekend, but I would like to get something on the calendar as soon as possible if we are to meet then. I assume that you are referring to logs from trees that were cut down for the construction and that they are not piled near the creek. If so, this is a very different issue from the clearing that was done recently, and I have no objection to the removal of the logs. Thanks, Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8 :28AM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: ed pearson yahoogroups All I still think the doodle poll is the most efficient way to coordinate 5+ schedules. Ive heard what you said about too many choices, so I've created a new poll down with two dates : this Saturday or Sunday with three time-slots each: 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm. Anyone can sign up through the following link : http:// doodle. com/poll/64nxadk4 xcf2 g9yn However, if the group prefers to schedule by email, go ahead and pick or suggest a time that works for everyone. Here are the dates from the poll: \ Saturday 9th at 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm Sunday 1 Otb at 1 Oam , 1 pm, or 4pm PS. We haven't heard from anyone else about the logs so we will leave them for now. Cindy Page 5 of20 On Jul4, 2016, at 8:54AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you Cindy for limiting the days-I'rn easy, currently available any of the three times Saturday or Sunday. On Jul4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm away July 8-10 so just an FYI. Thanks, Teresa On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 4:33PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Let's find something that works for Teresa. How about Monday, July 11th in the evening? Cindy From: Anthony Badame Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 5:14PM To: Cindysuemc Cc: Teresa Spalding; Lisa Roberts; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Re: group meeting Weekday evenings are difficult for me. Anthony On Jul5, 2016, at 5:36PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Also, I would like to see the plans as soon as possible. If Anthony and/or Dede can make it over the weekend and it is okay with Teresa, perhaps we can go ahead and meet, and, depending on the information and changes, perhaps we can explain to Teresa or another meeting can be set. Thanks, Lisa Page 6 of20 On Jul5, 2016, at 7:05PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am free after 1:30pm on Saturday and after 11 am on Sunday; Monday night works as well any time. Yours, Dede On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:30PM, T eresa Spalding wrote: I'm fine if everybody wants to meet this weekend. I can see the plans possibly this week. .... Teresa Sent from my iPad On Jul5, 2016, at 7:54PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Ok. It sounds like Sunday at 4pm works for everyone except Teresa who Ed can meet with later. Please confirm . Where do you want to meet? Cindy On Jul5, 2016, at 7:57PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Smullen pool house works Yours, Dede On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 9:45PM, Cindy wrote: Great. Thanks! Cindy Page 7 of20 On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:30AM, "Anthony Badame [19Highland]" wrote: Hi All , See you at the pool house this Sunday at 4pm. Anthony On Jul7, 2016, at 1:54PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy, The strange email that you received from Yahoo probably was related to me. I have tried everything I can think of to join the group but still have not been successful. Thank you for continuing to copy me on emails. I will be at the meeting on Sunday but I understand that the plans were going to be co~plete by today or tomorrow. I would appreciate an opportunity to review them before the meeting. Can you email them to me? Thank you, Lisa Sent from my iPhone From: Cindysuemc Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:10PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Plans -delayed a few days All We took another look at the neighbor comments and asked the architect and civil engineer to make some additional changes. This has delayed our receipt of the plans by a few days . We hope you understand but this is to everyone's benefit. We still have a goal to meet Sunday with the plans . Cindy Page 8 of20 On Jul8, 2016, at 6:53PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Dear Ed, I am extremely disappointed and concerned that , according to Cindy's email yesterday, we will not receive the plans as promised. We were told we would have them by no later than yesterday. Already, we were being prejudiced by late delivery of the plans, and , now, we will be even further prejudiced. You and your architect have had over 4 weeks to prepare and provide the plans, and your delays are limiting our ability to review and respond. It was your architect that persuaded the Planning Commission to set the next hearing on the earliest available date, and she knew the Commission wanted neighbor input. She must have known her workload at the time-including the fact that she was going to be so busy that she would not even be able to meet with you and start on the revised plans for 2 Yz weeks. Those lost 2 Yz weeks have not harmed you. You have taken and are continuing to take the time you want to revise the plans. The lost time hurts only us and our time for review. Now, you are not even guaranteeing that the plans will be available by Sunday, apparentl y only shooting for that as your "goal." As I told you in my June 23 email, it is imperative that we see the plans as soon as possible. There are four appellants with conflicting work, family, and summer schedules (not to mention additional representatives and experts) who need to review, analyze, and discuss the plans prior to the next hearing. I am sure you are aware of the em ails and efforts that were necessary to set up Sunday's meeting. The meeting was predicated on the assurance that we would have the plans by yesterday. It was also set based on Anthony's medical practice that does not accommodate meetings during the week. If Sunday's meeting does not go forward , the delay will not be simply a day or so but at least a full week or more. Already, the hearing is only 2 Yz weeks away (the same amount of time frittered away by your architect). A further delay would be completely unacceptable, and, if that happens, I would expect that you would request a continuance of the hearing. I am not persuaded by your explanation for the further delay. If, indeed, you are holding the plans while you make additional changes to address neighbor comments, then please provide the plans in their current form and advise us of the specific additional changes that you are making. Otherwise, I have to conclude that the assertion that the delay will benefit us is just a subterfuge to justify your failure to meet your promised deadline. I would also be interested in hearing what prompted you to take another look at the neighbor comments. It is not as if you just received them. You have been well aware of them since the June 8 hearing if not earlier. With a few exceptions, they are precisely the same comments and concerns raised and publicly stated to you by the Commission itself. Dede and I thereafter summarized the Commissioners' comments for you, but that also was weeks ago, plus I am sure that neither you nor your architect were waiting for us to recap the comments. Also, you rejected my recap, and the Commissioners' comments for that matter. You continue to insist that your plans conform to Town requirements. You have been generally dismissive of neighbor comments both before and after the June 8 hearing. I find it unli kel y that, having declined to take much of a first look at our comments, you have decided to take another look and at this late stage. I think it more likely that your architect has simply not timely completed the plans. I hope Page 9 of20 you show otherwise by providing the current plans and list of additional changes a s I have requested . As you know, I was very shocked at the falsehoods leveled by you via your architect at the June 8 hearing. I was willing to accept your explanation of a misunderstanding, but now it seems like you are again trying to set up a fayade. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the plan delay is not the benefit that you assert but simply an excuse for the prejudice being caused the neighbors . In the same way, your response to our objections to your recent damage to the creek seems calculated to make you appear to be responsive and responsible without actually being either. I wholeheartedly agree with Dede 's assessment of that situation. You deliberately had the offending work done without notice to us , and , now, you are equating it with trifles in order to justify your conduct. You assert that, only in hindsight, did you realize that we might be skeptical of your actions, and you are now purporting to advise us of every little thing that goes on at the property including log removal and the presence of your surveyor. That is ridiculous. The work at, on, and affecting the creek was not a matter ofhindsight but foresight. You admit you considered advising us of your planned work, and the reason you considered doing that is obvious. The preservation of the creek and its habitat is front and center in our appeal of your project. It is also of critical importance to the Commission and the town of Los Gatos it represents. It was the main topic of discussion at the June 8 hearing. It was the subject of the majority ofthe Commission's comments. You yourselfretained one or more experts to address the issue. You had every reason to know, and surely did know, that work affecting the creek would be of considerable concern to us, and the only plausible explanation for your failure to advise us of the planned work was to deprive us of an opportunity to stop it. Regarding trifles, please do not attempt to use them to justify further delay. As Dede pointed out, equating damage to the creek with log removal is beyond the pale. Cindy warned in her Jul y 4th email that you will not be able to provide a new site plan unless we tell you it is okay to move the logs. She is also now letting us know such things as when your surveyor will be on the - property, as if we have asked for such information. Our appeal involves the creek, tree removal, construction, and the other issues outlined in our documents and at the hearing. You will recall that log removal and surveyor presence are not among those issues. Your requesting and/or demanding our input on those matters is clearly intended to distract from our actual concerns as well as, apparently, to set up additional justifications for your own delays. We have done nothing to delay you. To the contrary, we have devoted considerable time and resources in an attempt to provide the input specifically requested by the Commission, including providing you with our detailed recaps of the Commission's comments, participating in email communications from you and Cindy, and in setting aside our other responsibilities in anticipation of reviewing the plans and meeting with you. In return, we have received absolutely no meaningful information regarding your revised plans or intended changes on which we can make ariy comment. I set aside time today and this weekend in the expectation of reviewing the plans. I have set aside 4 :00 Sunday afternoon for the meeting. The other appellants have made similar accommodations for this meeting, including Teresa who is out of town tbis weekend but has graciously agreed that the meeting can go forward without her and that she can be updated upon her return. I expect the meeting with plan review to go forward. I also sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position on the plans and provide what you have and what you still intend to do , and that you do so as soon as possible by email or otherwise prior to the meeting. Thank you , Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:25PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: We will see you Sunday All Page 10 of20 We will see you all on Sunday at 4pm. The architect will also be there with the plans. We will have copies of the site plan and renderings for you all. We will explain the reason for the delay when we see you. However, I assure you that the delay was to benefit the setback to the creek. · Ed and Cindy On Jul8, 2016, at 7:27PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you for your prompt response. I will see you on Sunday. On Friday, July 8, 2016 7:47PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: P.s. You (as a group) have criticized us for making changes to the plans after you received them. So , based on that criticism, we decided that it would be best to give you the plans AFTER a major change was made. Now you are criticizing us for not giving you draft plans. We are trying to design a home so that what is accomplished fair to all. We will provide the copies when we see you on Sunday. Everyone is working over the weekend to ensure this happens. Thank you for your understanding. Ed and Cindy Page 11 of 20 On Tue, Jul12, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Hi all I want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you are not public record. They have been provided to you as a courtesy before the plans are made part of the public record. If there are any substantive changes, we will let you know. The hard copies are for your personal reference and you should respect the architect's copyright. I also want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you have not been authorized for distribution. Dede -If you want to copy a print copy for Roger Sr. and Mercy Smullen, you are welcome to do so. You will have access to the final plans through the Town once made a part of the public record. If you have questions about that, you could ask Town staff. Lisa is an attorney so m aybe she can fill you in on copyright law once the final plans become part of the public record. To reiterate , you should not distribute these plans to anyone else as they are not part of the public record. Cindy From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:48AM To: Lisa Roberts; yahoogroups ; Subject: Sat 1 pm (July 16) Hi You all should have received (or have access to) the plans by now. I would like to confirm our meeting on Saturday (July 16) at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. Ed and Cindy From: Lisa Roberts < To: Cindy< yahoogroups < Sent: Wednesday, July 13,2016 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sat 1 pm (Jul y 16) Cindy: Did you have a response to Anthony's request for the draft 3D renderings? Thanks , Li sa Page 12 of20 On JuJ 13, 2016, at 1:24PM, Cindy McCormick [19Highland] wrote: Hi Lisa- We will ask Bess to attend -she has been putting in a lot ofhours to get these drawings to you all . ahead of when they go out to the public. I am trying to be conscientious of her time, but Ed understands its important to you, so we will do our best to get her there. I'm not sure if she is even available -but we will ask. stay tuned .... As for the 3D renderings, Town staff suggested we incorporate the topography (and we agree)- so Bess is doing that now. it will take a little longer to do that. But we will get them to you as soon as possible. Thanks and see you all in a few days. Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 1:33PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Are you saying these drawings have not been submitted to the City yet? We saw a cover letter dated yesterday. Yours, Dede On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Dede We turned in the plans and arborist report on Monday (exactly as you received) so that staff can prepare their report. The 3D drawings are not a required submittal so we can take a little more time on those . Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Thank you for the copies, that makes it much easier on us. We really appreciate it. But just to clarify, we did not get this current set of plans ahead of the public as you submitted them to the City on Monday. Thank you again for delivering the copies . Dede Page 13 of20 On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:25PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: De De They are not online and staff will not give the public a copy because they are copyright material. Most cities honor copyright at the counter including Saratoga and Campbell. You have a copy of something that is not being distributed to the public (or the Planning Commission) until next Thursday or Friday (as far as I know unless Los Gatos does it different) That's all I meant :) Cindy On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:37PM, "Dorothea Smullen [19Highland]" wrote: Once it's submitted to the City its a matter of public record per the Brown Act. Anyone can ask to see it and get copies for a fee. Thank you again for providing us with a copy so we do not have to go to the City. Dede From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:40 AM To: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Lisa Roberts; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding Subject: packet deadlines hi All- I thought you might fmd this informative. I requested this information from Sally: deadline for packet submission: llam on Thursday July 21st. PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINES: Comments received by 11 am the Thursday prior to Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution Comments received by 11am the Fri-Mon-Tue prior to the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Addendum and usually distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Comments received by 11am Wednesday/Day of the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Desk Item and distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Page 14 of20 Presentations/PowerPoints on thumb drives have a lPM deadline the day of the meeting (For security reasons , the Town provides a dedicated laptop that staff will upload your presentation onto) PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT/WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT THE MEETING: 15 Copies of written/display materials are needed for the Planning Commission and staff On Fri, Jul15, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy: Thank you for the information. Ed and Cindy: I mentioned weeks ago when we had received nothing while your architect was too busy to work on this matter that I was concerned that we would not be given sufficient time to review the revised plans, have a meaningful dialogue with you regarding them , and, if necessary, prepare for the hearing that was set at the then-earliest available date based on your architect's request (and I would say implied assurance to the Commission and us that she had the time to prepare the plans in a sufficiently timely manner to allow the neighborhood input that the Commission expressly requested). The actions of your architect and you have shown that I was right to be concerned, and , now , with Cindy's email stating that we have less than a week to submit comments for inclusion in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution, I am extremely alarmed and dismayed. You have failed even to provide us with sufficient information to comment to the Commission, much less engage in any dialogue with you, which of course was the main purpose of the Commission's request for neighbor input-to see if we could reach a resolution on any or all items of concern. As you know , we received no plans from you until last Sunday, after your architect had frittered away weeks at the beginning of the continuance time between hearings , after the date that even you set for providing the plans , and, as far as I can tell, for no good-reason other than to limit our time to review and respond. (As I have said before, I was not persuaded by your last-minute assertion that you suddenly decided to reconsider our comments and rework the plans , and I find the excuse even less credible given your explanation last Sunday that the additional rework was to move the creek setback, which you had already told us weeks ago that you were going to do). Even now, we have not received the information we need and have requested. You refuse even to respond to Anthony's request for a pdf of the plans. You refuse even to commit to a date on which we will receive 3D renderings even though, as I now understand it, they should be already be on your architect's computer program. Nor have you yet confirmed one way or the other whether your architect will be at the meeting tomorrow. You will recall that you told us she would be at the last meeting but she did not show, and , as I have stated, I have questions best answered by her. Page 15 of20 Even as to the new arborist's report, you promi sed last Sunday that I would receive them the next day, but I was not given the report until the day after-and then with copies of a package including cover letter to the Town plaiU1ers that you had delivered to the Town, but not us, the preceding day. The package was quite a surprise to me , given your representations to us the day before that you had not provided anything to the Town planners , that you had not spoken with them, and that you were not going to provide anything to them or speak with them ab out your revised plans because the project was no longer before them but solely in front of the Planning Commission which alone would revi ew the plans and d eci de the matter. Now, Cindy has explained that you provided the documents so Town staff could prepare its report. I can only conclude that your contrary comments on Sunday were to dissuade us from commwlicating with the Town planners ourselves. For the meeting tomorrow, would you please immediately: 1. Confirm that your architect will be at the meeting. 2. Provide u s with the 3D renderings . 3. Provide Anthony (as well , by the way, as Dede) with a pdf of the plans . 4. Respond to our earlier question whether you will or will not be readjusting the story poles. 5. Be prepared to discuss what, if any, further revisions you would consider making to the plans. Additionally, I have a specific question I would like answered at or before the meeting regarding Tree 30 and how you are proposing to protect it during construction. Are you proposing fencing at the recommended 5 times the DBH or the minimum 3 times the DBH or something else and if so what? And even more specifically, how much of the now-20 feet area that you say would lie between the tree and the structure foo tprint would be designated as the tree protection zone? I look forward to your prompt response. Lisa From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:39 PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding ed pearson Subject: Re: packet deadlines All Please be respectful of the time that has been spent putting these plans together. Page 16 of20 here is a link to the plans: http ://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending-Planning-Pro jects I ask again that you respect the architect's copyright, as I have requested in previous emails to everyone. July 1Oth -We met with you and provided preliminary plans to you on Sunday, July 1Oth. Bess spent all day Saturday through the next day Sunday to prepare these plans. Bess and her staff spent all evening Sunday and all day Monday finishing the plans. Yes, she and her staff working overtime to meet the deadline -even when you continue to berate her. The plans were turned in to the Town on Monday July 11th at approximately 5pm. We made copies on Monday evening and notified you on Monday evening that the plans would be available the next day. We dropped off copies to Lisa's house on Tuesday, July 12th. July 12th-July 21st= -8-9 days to review the plans before the Packet deadline. July 12th-July 26th= ~13-14 days to review the plans before the Addendum deadline. July 12th-July 27th= ~14-15 days to review the plans before the Desk Item deadline. July 12th-July 27th=~ 15 days to review the plans before the Hearing begins. July 16th -Ed and Bess will be available to answer other questions you have tomorrow - Saturday at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. 3D Renderings are not a required submittal. However, Bess is preparing these for you. They will be available soon. We appreciate your respect of the time it takes to prepare these renderings. As for Tree #30, as Ed mentioned to you last Sunday, the structure will be setback in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. Ed is working this evening and can answer_ your questions tomorrow. Ed and Cindy Page 17 of20 On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:32PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Ed and Cindy: Thank you for Cindy's email. I will be attending a memorial service before our meeting tomorrow and will not be able to check the link Cindy gave to the plans, but, unless it will provide Anthony and Dede with pdfs of the plans, you have not responded to the repeated requests for them. I appreciate that your architect and her staff worked overtime last weekend, but had she (and you) started work on the plans promptly after the hearing, the overtime would not have been necessary. Further, I am not aware of any "deadline" that she met as a result oflast weekend's work since, even before the weekend, you had already missed your own unilaterally set deadline of no later than July 7 to provide us with the plans. As admitted by Cindy's email, you have given us only 8-9 days to review the plans before the · packet deadline, and , as you are well aware, the Commission will necessarily have better opportunity to review and consider items included in the packet rather than in later submissions. I am sure that your team is also intent on providing your full submission by the packet deadline . Thank you for confirming that the architect will be there tomorrow. You have repeatedly stated that 3D renderings are not a required submittal, but Ed said on Sunday that he would have them prepared for us, earlier this week Anthony pointed out that they must already be done, and you have never responded to Anthony's point except to repeat that the renderings are not required submittals so you can take extra time to submit them. Even with the meeting set for tomorrow, you are not saying they will be available then but soon. Regardless of whether the renderings are required, we have requested them, you have agreed to provide them, and they are apparently readily available to provide. Please provide them by the meeting. I , for one, am not an architect, and the renderings are essential to my understanding of your revisions and ability to comment on them. Your email did not respond to my question about story poles. Can you respond to it? On Tree 30, I do not know what you mean that the structure will be set back in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. It is not the structure setback that matters (except to the extent that it prevents the tree protection area), but the tree protection area . Are you contemplating a fence around that area, and , if so, by the standard of 5 x diameter or 3 x diameter or something else? As you know , this is an extremely important tree; it is a major concern of mine; and I would appreciate specific information about the proposed protection plan for it. I will not be able between now and the meeting tomorrow to prepare and send you a list of questions, but I am confident that, if you and your architect come prepared with all the plans and other pertinent documents, you and she will have no problem answering my questions. Thank you, Lisa Page 18 of20 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:23 AM, "Cindysuemc [19Highland]" wrote: Ed will bring the 3D renderings to today's meeting. As I've stated numerous times , it takes time to produce them and we appreciate your patience. Cindy On Jul19, 2016, at 7:14PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: I got a call from Sally today saying that the City needed more time to review the project and prepare an Addendum to the Initial Study/MND . The possible dates presented for a new hearing were August 24th and September 14th. Please let us know if this is consistent with the information you are getting from the City. Yours, Dede From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:04 AM To: yahoogroups ; Subject: Re: [19Highland] Continuation of 19 Highland All We were informed that the Planning Commission meeting would be continued to August 24th. Also, in addition to meeting with you all on three occasions (June 12 , July 10, July 16) the following items have been provided to each of you, giving you ample documentation to adequately study the modified project: 1. Complete set of Architectural plans 2 . Complete set of Civil plans 3. Full color landscape plan 4. Complete set of color renderings from all angles 5 . Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and current plan 6 . Complete Arborist report 7 . Arboristlclient agreement letter 8. Phone call from Arborist to Lisa Roberts to discuss report Staking and ribbon outline of the new footprint is complete. Ed and Cindy Page 19 of20 On Thu, Jul21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you very much for letting us know about the continuance. I am very relieved that this gives us more time to look at the plan revisions. It seems to me that Ed was going to provide a couple more things, the parcel map and something else I can't remember, but I will check my notes and let you know ifthere was anything else. Enjoy your day, Lisa On Jul21, 2016, at 1:02PM, Anthony Badame wrote: I requested a plan showing the cut sections with the topo contour elevations. Bess stated she had them but the ink? did not come through. The town's posted plans do not show the contours. Anthony On Fri, Jul22, 2016 at 8:44AM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Good Morning There are section drawings on pages G6 and A4.1. G6 shows the elevation points. You can also see the topography and the elevation points on the other Civil drawings (pages G2 through G7). Also, there are seven (7) 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. Only a few of the trees on site are shown for perspective. We do not intend to produce any more drawings at this point, however, if you'd like, Ed can meet with you all to explain the civil drawings, renderings, ribbon staking, etc. Ed and Cindy On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Anthony Badame [19Highland] wrote: Hi Cindy, Thank you for the information. Bess indicated at the July 16 neighborhood meeting that she had the drawings which show the topo contour elev ations for cut sections 2 , 3, and 4. She stated that apparently the ink did not come through with the drawings presented at the meeting and she would provide the drawings with the contour elevations this week. None of the sheets you referenced contain this information. Please have Bess provide the group with these drawings at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Anthony On Saturday, July 23, 2016 12:59 PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All Page 20 of20 Bess is on vacation for a couple of weeks. She will be back for the meeting in August but we do not intend to ask her for anything else at this point. Ed would be happy to meet with you all again to explain how to read the detailed plan sheets and exhibits that have been provided to you, which include : Complete set of Architectural plans , including sections Complete set of Civil plans including sections, elevation points , and topography Full color landscape plan Footprint comparison Colored 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. A few trees are shown for perspective. Ed and Cindy Emails regarding weed abatement Page 1 of7 On Thursday, June 30, 2016 7 :19 PM, wrote: Dede, None of those things have occurred. We will contact CDFW. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:50PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following : • Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or • Deposit debris , waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (they are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (they flow year round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow . It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. CDFW requires an LSA Agreement when it determines that the activity, as described in a complete LSA Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources. Yours, Dede On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:26PM, Cindy wrote: We are not aware that you need a RWQCB permit to cut weeds. Where are you getting your information. Please provide a link and phone number? I will foll ow up. Cindy Page 2 of7 On Jun 29, 2016, at 4 :2 0 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Please see Ed's response (below) to Marni regarding the weed abatement that occurred this weekend. We apologize for not telling you before the gardener went out. We were notified by another neighbor that the Badames and Sawyers recently had their weeds cut down so we were simply following suit. We understand how sensitive you are to anything occurring on site -even when it something as necessary as clearing brush for fire safety. As far as Ed parking in front of Teresa's house, he was given permission from the Sawyer's to do so. It is our understanding that the Sawyers own that small piece ofland. At some point, we will also be installing story poles. Hopefully I will have enough heads up to let you know before that happens. But it certainly won't happen until we get the plans back from the engineer. We will try our best to keep you up to date. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am sure you are aware that this particular action requires a permit from RWQCB. We would appreciate if you would forward your permit to the group. Thanks! Yours, Dede ----------Forwarded message---------- From: ed pearson Date: Wed, Jun 29,2016 at 1:04PM Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory To: Marni Moseley Marni Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Page 3 of7 My Gardner was clearing overgrown weeds, brush, and invasive vinca to eliminate the possibility of a fire hazard . No trees were removed. The work was completed during allowable hours on Saturday. The area is not an understory. It is a large clearing w ith non-native and invasive brush and weeds . This property is located in the Wildland Urban Interface area, a high danger fire area. As you know the Town and County takes weed abatement and fire safety seriously, and will clear weeds for homeowners who do not take action first. Weed abatement needs to occur at least once yearly, if not more often. I considered notifying the neighbors. But, ultimately I felt that it wasn't necessary because others in the immediate neighborhood have recently cleared weeds on their property, without notice. In hindsight, I should have realized that the neighbors are going to be skeptical of any action regarding this property, however good the intention might be. Cindy has set up a yahoo group for the neighbors and will send them this information as well. Here are some links regarding weed abatement and the Wildland Urban Interface area . https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Pages/wap.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Documents/Program-Guidelines-Brochure.pdf http ://losgatos .granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id=S&clip id=l483&meta id=152026 Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshall, would be happy to speak with the neighbors if they have any questions about weed abatement and fire safety. Doug Harding's phone number is 408-378- 4010. He is also happy to speak to any ofthe neighbors regarding the fire turnaround requirements. Lastly, I have attached a photo of the creek. While it might appear like a pile of mulch, it is merely a change in elevation in the creek bed with a log next to it that I'm sure has been there for years. There is no pile of mulch. If I have misinterpreted the protocol for weed abatement, please let me know so it does not happen again. Thank you and I wish you well at your new job. The Town is losing an excellent Planner. Ed -----Forwarded message----- From: "Mami Moseley" To: "ed pearson Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 8:49AM Ed, can you clarify what occuned on the site this weekend? T hanks. Mami F. Moseley, AICP Associate Plmmer mmosel ey@losgatosca. gov 408-354-6802 Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM-1:00 PM, Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: July 4 -Independence Day Begin forwarded message: From: "Dorothea Smullen"< To: "Teresa Spalding"< Page 4 of7 Cc: "Joel Paulson"< "Lisa Roberts"< "Anthony Badame" <"Malia Durand">, "Richard Grassetti" < Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Sorry I apologize for getting the dates wrong. Roger and Eliot were there on Sunday but did not mention it to me so I assumed it was done today. Thank you Teresa for clarifying! Page 5 of7 On Mon, Jun 27,2016 at 11:04 PM, Teresa Spalding> wrote : Hi All, This was done on Saturday afternoon from 11 AM to 6PM and I was not notified that this would be happening, nor were any of us. The workers were buzzing noisy saws for hours and my tenant was completely upset that her quiet weekend getaway for was ruined by hours of buzzing saws. This was something Ed really should have mentioned to me since he is at his property daily and I see him in front of my house walking up and down the street He usually parks in front of my place, it seems daily, and walks from my bouse up the street. Malina, Dee's niece who works at the San Jose Planning Dept, wanted Joel Paulson's (planning director) info to email him about this since this is a complete violation and a disruption of the natural habitat. The natural beauty of the landscape has been ruined, hopefully temporarily!!! I'm not sure the commissioners will like this. What happened to the open communication? ..... Cindy just set up email with all of us on Yahoo. Wouldn't it have been easy enough to send out an email letting us know this .... it seems to be a one way here. He has not been open with us , yet has noted how hard we are all to meet with but he continues to do stufflike this. Ed wants to do what Ed wants to do and expects our blessing on it.. .... Teresa Spalding From: Dorothea Smullen Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:06:02-0700 To : jpaul son@losgatosca.gov CC : Ed Pearson was at his site today and completely cleared the understory of the site including the creek; and dumped all the mulch into the creek. My niece Malia was at the site and took these pictures from the easement. This i s a demonstration on what has been occurring on the site by the previous owners wishing to degrade the quality and effect the status of the creek. Yours, Dede Page 6 of7 On Monday, July 4, 2016 3:39PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All, We are letting you know that the logs are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. The logs were there when Ed purchased the property. He will need to move them about 10 feet from their current location in order to stake the new footprint. We are actually moving the home further from the creek which is why we need to stake the new footprint. We also want to let you all know that the surveyor will be there on Tuesday morriing July 5th. This is a necessary step to getting the site plan correct. We will continue to try and communicate any actions taken with regard to the property. Cindy On Jul4, 2016, at 2:25PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Equating the removal of the logs with the severe degrading of the creek is a bit of a stretch. If you in any way think these are similar actions I am very concerned about the health of the creek throughout the period of construction. It is appearing that you may need to have a biologist on site throughout construction. 1 am hoping that ·you can remove the logs without further harming the creek. Yours , Dede On Jul4, 2016, at 2:05PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Hi Teresa Ed has a friend who would like the logs .... Thanks for the idea though ... Cindy Page 7 of7 On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Cindy, People on Next Door might want your logs for firewood. I can post this for you or you can if you want people to come pick up the wood. It can be posted as "free firewwod" It's a great resource to u se ... FYI Let me know if you'd like me to post it and people can email you To reply about it. Sent from my iPad Summary of Changes The following is an abbreviated list of the changes made in consideration of the comments made by the appellants and the Planning Commission: 1. Building Footprint reduced by 620 sq. ft. 2. Total floor area reduced by 429 sq. ft. 3 . Trees to be removed decreased from 15 to 6, with one additional dead tree to be removed 4. Trees closest to creek will be preserved for creek bank stability 5. Retaining wall length decreased from 653-feet to 210-feet 6. House footprint reduced by 610 sq. ft. (from 2,992 sq. ft. to 2,372 sq . ft.) 7. House has been recessed into hillside as suggested in HDSG (requiring additional grading). 8. Distance from tree #30 to building footprint increased from 15-feet to of20-feet minimum 9. Overall height, massing, and length of home has been reduced 10. Creek setback increased from 15-feet to 20-feet the closest point of the home's footprint I hope that you find these changes to be in keeping with the spirit of the comments given. I have made great strides to modify the design to alleviate the neighbor 's concerns while also maintaining my own desires as the property owner. Sincerely, 011 . IENCROACHMIENTS BIE'II'WEEii' THE TOP Of BANK Related E!e$ource Agency Permits: In addition to t he G&S 's below, any construction activities proposed bet o w the top of bank are s u b ject to review and permit authorization from the Reg ional Water Quality Control Boord, California Department o f Fish and Game, and in most cases, the US Army Corps of Engineers a nd their Federal consulting agencies. Applicants may choose to complete a JARPA (J oint Aquatic R9source Permit Applicatio n) if permits are required from m o re than o ns Resource Agency. III.A Overhang Top of Bank 1 . Decks, pathways, buildings or any other structures (excluding road crossings, outfalls, and bank protection structures) may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank. 2 . When illegal structures are identified, which cause public health and safety problems and/or damage to stream resources, appropriate jurisdiction should take actions to have them removed or modified. 111.81. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank The construction of dear span structures is preferred for new and replacement bridges. Bridge piers may be allowed if length of span makes dear span infeasible as detennined by the local jurisdiction. 111.82. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank If a structure must be placed in the active channel due to structural requirements, feasibility, or otherwise, a geomorphic, biological impacts, and/ or hydraulic analysis will be required and will be reviewed by SCVWD and other state and federal agencies . For construction of new bridges, loss of riparian, or aquatic habitat beneath the bridge should be mitigated and located as dose to the new bridge as possible. 111.83. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Topol Bank Have footings and pile caps that are designed based on channel scour to prevent erosion. The appropriate foundation depth should be determined by a licensed engineer and should be at minimum three (3) feet below active channel invert. If depth of waterway allows, clearance under the bridge should be a minimum 12 feet for maintenance access or access to the stream should be provided from rood. 111 .84. Deaign/Construction Related t o Encroachments between the Top of Bank Structures must not reduce the active channel or active floodplains' conveyance area or redirect flow to the detriment of another bank or the river bed. Designs in SCVWD jurisdictional areas must be capable of conveying 1 00-year design flow and meet SCVWD's freeboard requirements explained in Design Guides. USER •'•'\ANUAL GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOP. LAND US E NEAR STREAMS 3.9 19 Highland Avenue Response to Appeal by Roberts August 16, 2016 August 16 , 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 9 501 8 831 . 331 . 8982 I reviewed the appeal documents provided by Mrs. Lisa Roberts for Site Application S-15-077 dated August 10,2016 regarding concerns about the trees. On Monday July 18, 2016 I had a lengthy conversation with Mrs. Roberts over the phone, at the property owner's expense, to discuss many of the issues addressed in th e appeal regarding trees and tree protection. I performed my assessment in an independent and objective manner as I am required to do. Arboriculture is an inexact science that combines the practice and study of the care of trees . Much of the criteria evaluated by an arborist on any given site or tree are subjective and individuals will draw different conclusions based on their own observations and experience. I have attempted to define the criteria I used for individual ratings and assessments to disclose how an why I arrived at my conclusions. Many of the terms used in the report including Tree Risk As s essment, Tree Protection Zones, Condition and Influence ratings are defmed within. Deviation or interpretation by the reader may vary but the principles remain the same. My assessment ofthe trees and impacts from the proposed plans were performed in an objective and independent manner based on the conditions present during my inspection and the information provided to me. I would recommend upon approval a final tree protection plan be created prior to any site disturbance to reflect any and all planned changes. I am happy to answer any all questions regarding the trees and my assessment at the meeting on August 24, 2016. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Ri sk Assessor Qualified Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 1 Additional Safety Recommendations • Trees 18-feet or taller should be limbed up 6-feet from the ground. Provide additional vertical clearance when trees have vegetation beneath it. • Stack woodpiles a miiUmum of 30-feet from buildings, fences and other combustible materials. • Clear vegetation and other flammable material from underne ath decks. Enclose elevated decks with fire-resistive materials. • If you have any trees near power lines please contact PG&E at 1-800-PGE-5000 for a free inspection. State Law requires vegetation clearance from electrical lines. For more information please visit www.PGE .com. In most cases PG&E will trim or remove the tree at no cost to you. • The Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council offers Defensible Space Chipping Programs to assist homeowners, including special programs for qualified low-income, seniors and disabled homeowners. For more information visit www .sccfiresafe .or ~ For ornamental shrubs and bushes adjacent to your home, we recommend planting a fire- retardant variety. If there is a possibility that erosion may occur, any native vegetation that is removed should be replaced with fire-retardant vegetation. Please complete and return the enclosed postcard on or before April1, 2016. Beginning the first week of April, County Fire personnel will conduct inspections to advise property owners who have not implemented the fire hazard abatement measures what work is necessary in order to be in compliance with the applicable regulations. If you are unable to complete the required work due to late season rains or other hardship, please contact our office as soon as possible. You may complete the brush clearance work yourself, hire your own contractor, or request to schedule our authorized contractor to perform the work. If you would like this service, please check the appropriate box on the postcard or call (408) 378-4010 prior to April1, 2016. If you choose this option, the charges for this work will appear on your next property tax bill. Please note: Follow-up inspections will be conducted starting June 1, 2016 of properties that did not have the Enforced Safety Regulations implemented at the time of the fit:~t inspection. If you do not comply with items A, B, C and D of the Enforced Safety Regulations, the compliance work will be completed by the authorized contractor of the Town of Los Gatos and the charges for this service will appear on your next property tax bill. If you would like to schedule a courtesy inspection with one of our inspectors or have questions regarding the safety compliance of your property, ple ase contact our Fire Prevention Division at (408) 378-4010 or 1-800-800-1793. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to establish a fire-safe community. Sincerely, /~-:~, KenKehrnna Fire Chief RE: Los Gatos site -ed pearson Page 1 of 1 ' RE: Los Gatos site Blinn, Brenda@Wildlife Tue 7/19/201612:36 PM In box To:e d pearson <epearso nz@outlook.com >; Ed : Based on our phone conversation this morning, you indicated that you will not be conducting any future work within the creek channel, creek banks or riparian zone on your property. If you will not be removing vegetation within the creek or bank area, or any other activity in these areas, you do not need to send in a Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification. If you have any further <yuestions, please gf\'e me a can. Regards, Brenda Brenda Blinn-Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) California Department of Fish and Wildlife -Bay Delta Region Habitat Conservation Program ?_?_~~.?!I~::~~~_!.~.~!.~.?.P..~!-f!: .. ~-~.?.?._~ V: 707-944-5541 f: 707-944-5553 Brenda.Biinn@wildlife.ca.gov Every Californian should conserve water. Find out how at: SaveOurWater.com · Drought.CA.gov https://outlook.live.com/owal?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&ItemiD=AOMkADAwAT... 7/24/2016 July 19,2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Pearson: H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants In regards to vegetation on the property along the reach of the drainage directly adjacent to the proposed house location, the vegetation comprises grasses, forbs and shrubs that are either native or have become naturalized in this part of Santa Clara County. Based upon a prior topographic survey from 1996 it appears that a small portion of the creek has been moved sometime between 1996 and 2015; this reach of the creek is in relatively very good ecological condition and appears to be geomorphically stable under the current hydrological co nditions. From a floristic, soils and hydrological condition, this small reach of the creek is indistinguishable from the upstream and downstream reaches. In terms of potential bat species on site, this issue was covered under our 2016 biological report. That information is provided below: • The Townsend's big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendit), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend's big-eared bat normally roos ts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the top corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this specie s is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend's big-eared bats. Therefore this species is not expected to occur on the Project si te. • The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore. this species is not expected to occur on the Project site. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D . Principal 983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY Eng in eering Geology • Geotechnical Eng in eering Mr. Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 a a vis1o C2 RTH 18 July 2016 Document ld. 15193C-O 1 L3 Serial No. 17681 SUBJECT: PLAN REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PEARSON PROPERTY 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Pearson: As you reque sted, we have reviewed the revised proposed Site Plan (Sheet G2 with revision date July 20 16) by Peoples Associates for the proposed residential development of your property at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos , California. We previously conducted a limited geotechnical study for the development of the site and presented the results of that study in our Limited Geotechnical Study report dated 22 November 2013 (Document ld. 13050C-01R1). Subsequently, we provided updated seismic design criteria in our Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update letter dated 22 December 2015 (Document I d. 15193C-O 1 L1 ). Additionally, we provided a response to geotechnical peer review comments in our letter dated 17 February 2016 . We understand that questions have been raised by neighbors and by the Los Gatos Planning Commiss ion regarding the location of the creek and the s etback requirements from the creek bank. In response to these and other comments, we understand that Peoples Associates have surveyed the location of the creek within the eastern portion of the property. Based on the recent survey, sometime between 1996 (when the former site survey was performed) and 2015 (when you purchased the property), it was determined that a small portion of the creek within the eastern part of the site was artificially relocated from the adjacent property onto the subject site. The former creek channel was filled , and a new creek channel and creek bank in the present creek location were excavated. The revised site plan shows the current location of the creek channel, creek bank, and a 20-foot setback line from the top of the current creek bank. Also in response to comments raised by the Planning Commission, we understand that the building footprint for the proposed house and garage has been reduced. The proposed foundation elements for the reduced building footprint are beyond the 20-foot setback from the top of the current creek bank. In addition, the plan shows a significant reduction in the number and length of site retaining walls. Based on our site observations, the current creek bank is densely vegetated, and shows no evidence of recent grading or significant erosion. The creek banks are about 3 feet tall or less . Typically, we would recommend a setback from th e t op of the creek bank of 2 times the height of Copyright - C2Earth, Inc. r • I • .I i Jj( ~I ·I ~ 9"0 I . ' ' I 1- 15 July 2016 TO: Town of los Gatos I Community Deve lopment Departme nt, attention Sally Zarnowitz RE : 19 Highland Avenue I Pearson Home Dear Sally, Ed (property owner) has dropped off the 16 sets for the Planning Commission inclusive of new floor plans, elevations, and sections; new renderings from all sides of the home; new landscape plan; and diagrams showi ng the lRDA and footprint analysis. Ed has made several changes accommodating many of the comments from our recent Planning Comm ission. He has also taken into cons ideration the add itional feedback and concerns of the neighbors, and ada pted the plans accordingly. Ed has made efforts to socialize the plans with the neighbors as well, and even set up a yahoo-group email account so that everyone may be privy to all communications together. The following is a summary of the modifications made: ~ Tree rem o va l and protection: The new proposal, with the shift on t he site plan of the footprint, rework of the driveway and fire turn around area and rework of the staggered retaining walls allowed for more trees to be maintai ned. There are only 7 trees being removed now (one is currently dead) rather than 15. All t r ee and site protection will be per the arborists recommendations, and conditioned for the project. • Retaining w alls: With the re-s iting of the house, adjustment to the driveway and t urnaround, retaining walls have been reduced from 653' to 210'. Note that the house has been further buried into the grade at the str eet si de as well, and the floor plan now steps down 18" from the ent ry to the rear yard, along the long axis, following the natural grade mor e. This is in keeping with the Hills ide Design Standards and Guidelines. • Building Footprint : Please see the d iagram t itled "Footprint Comparison Exhibit''. The diagram clearly shows the reduction in footprints on the site from the original approved scheme through today. Great attention has been gi ven to reduce the footprint architecturally with all levels of the floor plans. Subtle floor plan changes, as well as a cantilever concept at a portion of the creek side have been incorporated into the new design. The footprint reduced from 2992 SF to 2372 SF (a 620 SF red u ction). • Creek Setback : The new design increases the creek setback to the 20' preferred by the neighbors, utilizing the cantilever concept in only a couple areas. Otherwise, the body of the home now sits a minimum of 20' away from the top of bank at its closest location. As a reminder, all reporti ng specialists (geotech, biologists, a r borists, Fish and Game, etc.) were satisfied with the originally proposed and approved 15', including the Town's peer reviewers. The top of bank has also been surveyed and marked in the field. The updated footprint has also been marked in the field. S TUDICJTHREE DE S GN • LRDA and building placement: Please refer to the diagram titled "Regulatory Constraints Exhibit". The larger creek setback, typical property line setbacks and the available LRDA lines have all been superimposed to show the "buildable" lot area (further highlighted in green). The lot is unique in shape and character, and these setbacks further limit the best buildable area . The proposal shows that further distancing the home from the creek requires building outside the LRDA. The previous and current proposals both exceed the LRDA as minimally as possible to fit the program of the home (note that according to Town policies, the LRDA is a guideline, and not a specific rule such as a property line setback). Based upon the site restraints, it requires that the building exceed the LRDA . • Bulk and Mass: The redesign took into consideration comments surrounding the bulk and mass of the home. The shape of the lot and its constraints require a design that is long and narrow in nature. The overall length of the main level has been reduced by 2.5' (an additional 3' if you count eave overhangs), and t he upper floor has been reduced by 12' in overall length (the most visible portion). The home has also been further set into the hillside on the street side. The square footage has been reduced by 429 SF (approximately 10%), significantly under the allowable FAR, even with the slope reduction calculations and is not the largest home in the neighborhood. Please refer to the previously submitted Neighborhood Analysis and FAR I Slope Study. The new design also modifies the footprints of each floor plate to allow for more movement along the fa~ades as well as cantilevers and steps at certain points to navigate the creek setback but also to create architectural interest. Roof lines have been modified, and in some cases also lowered to further break up the massing. The new shifts also allow for increased stained wood siding (versus stucco), and help to create a pleasing mix of materials in natural earth tones. The placement of the home is barely visible to most neighbors, and presents no privacy issues-and in fact looks like a si ngle story home along the private drive side property line. Please see the new 30 renderings provided viewing the home from all angles. Be st Regards, Bess Wiersema , principal, studio3 design inc. STUD I D 'TtiREE DES GN , .. _,,,_, __ ~ .. ~··-·--·~•••••••-•••• ---g N ONNOO 0 ·---~--UNNN --g N ---~UNN UN---U-NNONO ON---------UN --~-UNNONO ___________ ----~-------------------·----NN --NNN-NNN ______________ -------, Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town ofLos Gatos July 11, 2Q16 Page 2 Here is the applicable CEQA Guideline, with my highlighti"ng in bold: 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negatiYe declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent .Em or negatiYe declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EJR or adopted negatiYe declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on tbe project. (c) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section I S I 62 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record . The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code Section 21083; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code; Bowman v. CityofPetaluma(I986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; and Bentun v. Board ofSupen•isors (199 1) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467. Discussion: This section is designed to provide clear authority for: an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs and negative declarations without recirculating the EIR or negative declaration. Section 15162 is referenced in Section 15164. Here is Section 15162 (with my highlights in bold). As indicated by my italicized comments, it appears that none of these circumstances apply to the revisions Mr. Pearson has made to the plan that was approved with the MND in 2010 : 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations ·(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: i . ! ! Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos July 11, 2016 Page3 (I) Substantial changes .are proposed in the project which wilJ require major revisions of the previous Em or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of.previously identified significant effects; Compared to the home studied in the MND, the currently proposed home has reduced environmental effects due to the increased setback from the creek and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Em or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or There are no changes to the circumstances of this vacant parcel or the surrounding area since approval of the MND, other than the environmentally beneficial changes of increased creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (3) New information of substantial importance. which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence .at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: No such information has been provided or exists. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negatiVe declaration ; There has been no evidence submitted showing any significant effect not discussed in the MND. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Effi; There has been no evidence submitted showing that any effect previously ·studied in the MND will be substantially more severe than previously show. {C) Mitigation measures or alternati~·es previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more· significant effects o.fthe project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;.or There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND. ~ ---·--________________ , _________________________________________ _ -------------------------, Robert Schultz, Esq. July 11 , 2016 Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos Page 4 (D) MitigatiQn measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those 1 1 analyzed in the previous Em would substantially reduce one or more significant effects oo the environment, but the project proponents decli ne to adopt the mitigation m -easure ' or alternative. I There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND.j' (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes avai !able i after adoption of a negative declaration , the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prt>pare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documenta tion. The only changes to the project since adoption of the MND are the environmentally beneficial change$ of increasing the creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. An addendum is appropriate, though not mandated by CEQA. (c) Once a project has been approved. the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless· further discretional)' approval on that project is _required . Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval . If after the project is approved, any of the conditions d~scribed in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative dec laration shall o nly be prepared by the public agency which grants the next di screti o nary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall gram an approval for the project until the subsequent EJR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072 . A subsequent EfR or negative declaration shall state where the previ o us docume nt is available and can be reviewed. l'\ote: Authority cited: Public Reso urces Code Section 2 1083 ; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code ; Bowman v. City of P~ttulumu (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; Benton v. Board ofSupen•isors ( 199 1) 226 Cai.App.3d 1467; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Culifurnia Department of Health Services et al. ( 1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 . Grassetti Environmental Consulting ("GECO") has submitted a letter dated June 1, 2016, raising certain CEQA issues related to the proposed Pearson home. The author misapplies CEQA in a number of respects . GECO contends that because the 201 0 house approvals have lapsed and the applicant has changed , the proposed Pearson home "is clearly a new project" which triggers a new CEQA review. GECO is incorrect. A change in ownership is Robert Schultz, Esq . Town Attomey, Town of Los Gatos July 11 , 2016 PageS irrelevant to CEQA because CEQA is concerned only with environmental impacts and a transfer of ownersh ip does not cause any environmental impact. More importantly, GECO's entire premise is flawed because even though Pearson has submitted a new application to the Town , for CEQA purposes the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, but rather reflects a change in a previously approved project. Th is distinction is significant because CEQA requires a full review for new projects compared to a limited review for changes in previously approved projects. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cai.App.41h 1359, 1401.) The limited review is, as stated above, the analysis required by Section 15164, includ ing a review of the considerations described in Section 15162. According to the authors of Guide to CEQA, where the earlier analysis studied "a particular site ~specific development project," then · a later proposed modified version of an earlier project falls within the "change to a previously approved project" category, with the resulting limited CEQA review. (/d. at p. 669.) The 2010 MND studied a site-specific development for 19 Highland Avenue . The · Pearson home proposal is a modified version of that earlier stud ied and approved home. CEQA review is therefore limited to Section 15164. It is not a new project, and cannot be st udied like a new project. The CEQA Guidelines referenced by GECO, Sections 15150, 15063, 15072, 15073 and 15074, all regard and apply to new projects . They do 110t apply to changes to a previously approved project. Similarly, Section 15153 has no application to the proposed Pearson home. That section regards use of an earlier EIR from an earlier project for a new, different project. Here . the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, and Section 15153 appl ies only to prior EIRs, not prior MNDs-where the CEQA Guidelines intend to state a requirement for MNOs, they state so specifically (compa re, e.g., Section 15164(a) which states a mandatory addendum required for an EIR , with Section 15164(b) which states a non -mandatory addendum opportunity for an MND). GECO's substantive analysis , including the biological analysis prepared by Pacific Biology which is attached as an exhibit to the ·GECO letter, is the kind of wo rk that might be appropriate for a new project. And indeed , analyses of a similar nature were prepared for and considered in the 2010 MND . That MND was approved by the Town in 2010 , and became immune from legal challenge or potentially conflicting environmenta l cla ims 30 days later. Because the proposed Pearson home constitutes a change in a previously approved project, substantive environmental analysis is essentially lim ited to the current changes to the previously ap·proved project. GECO's letter does not analyze these changes . Consequently, its analys is is outside the scope of review allowed by Section 15164 , and shou ld be disregarded From: Ed Pearson To: Sally Zamowitz Date: July 11, 2016 Re: Architecture and Site Application (S-15-077) Dear Sally, The purpose of this document is to describe the differences between the original project that was described and analyzed in the adopted 2010 IS /MND and approved on December 8, 2010, and the modified project currently before the Town. The 2010 IS /MND found that although the original project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were made a condition of project approval , mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed modifications to the original project have been designed such that the modified project would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND . Please reference the letter dated July 11 , 2016 from our land use Attorney, Barton G . Hechtman requesting that the Town of Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, prepare an Addendum for the modified project. In addition to designing the modified project so that it would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND , I was required to submit additional studies for the modified project. These additional studies included: • Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology, a division of C2 Earth Inc ., dated February 24 , 2016. • Top of Bank Study prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates, dated March 22, 2016. • Biological Report prepared by H. T . Harvey & Associates, dated March 31,2016. • Revised Biological Report prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates dated May 13, 2016. • Arborist Report dated May 10 , 2016. • Revised Arborist Report dated July 10 , 2016. In addition, the Town required the following studies: • Peer Review of the Biological Report by the Town's consulting biologist, Live Oak Associates dated May 5, 2016. • Peer Review of the Geotechnical Memo by the Town's consulting geologist, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. • Design Review by the Town's consulting architect Cannon Design Group, dated February 24,2016. We also referenced the following documents when designing the modified project: the Town of Los Gatos General Plan, the Town Code and Tree Ordinance, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Summary of modified project (2016) The IS /MND indicated that design changes would be reviewed during the architectural and site review process. The modified project is a result of input from adjacent neighbors and the Planning Commission. Similar to the original project, the modified project would consist of the development of a new two-story split level single-family residence located at 19 Highland A venue in the Town of Los Gatos. Additional information on the modified project is further described in this memo. Floor area and Lot Coverage: The modified project would include a 4,031 square foot residence (2 ,3 79 plus 1 ,652) and 617 square foot attached two-car garage and storage room for a total of 4,642 gross square feet , or 4,242 square feet when deducting the 400 square foot garage credit allowed by the Town. The residence footprint would be 2,372 square feet, covering approximately 5.2% percent of the site. The modified project's total site coverage would be 6,384 square feet or approximately 14.1% of the site. Height and Property Setbacks: The residence would step up the slope over three levels, with no more than two stories at any single location. The residence would be 25-feet in height from natural grade with a maximum elevation height of 35-feet. Access to the proposed residence would be provided by a 12-foot wide pervious paver driveway , approximately 180 feet in length, extending parallel to and north of the existing private roadway easement. The fire truck turnaround would be located approximately 125 feet west of the residence, while a smaller, parking area/pullout is proposed on the south side of the driveway just west of the residence. The modified project would have a front yard setback of 185-feet, a north/left side yard setback of 21-feet, a south/right side yard setback of 25-feet and a rear yard setback of 65-feet. Grading and Retaining Walls: The modified projc;:ct would require 439 cubic yards of cut and 429 cubic yards of fill . There would be zero export of earthwork due to shrinkage from compaction. The modified project would require 210 feet of retaining walls (total length) where 1 06-feet of the retaining walls would be less than three (3) feet in height and 1 04-feet of the retaining walls would be three-to-six feet (3-6') in height. Creek Setbacks and Trees: The residence will have a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of the creek bank while the driveway will have a minimum setback of 10-feet from the top of the creek bank. Six (6) trees (#s 16, 17, 21, 25 , 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal ; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Comparison of original and modified project The modified project has minor technical differences from the original project in that the modified project will have a slightly higher floor area (~211 SF), fewer trees to be removed, increased setback from the creek, fewer feet I lower height of retaining walls , and increased grading quantities due to recessing the home into the hillside. Architectural changes: Although the modified floor area is approximately 2 11 square feet more than the original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover, the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. The modified project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and materials of the modified project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible with the natural surroundings than the original project's colors and materials which included taupe , "ochre" (yellowish or orangey brown), and "terra cotta" (brownish red). The modified project also uses stone and wood, a more natural element, where the original project residence was all stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space). The modified project was also reviewed by the Town's Consulting Archite<;t who made two recommendations. In addition to making design changes to reduce bulk, mass and floor area, my design team implemented both of the consulting architects ' recommendations ; extend the landscaping westward along the driveway easement roadway to buffer the two-story tall tower element and choose one roofing material for the entire house . All exterior light fixtures will be Dark-Sky compliant. The modified project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare beyond what would have been created by the original project. Grading and Retaining Walls Changes: The original project proposed a total cut of 342 cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards , resulting in the need to export approximately 154 cubic yard s of material. The modified project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and total fill of 429 cubic yards . No export of earthwork would be needed due to shrinkage from compaction . The additional grading was necessary to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Creek Setback Changes: Creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below th e top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water Di strict or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability', ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes , and on-site conditions. In this case, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. However, the modified project will provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the subject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition , establishment of a 1 0-foot wide setback between the top of bank and paved surfaces is also co nsistent with 1 Page 3 .8, Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams, August 2005 and revised July 2006 regional and state guidelines, provided appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed, implemented and maintained. Creek Location: Upon redesigning the house per the Planning Commission's suggestions, the licensed surveyor surveyed a portion of the site, east of the bend in the creek that had not recently been surveyed, in. order to show the recommended 20ft. setback from the creek. The 2010 map was taken from the map completed by Westfall Engineers in 1996. As previously evidenced in the public record, the top of bank markers were set by HT Harvey on March 21st 2016 and were surveyed from the existing bend in the creek (area closest to proposed home) and then west towards the proposed fire turnaround. This survey confirmed that the creek location, westward from the bend in creek, was accurate on the 201 0 map. After the surveyor was instructed to study the location of the creek bank eastward from the bend in creek, it revealed that at some time between 1996 and 2015, a small portion of the creek was moved . The current condition of the area that was moved is undetectable today (please see submitted site plans and current photograph). It looks completely natural and heavily vegetated with different shrubs and trees . I contacted Brenda Blinn, Senior Supervisory Environmental Scientist, with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Program. Ms. Blinn stated that at the time any illegal grading is taking place, a written complaint must be filed with her office that fully documents the violation. She also stated that there is a 12 month statute of limitation on this type of activity. Ms. Blinn is located in the Napa office and can be reached at 707-944-5541 for any needed clarification. Tree Removal Changes: As described below, the modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 . Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s) were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried "protected" trees in proximity to the original project's proposed development and located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried 68 "protected" trees of six various species. Under the "review of potential tree impacts" the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 trees that "would either be removed or considered a loss" (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22 , 24-28 , 30, 37-40, 60-62 , 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be removed due to their failing health (#s 10 , 46) for a total of 31 trees. Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 ArboristReport, it appears that the property owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55 , 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees . The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. An updated Arborist Report was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then revised on July 10, 2016 for the modified project. Per the 2016 Arborist Report, the subject property contains a total of 86 trees2, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot that were not previously considered. 2 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 4 5 trees previously inventoried ( 63 minus 18 removed). The modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 (#s 8 , 13, 21, 27, 30, 38 , 39, 40, 62). Preservation of tree #s 27 , 30, 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17, 21 , 25, 60 , 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems. Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean. Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Twenty-two (22) trees will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. Seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while seven (7) trees will need to be removed as described above. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in . accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. Pallid bat: Numerous biological studies have been prepared for the subject property between 1997 and 2016, finding that there is no candidate, sensitive, or special status species habitat existing on the subject property and that the site does not support any wetland or riparian vegetation. Appellants to the modified project have hired a biologist who states that tree #56 (described above), which is of compromised health and with numerous cavities, could be used as a roost by bats , including special-status bats species such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); however no evidence of pallid bat existing on site has been provided. However, the diseased and dying tree is dropping large limbs and should be removed to avoid risk to life and property. In conclusion , the changes between the original project and the modified project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. While new information regarding the creek location has become available, the modified project will have a 20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank, such that there would be no significant environmental effects not already mitigated in. the 2010 ISIMND. Overall, the modified project would result in fewer environmental impacts than the original project, due to the increased setback from the creek (from 15-feet in the original project to 20-feet in the modified project). The conclusions in the 2010 IS/MND remain current and valid. The mitigation measures included in the 2010 ISIMND remain applicable and would be applied to the modified project. Therefore, an Addendum prepared by the Town of Los Gatos would satisfy the requirements of CEQ A. 2010 Original Project 2016 Modified Project Floor Area: Main Level: 2,310 square feet 2,3 79 square feet Upper Level: 1,535 square feet 1 ,652 square feet Garage/Storage: 592 square feet 61 7 square feet Subtotal : 4 ,437 square feet 4,648 square feet (garage credit) -400 sguare feet -400 sguare feet Total Floor Area: 4,037 square feet 4,248 square feet Maximum Height 25-feet 25-feet Maximum Elevation: 35-feet 35-feet Lot Coverage -Residence ~ 2,642 square feet 2,3 72 square feet -Driveway ~ 2,880 square feet 3 ,583 square feet -Deck/Patios ~ 1 ,927 sguare feet ~ 429 sguare feet Total Lot Coverage 7,449 square feet 6,384 square feet Property Setbacks -Front: 190.0-feet 185.0-feet -North (left) Side: 20.0-feet 21.0 feet -South (right) Side: 24.0-feet 25.0 feet -Rear 63.5-feet 65.0 feet Creek Setbacks: -Residence/Garage: Minimum 10-feet Minimum 20-feet -Driveway: Minimum 1-foot Minimum 1 0-feet Area outside LRDA: ~ 1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet 342 cubic yards cut 439 cubic yards cut Grading: 188 cubic yards fill 429 cubic yards fill 154 cubic yards of export 0 cubic yards of export3 Retaining Wall < 3 feet height: 0 feet < 3 feet height: 1 06-feet 3-6 feet height: 394-feet 3-6 feet height: 1 04-feet Height: > 6 feet height: 63-feet > 6 feet height: 0-feet Retaining Wall ~457-feet ~210-feet Length: Proposed: 31 trees Tree Removal Removed: 15 trees Proposed: 7 trees Remaining to Remove : 16 trees (one of which is half-dead) 3 The difference in earthwork would be zero due to shrinkage from impaction. Tree Inventory, Assessment, And Protection 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 P.O. B o x 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331. 8982 Prepared for: Ed Pearson July 10, 2016 Prepared By: ConsuHing Arborists LLC Richard Gessner ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA -Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-434/B ISA -Tree Risk Assessor Qualified CA-Qualified Applicators License QL-104230 ©Copyri ght Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Int roduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the assignment ......................................................................................... 1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................ 2 Observati ons ......................................................................................................... 2 Plans ....................................................................................................................... 2 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 3 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 4 Influence Level ........................................................................................................ 5 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 7 Critical Root Zone ................................................................................................... 8 Bridging with Mulch ................................................................................................ 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 1 0 Recommendati ons ............................................................................................... 11 Protection during demolition/grading .................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ............................................................................................... 11 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 12 G lossary of Terms .............................................................................................. 13 Appendix A: S ite Map ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix 8: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables ................ 15 B1: Inventory and Assessment Table .................................................................... 15 B2: Disposition Table ...................................................... : ..................................... 19 *indicates tree to be removed due to disease ...................................................... 22 Appendix C: Photographs ................................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines .......................................................... 28 Section 29 .10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist A ssess me nt July 10, 2016 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Additional tree protection measures: .................................................................... 29 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1 : English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Li miting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ............................................................................. 33 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Summary The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (Umbelluaria californica) (37 percent) and coast live oak (Qu ercus agrifolia) (47 percent) making up the majority of trees. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition while five are poor, three are in good shape, and one is unstable . Six (6) trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Introduction Background Ed Pearson asked me to assess the site, trees , and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my fmdings and recommendations. Assignment 1. Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. 2. Provide tree protection specifications and influence ratings for trees that will be affected by the project. Limits of the assignment 1. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the site and trees during my inspections on April22 and 26, 2016. No tree risk assessments were performed. No tree appraisals were performed. Trees on adjacent site are not accounted for. 2. The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: A site plan with the residence , driveway, and retaining walls not dated or labeled. No grading, drainage , utility, or landscape plans were reviewed. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0 , 2016 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by Ed Pearson and his agents as a reference for existing tree and site conditions. Observations The site is located along Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property has a seasonal creek running through it and hills on both the east and west sides. There is a level area at the bottom of the drainage and currently there are story poles to indicate the proposed location of the site improvements. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks (Quercus lobata), and California bay laurels. Plans The plans indicate a driveway extending from the northern part of Highland Avenue and the structure set back farther to the south. Within the plan area there are thirty trees and six within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Six (6) trees are within the footprint of the proposed improvements. • Twenty-two (22) trees are in close proximity to the proposed improvements. • Fifty-eight (58) trees are not near any proposed improvements . • Four (4) trees are near the driveway. • Coast live oak #56 is in irreversible decline/unstable and has signs and symptoms consistent with ambrosia beetle (Monarthrum scutellare) attacks on its trunk. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of33 19 H ighland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 D iscussio n Tr ee Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees protected by the Town ofLos Gatos located on the site. The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees with a trunk diameters greater than (4) four inches at (54) fifty-four inches above grade on vacant or underdeveloped lots (Appendix A and B). Aluminum tree tags have been affixed to all trees listed in the inventory except for those on the ea stern hillside which are arbitrarily numbered from south to north for the purposes of this report. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) making up the majority of trees with 72 specimens total. Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California b.Jckeye (Aesculus californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Plum (Prunus sp.) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 0 Chart 1 : Species Distribution • Quantity 8 16 24 32 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 40 3 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Condition Rating A tree's condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects : Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • Good = No appar ent p r oblems, good structure and health, good longevity for the site . • Fair= Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems , irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead. Most of the trees are in fair condition which is typical of an unmaintained woodland. Five .trees are in poor condition and three are in good shape. Trees in poor condition include bay tree 46 has some decay at the base, blue gum 44 has codominant stems and a defective stem about 40 feet above grade. Coast live oak 56 is unstable, has ambrosia beetle attacks on its trunk, and is half dead. Coast live oak 66 has been repeatedly hit by vehicles along the existing driveway and has trunk damage. 0 Exceptional Chart 2: Condition Rating • Quantity 20 40 60 I f I I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 80 4 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defmes the impact rating: • Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Six trees will be highly impacted and will require removal because they are within the footprint of the proposed structure. An additional twenty-two trees will be moderately impacted and require tree protection of either fence, bridging, and/or hand digging for footings and foundations nearby. The remaining 58 frees on the property will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. The charts below indicate the quantity of trees for each construction impact category (Chart 3). 0 High Moderate Low Chart 3: Impact Ratings • Quantity 12 24 ~ 48 60 Chart 4: Construction Impact Percentages e High e Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 5 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arbor ist Assessment July 10, 2016 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots , trunk , or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defmed area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances (Figure 1 ). Tree protection zones and type of tree protection will vary depending on what may be impacting the trees. Fence locations will may change as different phases of construction occur. The most critical exclusion from the TPZ must occur during the grading process . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath. Sturdy TPZ Fencing 8 ft. high Figure 1: Tree protection distances Wrap trunks with atr.w wattle up to 8 feet Figure 2: Trunk protection with straw wattle Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com Straw Wattle 7 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Conclusion The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species. The majority of trees consist ofbay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) account for 84 percent of all assessed. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition typical of trees growing within a stand in an unmaintained woodland setting. Five trees are in poor condition, three are in good shape, and one unstable (#56). Six trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require some protection measures. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle and may require monitoring and hand digging nearby. Because most of the trees will only be influenced on one side the CRZ will in effect be the TPZ for many trees. When fence is impractical for protection I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping trunks with wattle to prevent compaction and mechanical damage to stems. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 10 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits from the Town of Los Gatos prior to removing or significantly altering any tree. Remove Coast live oak #56 due to its current diseased condition. Refer to Appendix D of this document for general protection guidelines and specifications. Protection during demolition/grading 1. Wrap moderately influenced trees with straw wattle to help prevent mechanical damage to the trunks where fence is impractical. Trees 8, 9, 11 , 13, 14 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 47 , 59 , 62 , 63, and 65. 2. Place tree protection fence along the lower portion of the site adjacent to the building area to protect trees 27, 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 38, 39, and 41. Construction Phase 1. Remove all trees to be removed prior to demolition of the existing structures . 2 . Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 3. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. 4 . Tree Pruning: If tree pruning for overhead clearance is required or necessary pruning specifications shall be in writing prior to any cutting. Cutting shall be performed by a qualified tree care professional or supervised by the project arborist. No limbs greater than four inches ( 4") in diameter shall be removed. 5 . Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within five times the trunk diameter distances. 6. Trees 27, 29, 38 and 40: Create a working platform with mulch and three quarter inch plywood around the trees to help reduce root zone impact. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 11 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 7. Utility Trenching: Where possible trenches shall be dug under existing roots and utilities should be "snaked" under the roots . When large roots , greater than 4 inches in diameter, are encountered they shall be excavated by hand or with pneumatic excavating tools such as an Air Spade® or Hydrovac®. 8 . Root removal near trees 9, 11, 13, 14 18, 22, 23, 59, 62, 63 , and 65: Prior to remov ing roots greater than two inches (2") in diameter each tree shall be evaluated by the project arborist to help determine its likelihood of failure after root loss. If roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. No roots shall be cut within six times the trunk diameter distance in feet on one side without arborist approval. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition and have the trees assessed for risk. 2. Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones . Oaks in th e urban landscap e: selection, c are, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Glossary of Arboricultural Te rms. Champaign: International Society ofArboriculture, 2011. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 . Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tre e Risk Manage m ent. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007 . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Glossary of Terms Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees d efects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States , Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture . Drip Line: Imaginary line defmed by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs , straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defmed area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is , and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. Trunk: Stem of a tree. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 fr ree Species Number I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia4 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) i ' ' Trunk Condition Diameter 1105 1 Fair 1505 Fair Suitability for Influence Preservation Level ! Fair i Moderate : Fair 1 Moderate l Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 65 8 ! Fair i Poor 0 Moderate -~ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 66 : 1205 Fair I Poor Low I r-~--..----+-------,------t-----1 I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i 101 ! 8 Fair 1 Fair Low : ~I --------------~-----~------~--------~----------------~ I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 102 12 Fair : Fair Low I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 03 ! 12 j Fair ; Fair ! Low Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 04 ; 4 i Fair 1 Fair ! Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 05 ! 4 1 Fair : Fair :_L_o_w--------1j I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 06 1 12 ~ Fair ____ -~-_ 0--+-Low _ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 1 107 i 8 . Fair j Fair :Low l ~---------------------+--·-------------+ i Fair 1 Bay laurel ( Umbellularia 108 : 4 and 4 1 Fair Low I I I I ~alifornica) ~~-o_a_st_l_iv_e_o_a_k _(_Q_u_e,.,_c_u_s _a_gr._i(l_o_lia_)----1-----1-0~ 1 0 I Fair I l Fair I ____j Low I I __, 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 110 ' 21 1 Fair ; Fair 0 Low I Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I californica) ~ Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 111 . I 112 ' 113 l I 114 1 8 ; Fair I i ! Fair I Low I ! I 4 1 Fair I Fair Low I I I 12 1 Fair i Fair :Low _j 12 I Fair i Fair ! Low I I -1 I Bay laurel (Umbellularia 115 1 5 I, Fair i Fair I Low 1 I I II I californica) l c tl k(Q &f) ! 120 ' 24 1 F I F 1 L I 1 oas 1ve oa uercus agn,o 1a I a1r 1 a1r : ow ~~ 1 1 Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia 121 : 1 .. 8 and 8 I Fair I Fair Low j californica) L---------------------~------~--------·~----~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-PoO Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 033108982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 17 of 33 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 --,.-...-,---.. .. ~-...--------------~----~..._, Tree Species Number Trunk Condition Influence Diameter Level Retain or Remove Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) + 34 ! 16, 10, 6 Fair j Moderate i Retain I Bay laurel (Umbel/ularia ~---3-5-1r--1 ---1-1 -t~-F-a-ir----+! -Lo_w ____ -+1 -R-e-ta-in-~ j californica) i I ! I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 36 1 11 l Good ! Low I Reta in I I I 38 i i I Retain I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ; Moderate I californica) . ! 71 Fair ' I I I I -j Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria 39 ' 20 1 Poor Moderate 1 Retain ' californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I callformca) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) ! I I I I I ' 40 : 10.5 Fair I 41 i 20 Fair 42 ~ 10, 8 .5 I Fair 43 1 20, 11 i Fair I I I I I ' i I I j Moderate :Retain I Low ! Retain I I ' I I ' I i Low i I /Retain I I I I i 'Low I I Retain I I I Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California buckeye (Aesculus californica) 44 i _ 46 1 Fair 45 l 8 , 7, 5 .5 , I Fair 1 Low I - Retain ~ ! Low ' Retain I I I I I i 4.5 l Retarn I I I I · Bay laurel ( Umbel/ulana i 46 ! 15, 8 Farr : Low I I I I ~~rn~ I i I ~----------------------~------~i. ___ , ____ ~----·-:------~---~ I 47 : Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! i 50 I I I 54 ! 7,4 56 57 15 Fair I I 7.51 Fair I Good 32 i Unstable 15 Fair :Moderate I I : 'Low I Moderate l I ! Retain I I ! Retain I Retain ! i Moderate i *Remove I ' I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 59 14 I Fair I Low I Retain ! Moderate ! Reta i;-1 60 i 12 Fair Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i High I Remove I I 61 : 12 Poor I High I Remove I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 62 ! 11 .5 Fa ir I Moderate i Retain Valley oak (Quercus lobata) =t---~~-__ 1_5::_l_:air I Moderate I Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 65 I 8 j F-a-ir---~Modercrt~----, Retain Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 20 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix C: Photographs Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 23 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 24 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist As sessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @ monarcharborist.com July 10 , 2016 25 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 1 0, 2016 26 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 27 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2. Area type to be fenced: Type 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall b e wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3. Duration of Type I, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of construction, in stall the fence at the drip line, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drip line of the tree unle ss approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the drip line of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5 . Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7 . The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Additional tree protection measures: Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom . Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneli ng Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone . Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified according to ANSI A-300A standards and limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices, and adhere to ANSI 2133 .1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick @monarc harborist.com 29 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English CD ~ 0 N C)~ ~ .2 ·-.... ~ u '-CD ca ... ==~ D. CD CD '-t- ~ '""CO') Q) c > ·-O'""C E '-Q)8~ a:~~ Q) ~o (ll+-' -~ +-' ctS . Ocm ZQ)C\J =O..Q) ctSo-o .!:FO (/)+-'() Q) ~ c (.) ........ ::::> c .c > Q)::l~ U..(/) en en ·--.!:'""C 1-c <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 July 10, 2016 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 30 of 33 19 Highland Avenue E2: Spanish Arborist Assessment 0 , ·-.Q). ... Q) l-oa. ,_ ca o -c.c ·-1-:::J<( OQ) c ca c 0 N en 0 -c co (.) co en CD '"'C cl.(') :Q N uo c~ ~0 ~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 31 of 33 19 HighlandAvenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0, 2016 Quali f ications, Ass um pt io ns, and Limiting Condit io n s Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings , hearings, conferences, mediations, arb itration , or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services . This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers , or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference . Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee , expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my fmdings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subj ect of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis , opinions, and conclusions were de veloped and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results , or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arbori sts LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses s tated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 33 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Re sponse to Tree Number Discrepanc ies July 10, 2016 July 9, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831 . 331. 8982 Regarding the discrepancy between the tree inventory quantities and the number of trees on the property from the inventory provided on May 10,2016. I was asked by Mr. Pearson to help explain why the number of trees provided in the tree inventory (91) contained at least five more trees than were counted on the si te by another party or on the plans themselves. The original report and inventory provided by Davi d Babby for the Town of Los Gatos included trees #48, #49, #51, #52, and #53 which are located near the property boundary on the adjacent parcel. I also included these trees in my assessment for consistency and they were indicated on the plans as well. In addition to these trees I recorded all the trees on the hillside that were not on any of the original documents. At least one tree , a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), is located within the fenced yard of an adjacent site. However the boundary survey I was u sing indicated this tree as actually on the 19 Highland site and not on the adjacent property as the fence alignment would indicate. Whenever trees are located near the property boundary or their crowns extend over the property boundary they are typically included in an inventory or assessment of this type . The "American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site D evelopment, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH· Secretariat, Tre e Care Indus try Association, 2012" section 53.3.1.1 recommends tree tree care professionals performing this type of inventory and assessment include tho se on adjacent sites if they could be impacted. Because the Babby report contained the adjacent trees and I also include those trees there is a discrepancy between the number of trees inventoried/assessed and the number of trees actually located within the property boundary. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Response to Tree Number Discrepancies July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report , and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J . Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced , s tored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means , electronic, mec hanical, recording, or otherwise without th e ex press, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -r ick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 8, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 19 Highland A venue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family res idence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Y:!. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Ed Pearson FINDINGS: CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required. Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to locate the resi dence away from the creek. This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 20 10 . The project is otherwise in compliance with applicable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a s ing le-family res idence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the specific plan . CONSIDERATIONS: Considerations in review ofArchitecture & Site applications: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture and site application were all made in reviewing this project. The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project i s compatible with development on s urrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will help blend the new building into the s ite. There is limited visibility into the s ite from surrounding homes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new residence , and outdoor spaces. N :\DEV\FI N DI NGS\2 0 I 6\Highlandl 9.doc EXHIBIT 3 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank