The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 01, Exh 4-15TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 02/28/2018 DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM NO: 2 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-12-001 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT WA- 11 CANCELLATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-10-006, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-12-001. PROJECT LOCATION: TWIN OAKS DRIVE. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: TOM DODGE, SURREY FARM ESTATES, LLC. REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM AGRICULTURAL TO HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, CANCELLATION OF THE EXISTING WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT, AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RC TO HR-1:PD TO ALLOW FOR SUBDIVIDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO 10 LOTS, CONSTRUCTION OF 10 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVAL OF LARGE PROTECTED TREES. APN 532-16-006. RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to Town Council for approval of the General Plan Amendment, Cancellation of the Existing Williamson Act Contract, and Planned Development Application, subject to the recommended performance standards. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Agriculture Zoning Designation: Resource Conservation (RC) Applicable Plans and Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines; Hillside Specific Plan Parcel Size: 17.55 Acres PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER Senior Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning North Residential/School Hillside Residential HR-1 South Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 and HR-21/2 East Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 West Residential Single -Family Residential R-1:10 and R-1:12 CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project. FINDINGS: ■ As required by CEQA to certify the Environmental Impact Report. ■ That the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. ■ That the Planned Development to rezone the property is consistent with the General Plan. ■ That the project is consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. ■ That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan. ■ That the project is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. ■ That the required findings for cancellation of the Williamson Act can be made. ACTION: ■ Forward a recommendation regarding Environmental Impact Report EIR-12-001 to the Town Council. ■ Forward a recommendation regarding General Plan Amendment GP-12-001 to the Town Council. ■ Forward a recommendation regarding Planned Development application PD-10-006 to the Town Council. ■ Forward a recommendation regarding cancellation of Williamson Act Contract WA-11 to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: The subject 17.55-acre property is currently vacant and takes access from Twin Oaks Drive (Exhibit 4). The applicant presented a development proposal for the subject site to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) on September 8, 2010. Summary minutes of the CDAC meeting are attached (Exhibit 7). N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 3 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 The General Plan Committee (GPC) reviewed the proposed project on September 12, 2012, October 22, 2014, and December 28, 2015. The motion of the GPC was to continue the project until the Final EIR is certified with the understanding that the Town Council may choose not to request a formal recommendation from the GPC at that time. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated in 2015 (Exhibit 1). In response to additional information received in a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2016, the Town prepared and circulated two revised sections of the DEIR, the Biological Resources Section and the Alternatives Sections, between May 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 (Exhibit 2). The Final EIR (Exhibit 3), which includes the Response to Comments, was previously provided on February 20, 2018. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act, works to preserve agricultural and open space lands through restrictive use contracts administered by counties and cities under State regulations. Private landowners restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term voluntary contracts with counties and cities. In return, the property tax on a Williamson Act parcel is assessed at a rate consistent with its actual use, rather than potential market value. A Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract was established by the Town on the project site in 1975 and this contract is currently still in effect. A notice of non -renewal of the Williamson Act contract was received on April 28, 2015. Because the timeline for non -renewal is 10 years, this contract would remain in effect until 2025. A Petition for Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract was received by the Town in 2017 and was sent to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The Department of Conservation sent a response letter (Exhibit 12) stating that the findings could be made for cancellation, and recommending that the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development to rezone the property occur prior to, or at the same time as, the cancellation. Town Council will review the petition for cancellation along with the Planning Commission's recommendations on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development applications. Resolution No. 1979-150 adopted by the Town Council in 1979 provides a procedure for cancellation for Williamson Act contracts, including review and recommendation from the Planning Commission. Future required approvals would include a subdivision application (including installation of roadway improvements and recordation of easements) and Architecture and Site applications for each new building site. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 4 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Project Summary As noted in the letter of justification (Exhibit 11), the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment and a Planned Development (PD) to rezone the subject site from RC to HR-1:PD, to allow the subdivision of one lot into 10 lots, the installation of a new private roadway, construction of 10 new single-family homes, and the removal of large protected trees. In order to proceed with this development the applicant is also proposing to cancel the existing Williamson Act Contract on the land. The proposed PD would allow the site to be subdivided into 10 lots for single-family residential uses. The project also includes installation of a trail and dedication of a trail easement, as required by the Hillside Specific Plan, that would connect Brooke Acres Drive and Cerro Vista Court. The subject site is approximately 17.5 acres, and the size of the proposed single-family lots would be between 0.98 acres and 2.37 acres each, with 3.62 acres preserved as open space. The proposed project would include the construction of a private street to access the new lots from Twin Oaks Drive. Construction of the private street would include cut, up to seven feet in depth, and fill, up to 13 feet in depth, where the roadway crosses the existing riparian area. Portions of "Street B" and the likely driveway location for Lot 7 would be outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA). Individual building plans and site improvements would be submitted as part of future Architecture and Site applications. The proposed plans also include details for the Two -Access Alternative considered in the Draft EIR and the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (PRDEIR), discussed in Section J below. Proposed development plans for the PD application are included in Exhibit B of Exhibit 15. B. General Plan Amendment and Williamson Act Cancellation A Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract was established by the Town on the project site in 1975. In 1988, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1988-230, which required amendment of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan designations to reflect rezoning of properties subject to Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, as part of a subsequent General Plan update, all Williamson Act lands were given an Agriculture General Plan land use designation. Prior to this redesignation, the project site was designated in the Town's 1961 General Plan as Residential, 0 to 2 single-family dwellings per acre. The proposed development of this property requires the cancellation of the existing Williamson Act contract and a change to the General Plan land use designation from Agriculture to Hillside Residential to allow the subdivision and construction of 10 single-family N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 5 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 residences. A Petition for Cancelation for the Williamson Act Contract was received by the Town in 2017 and was sent to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The Department of Conservation sent a response letter (Exhibit 12) stating that the findings could be made for cancellation, and recommending that the General Plan Amendment and PD to rezone the property occur prior to, or at the same time as, the cancellation. Town Council will review the petition for cancellation along with the Planning Commission's recommendations on the General Plan Amendment and PD applications. C. Planned Development Application The PD application is requesting to rezone the property from RC to HR-1:PD. Section 29.40.255 of the Town Code requires that, "any subdivision into five (5) or more residential building sites shall require the approval of a planned development" when within the Hillside Residential Zone. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), page 56, state that: The purpose of the PD overlay zone, as it relates to hillside areas, is to encourage the appropriate location of residential units in the least restrictive development areas of the site. The intent is to significantly reduce the amount of grading, roads, and other alterations to the existing environment, to minimize the visual impact of the development, and to retain the maximum amount of continuous open space in its natural state. Town Code states that the purpose of a PD is to provide for alternative uses and developments that are more consistent with site characteristics, to create an optimum quantity and use of open space, and to encourage good design. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the PD application to the Town Council, who will be the final deciding body. If adopted by the Town Council, the proposed PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15) would allow the Development Review Committee to approve the Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications for the consideration of new residences less than 5,000 square feet. D. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is approximately 17.5 acres of vacant land which takes access from Twin Oaks Drive (Exhibit 4). The site is surrounded by low density or hillside residential properties on all sides, with a partially shared property line with Hillbrook School to the north. The property generally sits east of Twin Oaks Drive, north of Brooke Acres Drive, and southwest of Cerro Vista Court and Cerro Vista Drive. Proposed access would be via a private roadway connecting to Twin Oaks Drive for all 10 houses. The Two -Access Alternative plan would have access for four of the houses from Cerro Vista Court and six of the houses from Twin Oaks Drive. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 6 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 E. Zoning Compliance The proposed base zoning designation of HR-1 permits single-family homes, and is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent hillside properties. Town Code requires a PD overlay for subdivisions with five or more building sites in the Hillside Residential zone as stated above. DISCUSSION: A. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee The CDAC reviewed a preliminary proposal on September 8, 2010. The proposal consisted of a similar subdivision for 10 single-family homes. The CDAC provided comments on the proposal (Exhibit 7). The applicant states in their Project Description and Letter of Justification letter (Exhibit 11) that the comments from the CDAC have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. General Plan Committee The GPC reviewed the proposed project on September 12, 2012, October 22, 2014, and December 28, 2015 (Exhibits 8, 9, and 10). The first meeting was continued to allow for completion of the Draft EIR, and with a request that staff return with information about the criteria for the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Change, information about other Hillside Planned Developments, and the required findings for the proposed project. The second meeting was continued to a future date after the Draft EIR was available. At their third meeting, the motion of the GPC was to continue the project until the Final EIR is certified with the understanding that the Town Council may choose not to request a formal recommendation from the GPC at that time. C. Planned Development The PD application is proposing to rezone the properties from RC to HR-1:PD. The HR-1 zoning would be consistent with adjacent properties, which are zoned R-1:10, R-1:12, HR-1 and HR-2 %. Approval of the PD application would establish the regulations through an ordinance (which would include the development plans) under which the following actions would be allowed: • Subdivision of one lot into 10 lots through a future Subdivision application; • Construction of 10 new single-family homes through future Architecture and Site applications; and • Construction of associated site improvements. The current proposal complies with all provisions of the HR-1 zone and HDS&G, except for the N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 7 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 items listed below, which are proposed to be allowed through the PD ordinance: • Depths of cut, up to seven feet for the roadway. • Depths of fill, up to 13 feet for the roadway. • Construction outside the LRDA for the roadway and a future driveway. The applicant discusses the requested exceptions listed above in Exhibit 11. The PD application is proposing a rezone which would provide specific guidance for the future subdivision, and single-family residential development. The PD Ordinance would define the maximum allowable development, including the maximum floor area and building height. Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications would be required to implement the proposed project if the PD is approved. D. Lot and Building Size The project is proposing a subdivision of the site into 10 lots for single-family residential uses. Based on the average slope of the lot of 23.92%, the maximum number of houses on the 17.5- acre lot, would be 10. The lot sizes, preliminary average slopes, and likely maximum floor area for each parcel are shown in the following table: Proposed Lot Sizes Square Feet Acres Av. Slope Max FA Lot 1 42,648 0.98 5% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 2 42,776 0.98 10% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 3 41,810 0.96 8% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 4 40,912 0.94 16% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 5 44,698 1.03 21% 5700 sq. ft. Lot 6 87,022 2.00 30% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 7 103,258 2.37 30% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 8 52,598 1.21 22% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 9 52,217 1.20 21% 6000 sq. ft. Lot 10 47,017 1.08 26% 5200 sq. ft. Open Space 157,611 3.62 Private Roads 55,041 1.26 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 8 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 E. Grading The project is subject to the HDS&G. The applicant is proposing cut and fill depths greater than those permitted by the HDS&G: Cut and Fill Requirements Site Element Maximum Cut Maximum Fill House and attached garage 8'** 3' Driveways* 4' 3' Other (decks, yards)* 4' 3' *Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence shall be limited to 6 feet. **Excludes cellars. Grading proposed for the private roadway includes locations of cut up to seven feet in depth, and fill, up to 13 feet in depth. Details of the proposed grading (including site sections, illustrations of the locations of the proposed cut and fill, and conceptual future driveway details) are included on Sheets C2 through C4 of the Development Plans in Exhibit B of Exhibit 15. The applicant also provides a subdivision configuration for a Two -Access Alternative which would reduce the height of the cut and fill by avoiding the riparian zone where the greatest cut and fill would occur. The Two -Access Alternative was considered in the DEIR, and is described in Section J below, and is shown on Sheets A-1A, A-3A, A-4A, C8, C9, L1.3, L1.4, and L1.5. F. Trees A site plan showing the location of the trees to be removed is included as Sheet A-0 of the Development Plans within Exhibit B of Exhibit 15. This site includes over 600 existing trees. The applicant's letter describes 485 existing protected trees. The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 13) who focused the review on the 137 trees impacted by the proposed development. Of those 137 trees, 33 are proposed to be preserved, 71 are recommended for removal, 30 are proposed to be transplanted, and three are described as debatable. Additional tree removals would be evaluated when Architecture and Site applications are submitted for consideration of the new single-family homes. G. Visibility In order to show that the project includes building sites that are buildable without significant exceptions to the HDS&G, the applicant has provided a visibility analysis based on the most likely building sites. This analysis is included as Sheets A-2 through A-3A of the Development Plans within Exhibit B of Exhibit 15. The visibility analysis illustrates that the building sites would not be visible from any of the viewing platforms. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 9 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 H. General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment would place the project site within the Hillside Residential (0-1 dwelling units per net acre) General Plan land use designation which currently surrounds the site on three sides. This designation provides for very low density, rural, large lot or cluster, single-family residential development. This designation allows for development that is compatible with the unique mountainous terrain and vegetation of parts of Los Gatos. The proposed project would meet the standards of the HR-1 zone, which are consistent with this designation. The goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan applicable to this project include, but are not limited to: • Goal CD-1— Preserve and enhance Los Gatos's character through exceptional community design. • Policy HOU-2.4 — Demonstrate that all new residential development is sufficiently served by public services and facilities, including pedestrian and vehicular circulation, water and wastewater services, police, fire, schools, and parks. • Policy HOU-2.5 — New single-family, multi -family and mixed use development shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • Goal HOU-8 — Encourage residential construction that promotes green building and energy conservation practices. • Policy HOU-8.1—All approvals of residential developments of three or more units shall include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. • Policy LU-1.3 — To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. • Goal LU-4 — To provide for well -planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure. • Policy LU-4.2 — Allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure. • Goal LU-5 — To encourage public involvement in Town planning processes. • Policy LU-6.7 — Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • Goal LU-6 — To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods. • Policy LU-6.5 —The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. • Policy LU-6.8 — New construction shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 10 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 I. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. As part of the environmental review process a number of technical reports were prepared, including species lists and database review, tree evaluations and arborist reports, geotechnical investigations, stormwater basin stability analysis, noise analysis, and traffic analysis. Reports that were prepared by outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town Consultants. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on July 9, 2012, for a 30-day comment period which was then extended to August 28, 2012. Comments received on the NOP are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. The Notice of Availability for review of the Draft EIR (DEIR) was released on August 25, 2015, with the 45-day public review period ending on October 9, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept comment on the DEIR. Verbal comments were received from sixteen individuals, many of whom also submitted written comments. On December 21, 2016, the applicant submitted a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers that resulted from a site visit to assess the riparian areas on site. As a result of this letter, the Town revised and recirculated the Biological Resources and Alternatives Sections of the DEIR. This Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (PRDEIR) includes as Appendix A a copy of the US Army Corps letter, as well as an additional Wetland Impact Assessment. The PRDEIR was released on May 5, 2017, with a 45-day public review period ending on June 19, 2017. Written comments on the DEIR and PRDEIR were received from four public agencies and 43 individuals. The Final EIR, with Response to Comments, was completed in August 2017. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared as required by CEQA (see Exhibit 3). The MMRP includes a list of all mitigation measures and the department(s) responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are properly implemented. All mitigation measures are also included as performance standards within the draft PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15). J. Two -Access Alternative As required for preparation of an EIR, in order to foster informed decision making and public participation, project alternatives are considered as part of the environmental analysis. The Two -Access Alternative for this project would provide two separate roadways. Private "Street A" would take access from Twin Oaks Drive and would give access to Lots 1 through 4, and lots 8 and 9. Private "Street B" would take access off of Cerro Vista Court and would give access to lots 5 through 7, and lot 10. As described in the Draft EIR, and the revised Alternatives Section, this project would reduce the potential impacts by avoiding the riparian areas. In addition, the N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 11 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 crossing of that riparian area is the area where the greatest cut and fill are proposed, and so the proposed exceptions to the HDS&G would be reduced. Where the proposed project would result in cut up to seven feet, and fill up to 13 feet, this alternative would result in cut up to five feet, and fill up to six feet. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property, and an email was sent to all interested parties who have contacted staff or submitted comments via email on the project or environmental review documents. Written comments have been received regarding the proposed project (Exhibit 14). CONCLUSION: A. Summary The project would allow the subdivision of the 17.5-acre site into 10 lots for single-family residential use. This proposal includes a General Plan Amendment, a PD to rezone the property, and cancellation of the existing Williamson Act contract. Because the proposal includes five or more parcels within the hillside area a PD application is required per Town Code 29.40.255. The applicant is requesting an underlying zoning designation of HR-1 to match the adjacent Hillside Residential zoned properties. Through the required PD application the applicant is asking to allow exceptions to the HDS&G in the following areas: • Depths of cut, up to seven feet for the roadway. • Depths of fill, up to 13 feet for the roadway. • Construction outside the LRDA for the roadway and a future driveway. With the exception of the items listed above, the project complies with the General Plan, Town Code, and HDS&G. The applicant discusses the proposed exceptions in Exhibit 11. A draft PD Ordinance has been prepared with performance standards to require the project to adhere to the aforementioned requirements (Exhibit 15). B. Recommendation Based on the summary above, staff recommends the Commission take the following actions to forward the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Williamson Act Cancellation, and PD applications to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval of the proposed project: 1. Make the required findings (Exhibit 5) including the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 6); 2. Recommend that the Town Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 3); N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 12 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 3. Recommend that the Town Council approve the General Plan Amendment; 4. Recommend that the Town Council approve the Williamson Act Cancellation; and 5. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit 15) and approve the project as proposed. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Forward a recommendation of approval of the applications with the Two -Access Alternative to the Town Council; or 2. Forward a recommendation of denial of the applications to the Town Council; or 3. Forward a recommendation for approval of the applications with modified performance standards to the Town Council; or 4. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. August 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. May 2017 Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Received with this Staff Report: 4. Location Map (one page) 5. Required Findings (two pages) 6. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (40 pages) 7. September 8, 2010, Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes (two pages) 8. September 12, 2012, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (three pages) 9. October 22, 2014, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (two pages) 10. October 28, 2015, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (two pages) 11. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received February 6, 2018 (eight pages) 12. Letter from the State Department of Conservation in response to Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 75-913 (one page) 13. Consulting Arborist's Report, dated March 30, 2011 (26 pages) 14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 23, 2018 15. Planned Development Ordinance (45 pages) with Exhibit A Rezone Area (one page) and Exhibit B Development Plans, received January 29, 2018 (29 sheets) N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM PAGE 13 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018 Distribution: Tom Dodge, Surrey Farms Estates, LLC, 851McGlincy Lane, Campbell, CA 95008 Rodger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc., 16165 Monterey Rd., Suite 103, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks -Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM This Page Intentionally Left Blank Adjacent to 170 Twin Oaks Drive 0 0.125 0.25 Miles EXHIBIT 4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION - February 28, 2018 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: Twin Oaks Drive General Plan Amendment GP-12-001 Planned Development Application PD-10-006 Environmental Impact Report EIR-12-001 Requesting approval of a general plan amendment from Agricultural to Hillside Residential, Cancellation of the existing Williamson Act contract, and a Planned Development to rezone property from RC TO HR-1:PD to allow for subdivision of one lot into 12 lots, construction of 10 new single-family residences, and removal of large protected trees. APN 532-16-006. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Tom Dodge, Surrey Farms Estates, LLC. FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: ■ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR, making findings of fact, and recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required consistency with the Town's General Plan: ■ That the proposal to amend the General Plan designation and rezone the property is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that the proposed Hillside Residential zoning and Planned Development overlay allow residential use consistent with the adjacent properties' zoning districts. Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: ■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with the exception of cut and fill depths for the roadway and future driveways, which have been determined to be acceptable. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan: ■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the proposal is the development of the lot for 10 single-family residences with associated site elements on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria included in the plan. ATTACHMENT 5 1 Required consistency with Town's Housing Element: ■ The project is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Required findings for Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract: ■ The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Nonrenewal has been served, pursuant to Section 51245 of the Government Code. A Notice of Nonrenewal for the 17.5-acre property was accepted by the Town on April 28, 2015, and recorded by the County Recorder on October 31, 2017, and was assigned Document No. 23789473. ■ The cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use because none of the adjacent lands are under agricultural use or zone. ■ The cancellation is for an alternate use that is consistent with the provisions of the Town's General Plan as stated above. ■ The cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development in that the surrounding parcels are located in a developed residential area of the Town of Los Gatos. Zoning of adjacent properties include Single -Family Residential (R-1) and Hillside Residential (HR), including the Hillbrook School which shares part of the property's northern boundary. No vacant, undeveloped, or agricultural lands are adjacent to the subject property. ■ There is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed that the contracted land be put, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\TWIN OAKS_SURREY FARMS.DOCX 2 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT for Surrey Farm Estates (170 Twin Oaks Road) Planned Development Application PD-10-006 SCH #2012072027 Town Council Town of Los Gatos August 2017 EXHIBIT 6 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 A. Project Location 3 B. Project Objectives 3 C. Project Characteristics 4 IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5 A. Biological Resources 6 B. Geology and Soils 19 C. Hydrology and Water Quality 21 D. Noise 23 E. Air Quality 25 F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 27 G. Cultural Resources 28 H. Energy Conservation 30 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 31 A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 32 B. Alternative 2: Two Access Alternative 32 C. Alternative 3: Two Access + Two EVA Alternative 33 D. Environmentally Superior Alternative 34 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 34 VII. RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 35 VII. SUMMARY 36 August 2017 iii CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact I. INTRODUCTION The Draft EIR prepared for the Surrey Farm Estates Project (also referred to as the Project or proposed Project) identified several potentially significant environmental effects that the proposed project may cause. All of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15090, the Town Council of Los Gatos (Council) hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Surrey Farm Estates Project (proposed Project) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), that the Final EIR was presented to the Council, and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed Project, as set forth below. As part of this certification, the Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Council and approves the Final EIR. II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects for which they have discretionary authority. This document, which has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), sets forth the findings of the Town of Los Gatos (Town), the lead agency under CEQA, regarding the Surrey Farm Estates Project. The primary source for this document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR; SCH #2012072027) for the proposed Project, and the documents that have been incorporated into the Final EIR directly or by reference. Full descriptions of the Proposed project, associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, Project alternatives, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed Project, and other features required under CEQA are contained in the Final EIR itself. To determine the scope of the EIR, the Town prepared a Notice of Preparation. On July 26, 2012, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project were distributed to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. This began the 30-day public review period, which ended on August 27, 2012. A total of four comment letters including one from a public agency and three letters from members of the public were received. These comments were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR (see below), and are included in their entirety in Appendix A to that document. The Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC), was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies, and interested members of the public for a 45-day review period, extending from August 26, 2015 through October 9, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive oral comment on the Draft EIR. August 2017 1 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR After the Draft EIR was released for public review the Project applicant received correspondence from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) confirming the amount of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Following a site visit by USACE personnel in June 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers prepared a letter stating the extent of the jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. consisted of a 342-square foot (0.008-acre) area in the northwestern corner of the site. The Draft EIR assumed that the ephemeral swale that traverses the western portion of the site would be jurisdictional waters. The ephemeral swale was determined not be jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. As a result of the jurisdictional determination from the USACE, the Project applicant determined that the Project would avoid impacts to the single location of Waters of the U.S. wetland by constructing the proposed bioswale and detention basin to the southeast of this wetland area. Additionally, the Project applicant submitted a revised site plan for the Two - Access Alternative. The site plan was modified to change the alignment of Street A such that potential impacts to the ephemeral swale would be avoided. Additional mitigation measures were added to address comments from the Regional Water Quality Control. Board. The Town of Los Gatos released a Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (PRDEIR) to provide responsible agencies and members of the public an opportunity to review the new information. The PRDEIR was recirculated for 45 days from May 5, 2017 to June 19, 2017. Comments on the Draft EIR and PRDEIR, a list of commenters, and the Town's responses to comments are contained in the Final EIR, dated August 2017. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the Final EIR was made available for review by trustee and responsible agencies that provided written comments on the Draft EIR for a 10-day period from February 16 through February 28, 2018. The Final EIR for the Project consists of the following: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), issued August 26, 2015; B. Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (PRDEIR), issued May 5, 2017 B. All appendices to the Draft EIR; C. D. Final EIR, dated August 2017, containing all written comments and responses on the Draft EIR, refinements and clarifications to the Draft EIR, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and technical appendices; All of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing, as well as accompanying technical memoranda or evidence entered into the record. 2 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact The Final EIR did not provide any significant new information regarding proposed Project or cumulative impacts or mitigation measures beyond that contained in the Draft EIR. The Town therefore properly decided not to recirculate the Final SEIR for additional public review. In conformance with CEQA, the Town has taken the following actions in relation to the EIR: A. On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR, and recommended that the Town Council certify the EIR and approve the General Plan Amendment from Agriculture to Hillside Residential — 0-1 du/acre, Rezone from RC (Resource Conservation) to HR:1:PD (Hillside Residential, 1 unit/acre, with Planned Development Overlay), Tentative Tract Map for 10 single-family lots and two common lots, and cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract. B. On XXXX, 2018, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing, the Town Council certified the EIR and adopted findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program related to the General Plan Amendment and Rezone from RC to HR:1:PD, Tentative Tract Map, and cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location The Project is located east of Twin Oaks Drive in the southern part of the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County. The property is located at 170 Twin Oaks Drive. The 17.55-acre site is comprised of one parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number 532-16-006) and is generally east of Twin Oaks Drive, west of Cerro Vista Drive, north of Brooke Acres Drive, and south of Cerro Vista Court. B. Project Objectives The objectives of the Project applicant for the Surrey Farm Estates Project would be as follows: 1. Develop 10 residential lots on developable portions of the Project site and designate remaining portions of the site as open space/common area on two common lots. 2. Provide emergency access connections to adjacent roadways, wherever feasible, to improve secondary emergency access to the Project site and adjacent neighborhoods currently served by single -access roads. The Project site is located in the part of the Town subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) and Hillside Specific Plan (HSP), but the Project site is also subject to the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. While goals, objectives, and policies of these plans are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 4, the objectives from these plans that are relevant to development of this property in general and reflect the Town's objectives are listed as follows: August 2017 3 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR 1. Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides by regulating new homes (2020 General Plan Community Design Element, Goal CD-14). 2. Preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by regulating grading, landscaping, and lighting (2020 General Plan Community Design Element, Goal CD-15). 3. Maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides from all vantage points including the valley floor (HDSG, Objective 4). 4. Protect ridgelines from development (HDSG, Objective 5). 5. Maintain the rural, natural, open space character of the hillsides (HDSG, Objective 7). 6. Ensure that development does not dominate, but rather visually blends and achieves harmony between the natural and built environment (HDSG, Objective 9). 7. Conserve the natural features of the site such as topography, natural drainage, vegetation, wildlife habitats, movement corridors and other physical features (HDSG, Objective 10). 8. Cluster dwelling units to preserve the scenic nature of the hillsides and allow for economies in the construction of required public and private facilities (HSP, Policy 1.3.3). 9. Site new homes to maximize privacy, livability, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and adequate solar access and wind conditions, taking advantage of scenic views but not creating significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or other properties (2020 General Plan Community Design Element, Policy CD-6.4). Project Characteristics The Project applicant is requesting approval of the following: ■ Amendment of the site's General Plan designation from "Agriculture" to "Hillside Residential — 0-1 du/acre"; ■ Rezoning of the subject property from "RC" (Resource Conservation) to "HR:1:PD" (Hillside Residential, 1 unit/acre, with Planned Development overlay); ■ Tentative Tract Map indicating 10 lots for single-family residential use plus two common lots (Lots A and B); and ■ Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract. Approval of this General Plan amendment, rezoning, and Tentative Map would allow the Project applicant to subdivide the vacant 17.55-acre property into 10 lots for future development of single-family residences. In addition to the 10 residential lots, two common lots are proposed. Common Lot A would be comprised of the rights -of -way for Private Streets 4 August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact A and B, while Common Lot B would be the designated open space in the southeastern portion of the site. Residential lots would comprise approximately 13 acres (74%) of the site, while roads would comprise 7% and open space would comprise the balance (19%). Table 1-1 summarizes proposed sizes of the 10 residential lots and two common lots (A and B). TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF AREAL EXTENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed Lots Proposed Lot Sizes Square Feet Acres Lot 1 42,648 0.98 Lot 2 42,776 0.98 Lot 3' 41,810 0.96 Lot 4 40,912 0.94 Lot 5 44,698 1.03 Lot 6 87,022 2.00 Lot 7 103,258 237 Lot 8 52,598 121 Lot 9' 57,968 133 Lot 10 41,270 0.95 Common Lot A - Access Road Right -of-- 51,798 1.18 Way (bate Streets A and BY Common Lot B — Open Space' 157,611 3.62 Total Project Site Area 764,369 17.55 ' Riparian Acreage on Lots 3, A, 9, and B 13,725 0.32 As indicated in Table 1-1, proposed residential lots would be approximately one acre or larger in size, ranging between 0.94 (40,912 square feet) and 2.37 acres (103,258 square feet). Eight of the proposed lots would be approximately one acre in size, while the two lots at the top of the hill on -site would be two acres or more. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Subdivided lots would be purchased and developed by other individuals or home builders. Individual home designs would be subject to a separate Architecture and Site review at the time of application. Development of each lot would be governed by the parameters, guidelines, and restrictions that are ultimately approved as part of the Planned Development application. If proposed development of individual lots does not conform to PD guidelines and restrictions, additional environmental review may be required. IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR analyzed proposed Project impacts in the following thirteen environmental topic areas: Land Use; Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Transportation and Traffic; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards August 2017 5 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR and Hazardous Materials; Cultural Resources; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; and Energy Conservation. Potentially significant impacts were identified in all but five of these areas: Land Use; Aesthetics; Transportation and Traffic; Greenhouse Gases; and Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems. With implementation of proposed Project -specific mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts. The following discussion elaborates on potentially significant impacts identified in the Surrey Farm Estates Final EIR and mitigation measures proposed for those impacts. A. Biological Resources 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.3-2: Project development could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, to nesting white-tailed kites and other special -status and migratory birds. Within the Project area, ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover, as well as structures, provide nesting habitat for white-tailed kite and other special -status migratory bird species. Site clearing activities (e.g., structure demolition, tree and shrub removal or pruning) could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Direct and indirect impacts to special -status and migratory bird species would be considered potentially significant under the CEQA Guidelines. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, Protection of Nesting Special -status and Migratory Birds, this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant by ensuring no impacts occur. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, Protection of Nesting Special -status and Migratory Birds: In order to prevent mortalities of special -status and migratory bird species during Project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. Removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible, but where tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities must occur, the following measures, shall be implemented: a. b. If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds are not warranted as no significant adverse effects would occur. If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are scheduled to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February 1 and August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Town. The survey shall be performed 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, depending on access and lines of sight. If no active nests of special -status or other migratory birds are found, work may proceed without restriction and no further measures are necessary. If the commencement of work is delayed more than two weeks from the date of the 6 August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact preconstruction survey, the survey shall be repeated, if determined necessary by the Project biologist. c. If occupied nests (i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present) of special -status or migratory birds are detected, the Project biologist shall designate non -disturbance buffers at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non -disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist approved by the Town. The appropriate buffer size shall be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist approved by the Town. Typical buffer zones are 50 foot -radius for songbirds and 300 foot -radius for raptors. If, despite the establishment of a non - disturbance buffer it is determined that Project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately. Work may only resume once the Project biologist has determined that it is safe to do so (e.g., after the young birds have fledged). d. If Project activities must occur within the non -disturbance buffer, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that take of the nest (i.e., nest failure) is not likely to result. If it is determined that Project activities are resulting in significant nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately. Work may only resume once the Project biologist has determined that it is safe to do so (e.g., after the young birds have fledged). Impact 4.3-3: Project development could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, to the special -status species San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat, which is present on -site. Within the Project area, 11 nests of San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat were detected in the wooded portions of the subject property; abundant suitable habitat is present elsewhere on - site. Site clearing activities (e.g., grading, tree and shrub removal) could result in direct or indirect impacts to woodrats by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Direct and indirect impacts to this special -status species would be considered potentially significant under the CEQA Guidelines. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, Protection of San Francisco Dusky -footed Woodrat, this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, Protection of San Francisco Dusky -footed Woodrat: In order to prevent mortalities of San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat during Project construction and implementation, the following measures shall be implemented: a• A qualified biologist shall perform a ground survey to locate and mark all woodrat nests in the proposed construction area. The survey shall be performed no less than 30 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbances. The Contractor shall walk the site to assist in determining which nests cannot be avoided. Nests to be avoided shall be fenced off with orange construction fencing and their locations marked on construction plans as being off limits to all activities. b• Any woodrat nest that cannot be avoided shall be manually disassembled by a qualified biologist, after notification of CDFW, to give any resident woodrats the opportunity to disperse to adjoining undisturbed habitat. Nest building materials shall be immediately removed off -site and disposed of to prevent woodrats from reassembling nests on -site. August 2017 7 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR c• To ensure woodrats do not rebuild nests within the construction area, a qualified biologist shall inspect the construction corridor no less than once per week. If new nests appear, they shall be disassembled and the building materials disposed of offsite. If there is a high degree of woodrat activity, more frequent monitoring shall be performed, as warranted. Impact 4.3-4: Project development could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, to special -status bats, identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, which may occur on -site. The Project area provides suitable roosting and foraging habitat for the pallid bat. If present at the time of construction, direct and indirect impacts could occur. Direct and indirect impacts to this special -status species would be considered potentially significant under the CEQA Guidelines. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, Protection of Roosting Bats, this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, Protection of Roosting Bats: In order to minimize impacts to special -status bats during Project implementation, impacts to suitable roost sites shall be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Where impacts to suitable roost sites cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be implemented: Mitigation 1: A habitat assessment (e.g., visual inspection of trees for sign or evidence of bats) for roosting bats should be conducted prior to any demolition or tree removal. The explicit purpose of these surveys is to identify potentially suitable roosting habitat in the trees and outbuilding onsite. For example, not all trees or structures support potential roosting habitat, and many of these features can be excluded from further consideration by a thorough habitat assessment by a qualified biologist. In addition, a qualified biologist can also employ a lift to visually inspect potential tree cavities to more definitively determine if roosting bats are present. Mitigation 2: For any trees and/or the single outbuilding that are found not to be suitable roosting habitat or for any tree or outbuilding definitively determined that roosting bats are absent, may be removed with no further action. Mitigation 3: For any trees and/or the single outbuilding that are found to be potentially suitable for roosting bats, different measures are required depending on the season they are to be removed. a. From March 1 - April 15 and August 15 - October 15 a two-step removal process should be in place under the direction of a qualified biologist. b. From October 16 - February 28 the two-step removal process should not occur so as to avoid the taking of overwintering bats. 8 August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact c. From April 15 - August 14, the two-step removal should not occur if a maternity colony is detected or suspected. At this time, nighttime emergence surveys can be conducted to determine if bats are using these trees or the outbuilding. i. If nighttime emergence surveys determine that the tree(s) or outbuilding do not support roosting bats, these can be removed within 2 days of the survey. ii. If on the other hand, nighttime emergence surveys determine that the tree(s) or outbuilding do support a maternity colony, then tree removal or demolition would have to wait until August 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined the maternity colony is no longer present. iii. If nighttime emergence surveys determine that the tree(s) or outbuilding does support roosting bats but does not support a maternity colony, a two- step removal process may commence under the direction of a qualified biologist. Impact 4.3-5: Project development could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, to California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs. Within the Project area, Ross Creek provides suitable non -breeding aquatic habitat for California red -legged frog and foothill yellow -legged frog. The associated riparian corridor and adjacent uplands provide suitable foraging, dispersal and refugia habitat. Direct and indirect impacts to California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs would be considered potentially significant under the significance thresholds set forth earlier in this chapter. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-5, Protection of California Red - legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow -legged Frogs, this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-5, Protection of California Red -legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow - legged Frogs: In order to avoid impacts to California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow - legged frogs during Project implementation, the following measures shall be implemented: a. Construction activities shall be timed to occur outside of the wet season (i.e., April 15- October 15) when California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs are less likely to venture into uplands; this is the optimal season for avoiding conflict with these species. b. No work shall occur during or within 24 hours following a rain event exceeding 0.2-inch as measured by the NOAA National Weather Service. c• Prior to the start of construction, wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed along Ross Creek and the associated riparian corridor (i.e., areas where California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs could enter the Project site). The location of the fencing shall August 2017 9 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR be determined by a qualified biologist prior to the start of staging or surface disturbing activities. The fencing specifications including installation and maintenance criteria shall be provided in the bid solicitation package special provisions. The fencing shall remain in place throughout the duration of the Project and shall be regularly inspected and fully maintained. Upon Project completion, the fencing shall be completely removed, the area cleaned of debris and trash, and returned to original condition or better. d. To prevent California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs from becoming entangled, trapped or injured, erosion control materials that use plastic or synthetic mono -filament netting, photodegradable or biodegradable synthetic netting (which can take several months to decompose) or small aperture matrix (i.e., less than 2 inches x 2 inches) shall not be used within the study area. e. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist immediately prior (i.e., on the same morning as work occurs) to the initiation of initial site clearing activities that may result in take of California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs. All upland habitat including refugia such as dense vegetation, small woody debris, refuse, burrows, etc., shall be thoroughly inspected. If a California red -legged frog is observed, the qualified biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine if capturing and relocating the individual(s) is necessary and authorized. If handling of California red -legged frogs is necessary, the qualified biologist shall be in possession of a 10(a)(1)(A) Recover Permit and valid Scientific Collecting Permit. The qualified biologist shall take precautions to prevent introduction of amphibian diseases in accordance with the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red -legged Frog (USFWS, 2005). f. A qualified biologist shall be on -site during all construction activities that may result in take of California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs, specifically, work in or adjacent to Ross Creek. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work to avoid take of either species. The qualified biologist shall conduct clearance surveys at the beginning of each day and regularly throughout the workday when construction activities are occurring that may result in take of California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow - legged frogs. g• A Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted for all construction crews and contractors. The education training shall be conducted prior to the commencement of ground -clearing or grading and upon the arrival of any new worker. The training shall include a brief review of locations of sensitive areas, avoidance measures, and corrective actions in the event sensitive species are encountered. The program shall cover the mitigation measures, environmental permits and regulatory compliance requirements. Additional training shall be conducted as needed, including morning "tailgate" sessions to update crews as they advance into sensitive areas for projects with multiple work areas. In addition, a record of all personnel trained during the Project shall be maintained for compliance verification. h. All slopes or unpaved areas affected by the proposed Project shall be re -seeded with native grasses and shrubs to stabilize the slopes and bare ground against erosion. Following 10 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact construction, native (and non-native if appropriate) plant species shall be installed at the disturbed area. Impact 4.3-7: Project development would adversely affect a surface tributary presumed to fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFG and/or RWQCB pursuant to federal and State law. Although the proposed grading and drainage improvements would not extend beyond the top of bank of Ross Creek, Project implementation would result in direct impacts on an ephemeral swale that drains into Ross Creek, a significant impact. Impacts to the ephemeral swale from the construction of Street A and B are considered a potentially significant impact to sensitive aquatic habitat. Impacts to this ephemeral swale, are assumed to be regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. It has been assumed that the RWQCB (under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the State Porter Cologne Act) and the CDFW (under Fish and Game Code Section 1602) may regulate impacts to this ephemeral swale. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a and 4.3.7b, and conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations and Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation, would ensure that Project -related impacts on surface waters would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.3-7a, Conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations: In order to conform to federal and State law and to offset significant adverse impacts on waters of the U.S. and waters of the State, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a. Prior to initiation of Project construction, the Project applicant shall secure a verified jurisdictional determination from the USACE. b. c. For impacts to federally regulated waters of the U.S. that cannot be avoided, the applicant shall apply for and receive authorization pursuant to CWA. The Project applicant shall comply with all permit conditions, as specified by the USACE. Mitigation ultimately required by the USACE could include on -site habitat creation, off -site habitat creation, purchase of credits from an approved habitat mitigation bank, and/or payment of in -lieu fees to an approved conservation organization for wetland habitat enhancement of preservation activities. For impacts to waters of the State or other State -regulated habitats that cannot be avoided, the applicant shall apply for and receive authorization pursuant to CFGC Section 1602 and Porter -Cologne, as applicable. Section 1602 applies to impacts to the ephemeral swale that drains into Ross Creek, while Porter -Cologne would apply to impacts to waters of the State that are not also waters of the US subject to regulation by USACE under the Clean Water Act. The Project applicant shall comply with all permit conditions (including monitoring of any restoration plantings for long- term survivorship), as specified by the CDFW and RWQCB. Mitigation ultimately required by the CDFW/RWQCB could include on -site habitat creation, off -site habitat creation, purchase of credits from an approved habitat mitigation bank, and/or payment of in -lieu fees to an approved conservation organization for wetland habitat enhancement of preservation activities. August 2017 11 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.7b, Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation: The Project applicant shall implement avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures to reduce impacts on jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats to less than significant. If avoidance of jurisdictional waters is not feasible, the Project applicant shall implement one or more of the following options to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the applicable the appropriate federal and State regulatory agencies. Option 1: Mitigation Banking Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a letter from a qualified mitigation bank showing that the appropriate mitigation credits for wetland habitat have been purchased at a replacement -to -loss ratio of 2:1. The mitigation bank must be a habitat mitigation bank approved by the appropriate federal and State regulatory agencies. Additionally, the habitat mitigation bank must be within the same watershed (or other hydrological connection, to the satisfaction of the resource agencies listed in Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a above) of which Ross Creek is located. Option 2: Wetland Creation Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a mitigation plan that results in the creation of new habitat as replacement for habitat lost or enhance the quality of existing habitat for native plants and wildlife. Mitigation measures shall include replacement of riparian and aquatic habitat at a replacement -to -loss ratio of up to 2:1 for permanent acreage impacts (up to two acres created for each acre permanently impacted) as well as reseeding or replanting of vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas according to a site -specific mitigation plan. At a minimum, this plan shall identify mitigation areas, a planting plan, site maintenance activities, success criteria, and remedial measures to compensate for lack of success. The mitigation goal shall be to create and enhance riparian or aquatic habitats with habitat functions and values greater than or equal to those existing in the impact zone. This could include enhancing the ephemeral drainages to increase their wetland and riparian value, which would benefit native wildlife in the region. A detailed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including specific success criteria, shall be developed and submitted to permitting agencies during the permit process. The mitigation area shall be monitored in accordance with the plan approved by the permitting agencies. The basic components of the monitoring plan consist of final success criteria, performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, as -built plans, monitoring schedule, contingency/remedial measures, and reporting requirements. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum: • Define the location of all restoration/creation activities; 12 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact • Provide evidence of suitable water availability (e.g., from precipitation and surface runoff) to support any created wetland and riparian habitats; • Identify the species, amount and location of plants to be installed; • Identify time of year for planting and method for supplemental watering during the establishment period; • Identify the monitoring period which should be not less than five years for wetland restoration and not less than five years for riparian restoration, defines success criteria that shall be required for the wetland restoration to be deemed a success; • Identify adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include (but not limited to) measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed wetland plants by native wildlife; etc.; • Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasive, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and, • Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created wetland and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity. Option 3: Wetland Restoration Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a wetland restoration plan that results in the daylighting of a portion of Ross Creek on the Project site. Currently a portion of Ross Creek is conveyed through an underground culvert on the Project site. The Project applicant, with the concurrence of the resource agencies (listed in Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a above) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District proposed, shall remove the culvert (daylight) from a portion of Ross Creek on the Project site. The restoration plan shall include replacement of riparian and aquatic habitat at a replacement -to -loss ratio of up to 2:1 for permanent acreage impacts. The wetland restoration plan shall include a hydrological report, prepared by a qualified civil engineer to demonstrate that the restored creek has been designed such that it is compatible with the upstream point of connection, the design is appropriate for the specific stretch of Ross Creek, and that it has been designed to accommodate the appropriate flood conditions. The restoration plan shall also include a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A detailed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including specific success criteria, shall be developed and submitted to permitting agencies during the permit process. The mitigation area shall be monitored in accordance with the plan approved by the permitting agencies. The basic components of the monitoring plan consist of final success criteria, performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, as -built plans, monitoring schedule, contingency/remedial measures, and reporting requirements. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum: August 2017 13 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR • Define the location of all restoration/creation activities; • Provide evidence of suitable water availability (e.g., from precipitation and surface runoff) to support any created wetland and riparian habitats; • Identify the species, amount and location of plants to be installed; • Identify time of year for planting and method for supplemental watering during the establishment period; • Identify the monitoring period which should be not less than five years for wetland restoration and not less than five years for riparian restoration, defines success criteria that shall be required for the wetland restoration to be deemed a success; • Identify adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include (but not limited to) measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed wetland plants by native wildlife; etc.; • Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasive, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and, • Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created wetland and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity. Impact 4.3-8: Project development would adversely affect the riparian habitat of Ross Creek and an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek located within the Project site. No Project grading is proposed within or below the top of bank of Ross Creek; however, grading would encroach upon riparian habitat adjacent to the creek. In addition, Project implementation would directly impact an ephemeral swale that traverses the site (unnamed tributary to Ross Creek) and its associated oak woodland habitat. Grading, filling or trenching within the drip line or tree protection zone of native riparian trees would be deemed a direct impact on trees within the riparian zone. Project implementation has the potential to adversely affect riparian habitat associated with Ross Creek as well as oak woodland adjacent to the ephemeral swale, and would result in the filling of the section of the ephemeral swale that traverses proposed Street A; these are significant impacts. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-8, Creek and Swale Protection, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.3-8, Creek and Swale Protection: Mitigation for the placement of fill into the ephemeral swale is outlined in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7, above. Construction in and adjacent to Ross Creek and the ephemeral swale requires conformance to the Town's adopted sections of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. In order to conform to these guidelines, the following measures shall be implemented: a. Protection of the riparian zone shall be assured by establishment of an appropriate riparian corridor buffer: • Based on site conditions, channel geomorphology, slope, size of watershed, and type of habitat, a minimum riparian setback of 25 feet from the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater, would provide for an appropriate protection of the habitat values and water quality associated with Ross Creek. 14 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact • Based on site conditions, channel geomorphology, slope, size of watershed, and type of habitat, a minimum riparian setback of 10 feet from the top of bank of the incised portion of the ephemeral swale and outer oak canopy edge would provide for an appropriate protection of the habitat values and water quality. It is recognized that the placement of fill into the ephemeral swale is necessary to construct Streets A and B. At these locations, there is no habitat meeting the definitions of "riparian vegetation" or "stream/channel/creek"1 as provided in the Guidelines. As such, this portion of the proposed Project is not in conflict with the Guidelines. Mitigation for these impacts is specified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7. b. Grading and culvert construction to accommodate the construction of Street B would result in impacts on the portions of the ephemeral swale that are incised and situated directly beneath the canopy of mature oak woodland. Such grading and construction at this location would not necessarily conflict with the Guidelines,2 but would be subject to review and permitting requirements by the regulatory agencies. Mitigation for these impacts is specified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7. c. A 10-foot wide protective easement shall be recorded over the length of the preserved swale across Lot 9. No grading, filling, or trenching shall be permitted within this easement. d. Orange construction fencing or a similar visual barrier shall be installed to prevent accidental grading or movement of equipment beyond what is specified on the grading plans and approved under the grading permit. e. Construction activities shall conform to the Town of Los Gatos' Tree Protection Ordinance, as required in Mitigation Measure 4.3-10, Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Impact 4.3-9: Project implementation would require an exception to the Guidelines by encroaching into the recommended riparian setback. Based on an evaluation of the proposed grading pads for home sites and road alignments, maintenance of the full 10-foot setback (see Mitigation Measure 4.3-8 above) would not be achievable. As proposed, Streets A and B would cross the riparian setback. These encroachments affect primarily non-native annual grassland (0.47 acres) and a small area of oak woodland (0.01 acre). Although such encroachments are not consistent with the Guidelines, the Town may make exceptions to the Guidelines, at its discretion. The Guidelines recommend minimum "slope stability protection areas", measured from top of bank, ranging from as wide as 25 feet for unarmored streams to as little as 10 feet for ephemeral streams. Encroachments may be considered justifiable in this case due to the very limited riparian function of the ephemeral swale in terms of wildlife and water quality. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-9, Riparian Encroachment Offsets, would reduce the potentially significant effects of these encroachments to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-9, Riparian Encroachment Offsets: In order to offset potentially significant effects of encroachments into the recommended 10-foot riparian setback, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1 See Section 2F, Subsection C (Topographic Position) of the Guidelines, p. 2.14 2 See Section 111.62, 63, and B4 of the Guidelines, p. 3.9 August 2017 15 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR a. The Town shall allow an exception to the Guidelines to permit construction of Streets A and B. b. The hydrologic connection between the ephemeral swale and upstream watershed and Ross Creek shall be maintained by the installation of appropriately sized culverts beneath Street A and Street B, and between Lots #3 and 4. c. Protective measures as recommended by the Town's arborist and required by Town Ordinance shall be implemented to preserve the health of oak trees located on Lot 9 and they include the following: "Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees During Construction a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: 1) Size and materials: A five (5) or 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 10-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 I: 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.3 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 be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-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 begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. 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 8.5 x 11-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". b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions: 1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, 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 or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the director. 3 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible, including as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then so be it. But the contractor must try to fence off as much area under the canopy as possible, do not be irresponsible about this. 16 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact 3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline 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. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the Project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved. 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." d. Native trees and shrubs shall be planted in existing non-native grassland on Lots 3 and 9 to enhance the vegetative cover within the 10-foot setback. Impact 4.3-10: Project implementation would remove about 70 protected trees and transplant approximately 30 protected trees on the Project site, which would directly or indirectly affect approximately 0.52 acres of mixed oak woodland. The Project would require the removal of about 40 protected non-native/non-indigenous and the transplantation of another 4 protected non-native, non -indigenous trees. Proposed removal of approximately 70 trees would require planting of approximately 178 24-inch box - size, 93 36-inch box -size, and 8 48-inch box -size trees (or equivalent; Ellis, 2014b). In addition, the Project applicant and future lot owners will be required to comply with the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance, including standard tree protection measures (see Mitigation Measure 4.3-9c). Compliance with this ordinance would reduce tree removal impacts to less than significant by ensuring that proposed tree removals would not conflict with the Tree Protection Ordinance. However, given the extent of tree removals and number of replacement tree lantings, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-10, Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, would ensure long-term survival of replacement tree plantings and long- term reduction of this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.3-10, Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: To compensate for the loss of protected trees, a Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, peer reviewed by an arborist selected by the Town, and implemented by the applicant. As noted above, mitigation will be based on the tree replacement ratios outlined in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance (see Table 4.3-3). The planting of approximately 178 24-inch box size, 93 36-inch box size, and 8 48-inch box size replacement trees (or equivalent as specified by the Town's arborist) would compensate for the loss of approximately 70 trees. The following minimum standards shall be incorporated in the Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: a. The primary replacement species to be planted is valley oak; blue oaks may also be planted among the existing blue oak stand at the southern boundary of Lot B. The planting stock August 2017 17 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR shall be from locally collected material, and planting shall be conducted from November to January. b. Minimum container size of the replacement trees shall be 24 inches. Trees shall be staked and provided with appropriate predator and weed control devices, such as anti -browse cages and weed mats. c. To ensure successful establishment of all container plantings, a temporary drip irrigation system shall be installed, utilizing emitters, as determined by Town staff. Overhead irrigation shall not be used, as it fosters dense growth of undesirable weed species, may lead to erosion, and is not an efficient use of water. Irrigation will be supplied for up to three years, with the possibility of extending irrigation for another two years or as deemed necessary by the consulting restoration ecologist approved by the Town. The objective, however, is to turn off irrigation at the end of the third growing season. d. Site maintenance shall be conducted regularly for the first three years after initial planting, including weed control, irrigation system maintenance, and foliage protector maintenance. e. Invasive exotic species that could threaten the successful establishment of the replacement plantings, as determined by the consulting restoration ecologist (approved by the Town), shall be removed at least once annually for a five-year period. f. The success of the Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be monitored by a qualified restoration ecologist (approved by the Town) for a period not less than five years after initial installation. Elements such as plant survival, percent cover, tree height and basal area, plant vigor / health, and natural recruitment / reproduction shall be evaluated during the annual monitoring of the replanted sites. The following criteria for monitoring the replanted trees shall be employed: i. Tree Survival. Replacement trees shall exhibit an 80% survival rate at the end of the five- year monitoring period, after two consecutive growing seasons without supplemental irrigation. Dead trees shall be replaced the following winter after each mortality is noted. If the survival drops below the 80% survival threshold, the monitoring period shall be extended another five years from the date of replanting. Survivorship following the two years without supplemental irrigation is intended to demonstrate a good indication as to whether plant roots are sufficiently developed to support the plants under natural conditions. ii. Vegetative Growth. The mean tree stem diameter, plant height and canopy spread shall show a consistent annual increase. By year five, the mean value for each of these parameters shall have increased by no less than 100%. iii. Plant Vigor / Health. The overall plant vigor and health of the installed trees shall be monitored. Taken into consideration in the qualitative observation of vigor and health would be the factors of plant color, bud development, new growth, herbivory, drought stress, fungal/insect infestation, and physical damage. If a plant's foliage is abnormally sparse, then the health/vigor rating shall be lowered accordingly, even if the foliage 18 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact present is healthy. Overall health and vigor shall be rated according to the following scale: Scale Rating Description 1 Excellent Healthy plant with vigorous growth, no necrotic or chlorotic leaves; no other signs of damage. 2 Good Plant appears healthy, but with limited signs of vigorous growth. 3 Adequate Plant healthy but with no signs of vigorous growth; some necrosis or damage may be present. 4 Poor Low vitality, but plant with at least some signs of life; plant severely damaged, weak or stressed, or main stem dead. 5 Dead No evidence of live tissue. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on biological resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-4, 4.3-5, 4.3-7a, 4.3-7b, 4.3-8, 4.3-9, and 4.3-10 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. B. Geology and Soils 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.4-3: The proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion, but could result in the loss of topsoil. The Project site is not currently developed and there is likely a topsoil horizon on the existing slopes. This topsoil could be excavated for construction of the new infrastructure and residences, and loss of this topsoil during construction would be a significant impact. However, this impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, Top Soil Salvage, requiring that the Project applicant and developers of individual lots identify and preserve topsoil for reuse on graded slopes. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, Topsoil Salvage: The Town shall require the Project applicant and August 2017 19 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR future lot owners to ensure that topsoil, if present, is salvaged during grading. The topsoil shall be stockpiled separately from subsoils, and the stockpiles shall be protected from erosion (e.g., by covering or watering). Once construction is completed, the stockpiled topsoil shall be reused for site restoration in open or garden areas. Excess soil may be used in approved open space or landscape areas, if approved by the landscape architect. Impact 4.4-4: The proposed Project could cause a geologic unit to become unstable as a result of Project construction. The head of the drainage swale, located off -site to the southeast of the Project site in more steeply inclined terrain, could be the source of shallow soil slips and could potentially produce debris flow landslides. Although the potential for this has not been fully defined, impacts related to construction near the head of the drainage swale are considered potentially significant because debris flows from the head of the swale could extend onto the Project site, potentially causing property damage on Lots 8 and 9. This impact would be reduced to less than significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a, requiring implementation of the geotechnical report recommendations such as construction of a catchment basin across the swale or provision of deflection berms or walls to protect residences. Site slopes could become unstable if proposed grading and construction activities result in inadequate drainage. Without proper shoring, excavations could become unstable. Placement of fill in the drainage swale to accommodate proposed Street B, in other areas to accommodate other road and drainage improvements as well as at future residences (including patios, driveways, and landscaping) could affect slope stability. These fills could become unstable if improperly placed, compacted, or drained. Without adequate foundations, new residences could be adversely affected by slope creep. In addition, changes in surface water runoff could cause settlement of new buildings, or saturated materials that could become unstable. Without conformance to appropriate procedures, such activities could result in unstable slopes, a potentially significant impact. However, this impact would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b, Geotechnical Report Recommendations, which requires the Project applicant and future lot owners to implement geotechnical report recommendations related to site preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining walls, and drainage improvements to reduce the potential for unstable conditions. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a, Debris Flow Protection: The Project applicant shall require construction of improvements to protect Lots 8 and 9 from damage due to a debris flow from the head of the drainage swale located to the southeast portion of the Project site in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and any associated updates or revisions. Such improvements may include a catchment basin constructed across the swale or construction of deflection walls or berms to protect Lots 8 and 9 from debris flows. When Lots 8 and 9 are proposed for development, the geotechnical engineer shall review future home designs on these lots to select the appropriate method of protection. 20 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b, Geotechnical Report Recommendations: The Project applicant and future lot owners shall implement all of the recommendations of the Project geotechnical report, and any associated updates or revisions, related to site preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining walls, and drainage improvements. To ensure correct implementation, the geotechnical engineer shall review Project plans and observe geotechnically relevant aspects of proposed initial construction of roads and infrastructure. When future homes are proposed on Project lots, a site -specific geotechnical investigation shall be conducted if deemed necessary by the Town Engineer and Project geotechnical engineer and the recommendations of that report shall be implemented. Impact 4.4-5: The proposed residences and utilities could be affected by expansive soils. Expansive soils can damage buried utilities and building foundations and increase maintenance requirements. Because the geotechnical investigation determined that the soils at the Project site have a low to moderate potential for expansion, impacts related to expansive soil are considered significant. However, this impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b (above), which requires the Project applicant to implement the recommendations of the site geotechnical report related to foundation design and drainage improvements. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.5-5, Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-b, Geotechnical Report Recommendations. Findin All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on geology and soils will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 4.4-3, 4.4-4a, 4.4-4b, and 4.4-5 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. C. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.5-1: The proposed Project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. August 2017 21 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR While Project implementation could significantly degrade water quality, the Town would require compliance with all of the proposed measures for compliance with the C.3 requirements. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which outlines measures for C.3 compliance, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise result in water quality degradation during operation of future residences because stormwater runoff from the Project site would be managed consistently with the provisions of the MRP as described above. Consequently, the Project's operational impact on water quality would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a, Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-7, Conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations, and 4.3-8, Creek and Swale Protection. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b, C.3 Compliance: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure compliance with the C.3 requirements and reduce Project -related water quality impacts to less than significant: a. The Project applicant shall obtain coverage under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No, R2-2009- 0074. As part of the grading and improvement application for the Project, the Project applicant shall submit the following documents to the Engineering Division of the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department: i. A site plan showing the locations of stormwater treatment and flow control measures. All stormwater treatment and flow control measures shall be designed to allow appropriate equipment access for maintenance. ii. A detailed maintenance plan for stormwater treatment and flow -control measures, including inspection checklists as appropriate. iii. An Operations and Maintenance report form shall be attached to maintenance agreements that are transferred to future owners or operators of the Project site or portions thereof. The Project applicant shall also provide a signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance of stormwater control facilities until this responsibility is legally transferred. This statement shall also ensure site access by Town of Los Gatos, Water Quality Control Board, West Valley Clean Water Program for inspection purposes. b. Proper operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association (HOA) in perpetuity. The applicant shall prepare and submit, for the Town's review, an acceptable Stormwater Control Operations and Maintenance Plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits and shall execute a Stormwater Management Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the Town before sale, transfer, or permanent occupancy of the site. The applicant shall accept the responsibility for maintenance of stormwater management facilities until such responsibility is transferred to another entity. The Stormwater Management Operations and Maintenance Plan shall include treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). 22 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact Impact 4.5-3: Project implementation could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area by altering the course of a stream or incrementally increasing surface runoff from impervious surfaces in such a manner that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off -site. Construction of proposed Streets A and B would include excavation activities and filling within the on -site swale, which could affect drainage patterns at the site. Construction on proposed Lots 3 and 9 could also encroach on the drainage swale. The proposed Project includes construction of a culvert beneath Street B. No culvert is planned beneath Street A or either of the lots. Potential changes in drainage patterns would be a significant impact. However, this impact would be reduced to less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-7, Conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations, 4.3-8, Creek and Swale Protection, and 4.3-9, Riparian Encroachment Offsets, in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which require: (1) determination of federal and state jurisdiction and agency requirements to protect the waters of the U.S. and State; (2) protection of the riparian zone by maintaining a 25-foot riparian setback and 10-foot setback from the top of bank; and (3) maintenance of the hydrologic connection between the swale and upstream watershed and Ross Creek with the installation of appropriately sized culverts beneath Street A and Street B as well as Lot 3. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-7: Conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations, 4.3-8, Creek and Swale Protection, and 4.3-9, Riparian Encroachment Offsets. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on hydrology and water quality materials will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 4.5-1a, 4.5-1b, and 4.5-3 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. D. Noise 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.7-1: Project construction could cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels August 2017 23 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR existing without the Project due to operation of heavy equipment during construction. In general, during times when heavy construction equipment operates closer than 100 feet from the closest residential receptors, equipment noise would have the potential to occasionally exceed the 85-dBA ordinance limit and 60-dBA interior threshold. These exceedances would be sporadic (not continuous) in nature, limited in duration, and would occur primarily when certain types of heavy equipment are near a given receptor (i.e., drainage improvements along the northwestern site boundary, road construction near the northern Project boundary). Despite the limited duration of such construction operations and associated noise exceedances at any given receptor, adjacent residents could be subject to occasional noise disturbances over the four to six-month construction period and subsequent construction of individual homes (depending on proximity of the home to adjacent receptors), a significant impact. However, compliance with ordinance time limits and the 85-dBA noise limit at 25 feet or at the property boundary, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, which requires implementation of administrative and source controls (i.e., using properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state -required noise attenuation devices) and designation of a Noise Disturbance Coordinator, the effects of short-term noise increases associated with Project demolition/construction activities would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, Administrative and Source Controls: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department that the Project complies with the following: a• Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction activities (including operation of haul and delivery trucks) shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.20.035(2) the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department, that construction noise shall not exceed 85 dBA outside of the property line. This shall be accomplished by using the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment (including mufflers) should be in good mechanical condition and properly maintained so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive -train, and other components. If necessary to achieve compliance with the Town's Noise Ordinance, one or more of the additional noise control measures below shall also be used: • Temporary berms or noise barriers, such as lumber or other material stockpiles and construction trailers, shall be utilized where necessary to meet the Ordinance noise limit. • Stationary equipment, such as compressor and generators shall be housed in acoustical enclosures and placed as far from sensitive receptors as feasible. "Quiet" or "sound suppressed" equipment shall be utilized where the technology exists. • Use wheeled earth moving equipment rather than track equipment. • Provide a "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" with a phone number and email address so that the nearby residents have a contact person is case of a noise problem. 24 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact • Keep vehicles routes clean and smooth both on -site and off -site to minimize noise and vibration from vehicles rolling over rough surfaces • Nail guns should be used where possible as they are less noisy than manual hammering. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on noise will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 4.7-1 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. E. Air Quality 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.8-2: Project construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction of roads and infrastructure is proposed to occur in one phase over a period of four to six months. In addition, during the grading phase, approximately 3,950 cubic yards of soil would be hauled off -site in 247 truckloads (494 one-way trips) using 16 cubic yard trucks over about 15 work days (assuming three trucks would be filled per hour and haul trucks would operate only six hours per day to avoid peak periods). Maximum truck haul distance was estimated to be 20 miles each way, or 40 miles round trip. Estimated annual and average daily emissions generated by construction equipment and haul trucks are presented in Table 4.8-3. Table 4.8-3 Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM2.5 Project Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 (Total) (Total) Project Construction° — 2015 Off -Road Equipment Emissions — Unmitigated 12.6 43.2 29.0 0.0 8.9 5.3 — 2015 Off -Road Equipment Emissions — Mitigated 12.6 43.2 29.0 0.0 5.5 3.5 Significance Thresholds 54 54 - 82 54 Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No - - No No NOTES: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; exhaust PMio = particulate matter less than 10 microns; exhaust PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. 'Construction assumptions: grading over 15 days using 1 dozer, 1 grader, 2 backhoes; construction over 220 days using 1 crane, 2 forklifts, 1 generator set, 1 loader/backhoe/tractor, and 3 welders; and paving over 10 days: 1 cement mixer, 1 paver, 1 paving equipment, 2 rollers, and 1 loader/backhoe/tractor. The above estimates are conservatively high because they assume approximately 7.5% more off -haul (4,250 cubic yards) than is currently proposed. SOURCE: CaIEEMod Output (see Appendix H) August 2017 25 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider fugitive dust and exhaust emissions to be less than significant if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are employed to reduce these emissions. Therefore, even though the Project's construction -related daily criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed specified BAAQMD significance thresholds set forth above, this impact is conservatively considered to be temporary significant impact in the absence of mitigation, based on BAAQMD direction. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, would reduce this temporary impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Demolition Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction measures be implemented as specified in the BAAQMD Guidelines during all Project construction (including individual lot development): 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 two minutes. 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. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Finding The proposed Project's environmental impacts on air quality will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure: 4.8-2 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. 26 August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels 4.10-1: The proposed Project could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine use and disposal of household hazardous wastes. Although Los Gatos residents can legally dispose of household hazardous wastes under the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, the Project's impacts related to the generation and disposal of hazardous waste would be potentially significant because not all residents are knowledgeable in the identification of hazardous wastes and appropriate disposal requirements. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, Implement Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste, which requires implementation of a buyer education program to educate residents about the identification of household hazardous wastes, environmental hazards associated with mishandling of the wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. Impacts related to the routine transport of household hazardous materials would be less than significant because the materials are commercially packaged for retail sale, and transport of these materials is well regulated by state and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, Implement Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste: The Project applicant, working with the Town of Los Gatos and County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, shall implement a Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste, developing materials to educate buyers about the identification of household hazardous wastes, environmental hazards associated with mishandling of the wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. Such materials shall explain that improper disposal of such materials is against the law. At a minimum, the materials shall provide a list of example household hazardous wastes, discuss the environmental impacts of improper disposal, explain how to make an appointment for disposal, and list safer and less toxic alternatives to hazardous products commonly used. The educational materials shall be provided to the buyer at the time of purchase. August 2017 27 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure: 4.10-1 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. G. Cultural Resources 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.11-1: Construction activities on the Project site could adversely affect unknown subsurface archaeological resources, if encountered, including the disturbance of human remains. No evidence of significant historical archaeological materials, prehistoric use, and/or prehistoric habitation of the area was found on the Project site, either during the archival research or the field inspection. However, there remains a small possibility that buried prehistoric resources could be found along the western edge of the property or along the proposed roadways, a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-2, Observation by Construction Personnel, would reduce potential impacts on any uncovered resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.11-1, Observation by Construction Personnel: The Project shall include the following conditions: a. Construction personnel involved with earthmoving shall be alerted to the potential for the discovery of prehistoric materials. Prehistoric archaeological resources could include but not be limited to the following: darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature, concentrations of rock, bone or fresh water shellfish, artifacts of these materials, and evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered earth or rock) and burials, both human and animal. b. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 30-foot radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and determine whether the archaeological traces qualify as either "historical resources" or "unique archaeological resources." 28 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact c. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological find is neither an historical resource nor a unique archaeological resource, work may resume unless the find consists of human remains, in which case the requirements of subdivision (e) below shall be triggered. d. If the archaeologist determines, and the Community Development Director agrees, that the find is either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall prepare a proposed mitigation program that he or she believes could be feasible and appropriate under the circumstances, and shall submit it to the Community Development Director for his or her consideration and approval. Where the find qualifies as a unique archaeological resource but not an historical resource, the mitigation shall be in conformance with the protocol and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Where the find qualifies as an historical resource, such limitations shall not apply. To the extent feasible in light of project design, logistics, and costs, proposed mitigation for either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource shall reflect the policy preference for preserving the resources in place. Data recovery may be acceptable, however, where such preservation in place is not feasible under the circumstances and where the data to be recovered would be scientifically consequential. Mitigation may also take the form of additional hand excavation to retrieve and analyze significant archaeological materials, coupled with additional monitoring of earthmoving inside the zone of archaeological sensitivity. After the mitigation approved by the Community Development Director has been completed, the Project archaeologist shall prepare a final report that includes 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. e. 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 or her authority, he or she will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Impact 4.11-2: Construction activities on the Project site could adversely affect unknown subsurface paleontological resources, but would not affect any unique geological features. The Miocene Monterey Shale and Miocene -Oligocene Temblor Sandstone geological formations within the Project area are of similar age to those containing the recorded paleontological resources. Consequently, the potential for encountering paleontological resources cannot be completely eliminated. Since there remains the potential for impacts on any undiscovered resources to occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 would be required to reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.11-2, Halt Construction and Evaluate Resource: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the Project applicant or its successor(s) in interest shall provide for a qualified paleontologist to provide construction personnel with training on August 2017 29 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR procedures to be followed in the event that a fossil site or fossil occurrence is encountered during construction. The training shall include instructions on identification techniques and how to further avoid disturbing the fossils until a paleontological specialist can assess the site. An informational package shall be provided for construction personnel not present at the meeting. In the event that a paleontological resource (fossilized invertebrate, vertebrate, plant or micro -fossil) is found during construction, excavation within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is evaluated. Upon discovery, the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to document and assess the discovery in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, and recommend procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Community Development Director determines that avoidance is not feasible in light of Project design, logistics, and costs, the paleontologist will prepare a recommended excavation plan, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, for mitigating the Project's impact on this resource, including preparation, identification, cataloging, and curation of any salvaged specimens. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. H. Energy Conservation 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 4.14-1: Construction of proposed roads, infrastructure, and future residences could encourage activities that use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Construction of roads and infrastructure and construction of future residences on the Project site would require the use of fuels (primarily gas, diesel, and motor oil) for a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, construction, and vehicle travel. During these activities, fuel use for construction worker commute trips would be minor compared to the fuel use by construction equipment. Although the fuels would only be used during construction of Project facilities, excessive idling and other inefficient site operations could result in the wasteful use of fuels. Therefore, impacts related to the wasteful use of fuels 30 August 2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact during construction would be potentially significant for the proposed development of the Project site. However, required implementation of certain exhaust control measures, such as limiting idling time and performing low -emissions tune-ups (see Section 4.8, Air Quality, Mitigation Measure 4.8-2), would ensure that fuels are not used in a wasteful manner and would therefore reduce this impact to less than significant. In addition, the Town Building Code will require the Project applicant to divert 50 percent of construction waste for reuse or recycling. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.14-1: Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to energy conservation will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure. Mitigation Measures: 4.14-1 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Final EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed Project. These were evaluated based on their ability to (1) reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Project, and (2) attain proposed Project objectives. As described earlier in this findings document, the Project applicant's objectives are to create 10 single family residential lots, designate the remaining portions of the site as open space/common area on two common lots, and to provide secondary emergency access connections to adjacent roadways. The alternatives evaluated were: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2: Two Access Alternative • Two Access +Two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) Alternative Based on a comparison of the impacts of each alternative, Alternative 2, Two Access Alternative, was identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative. The Two Access Alternative would result in fewer impacts overall than the proposed Project, and impact August 2017 31 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR reductions are greater under this alternative than under the Two Access + Two EVA Alternative (noted in Table 5-3). The Two Access Alternative also would be more consistent with Town policies than the proposed Project due to the shorter response time to the upper lots by the fire department and shorter length of Street B. The Two Access + Two EVA Alternative, while providing an additional secondary emergency access, would result in the same impacts as the proposed Project (although slightly less because of the narrower EVA section of Street B and possible use of compacted base rock instead of asphalt along the EVA section) and would also result in similarly noticeable (but less than significant) traffic and associated noise increases on Cerro Vista Court as the Two Access Alternative (with corresponding decreases on Twin Oaks Drive). A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project would not be developed and the significant environmental impacts identified in this report (summarized above) as well as the less than significant impacts identified in Chapter 4 (including visual impacts) would be avoided. It should also be noted that the Hillside Specific Plan (HSP) seeks provision of secondary access for all existing dead end streets. The HSP also discourages non-residents to use these secondary accesses by allowing such accesses to be restricted to emergency access only. Twin Oaks Drive and Brooke Acres Drive are currently dead-end streets, and would continue to be so under this alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the property's existing Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract would remain in effect. However, agricultural use of the site would not meet the applicant's above -listed Project objectives. If the property were to be developed with orchards or vineyards, for example, agricultural viability would be unlikely due to the small size of site, access limitations, and land use conflicts with adjacent residential uses. However, if the site were to be cultivated as such, operation of farm equipment and possible application of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, etc.) could result in dust, noise, and public health impacts on adjacent residents. With all properties adjacent to this Project site already developed with residential uses and continued pressure for more housing in the region, and with agricultural operations likely to be marginally viable at best, it is likely that there will be future proposals involving residential development of this property. B. Alternative 2: Two Access Alternative The Two Access Alternative would modify the Project's circulation design so that access to six of the Project lots would be from Twin Oaks Drive, while Cerro Vista Court would provide access to four lots. This alternative would eliminate the section of Street B that crosses the drainage (ephemeral) swale, which is an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek. Under this alternative, the Project proposal (General Plan amendment, rezoning, Tentative Tract Map, and cancellation of the Williamson Act contract) would remain the same. The proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) between Street A and Brooke Acres Drive would remain the same as for the proposed Project. In addition, the number and configuration of lots would be essentially the same as for the proposed Project (i.e., all lots would be one acre or larger), although elimination of a section of Street B would result in Lot A (comprised of Streets A and B) becoming slightly smaller and contiguous Lots 8, 9, 10, and B becoming slightly larger. Street A would be angled on Lots 3 and 4 to avoid impacting the ephemeral swale. The 32 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact potential building envelopes under this alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project. The proposed road widths, lengths, and grades under this alternative would be the same as the streets proposed as part of the proposed Project, except that Street B would be shorter (350 feet long instead of 800 feet). Under this alternative, the trail location and design would also remain the same as for the proposed Project. This alternative would meet key Project objectives of creating 10 single family residential lots, designating the remaining portions of the site as open space/common area on two common lots, and to provide secondary emergency access connections to adjacent roadways. While the proposed Project's environmental impacts identified in Chapter 4 would be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of specified mitigation measures, this alternative would reduce the Project's biological and water quality impacts by avoiding the impacts associated with constructing proposed Street B across the drainage swale, which is an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek. Similar mitigation measures for Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Cultural Resources, and Energy Consumption would remain. C. Alternative 3: Two Access + Two EVA Alternative The Two Access + Two EVA Alternative would have the same road alignments as the proposed Project, but the north end of Street B would have the same alignment as the Two Access Alternative where it connects with Cerro Vista Court. Street B would be gated between Street A and Lot 10, however, in order to restrict access to emergency vehicles only. Since this gated section of Street B would be an EVA, it is possible that this street section could be narrowed from 22 feet (the width under the proposed Project) to 15 feet (per the fire department standards) and surfaced with compacted base rock only instead of asphalt (subject to approval of the Fire Department). With this design, access to project lots would be the same as with the Two Access Alternative, with six Project lots accessing from Twin Oaks Drive and four lots accessing from Cerro Vista Court. Although this alternative would not reduce Project impacts as much as the Two Access Alternative (because that alternative avoids road construction across the ephemeral swale altogether), it would provide greater public safety benefits by providing more secondary emergency access options to the neighborhood while also reducing the amount of grading required and impacts on the ephemeral swale as compared to the proposed Project. Under this alternative, the entitlements needed for the Project proposal (General Plan amendment, rezoning, Tentative Tract Map, and cancellation of the Williamson Act contract) would remain the same. The proposed EVA between Street A and Brooke Acres Drive would remain the same. In addition, the number and configuration of lots would be the same as those of the proposed Project (i.e., all lots would be one acre or larger, as listed in Table 3-1). The potential building envelopes under this alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project. Since the lot layout and road alignments would be the same, it is anticipated that the road widths, lengths, and grades would be the same as for the proposed Project with one exception. Under this alternative, the EVA section of Street B would be narrowed to 15 feet and possibly surfaced with compacted base rock instead of asphalt since access would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Under this alternative, the trail location and design August 2017 33 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR would remain the same as the proposed Project. Utility connections and alignments under this alternative would be the same as the proposed Project. Proposed grading under this alternative could be less than for the proposed Project with the EVA section of Street B is narrowed to 15 feet. A narrower width and possible pervious surfacing with compacted rock for the section of Street B that crosses the ephemeral swale could also reduce impacts on trees that are currently identified as being severely impacted by the proposed Project or that would have to be removed to accommodate Project development. However, since the excavated material would be used as fill in the swale vicinity (like the proposed Project), there would be less fill needed for the narrower road. Thus, this alternative could require slightly more off -haul than the Two Access Alternative, but less than the Proposed Project. This alternative would meet key Project objectives of creating 10 single family residential lots, designating the remaining portions of the site as open space/common area on two common lots, and to provide secondary emergency access connections to adjacent roadways. While the proposed Project's environmental impacts identified in Chapter 4 would be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of specified mitigation measures, this alternative would have similar biological and water quality impacts associated with the construction of the emergency access road across the drainage swale, which is an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek. Similar mitigation measures for biological resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Cultural Resources, and Energy Consumption would remain. D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Requirements under CEQA state that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, CEQA requires that another alternative be chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative 2, the Two Access Alternative, would provide the greatest reduction in potentially significant environmental effects when compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would result in reduced impacts on biological resources and hydrology and water quality and would be the environmentally superior alternative when overall environmental impacts of each alternative are taken into consideration. VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Town Council recognizes that any approval of the proposed Project would require concurrent approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which ensures performance of identified mitigation measures. Such an MMRP would need to identify the entity responsible for monitoring and implementation, and the timing of such activities. The Town will use the MMRP to track compliance with proposed Project mitigation 34 August2017 Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is included as part of the Final EIR, and is hereby incorporated by reference. VII. RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the Council bases the Findings are located at the Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California 95030. The custodian for these documents and materials that constitute the record is the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15091(e). The environmental analysis provided in the EIR and these findings are based on and are supported by the following documents, materials and other evidence, which constitute the administrative record for the approval of the Project: A. All application materials for the Project and supporting documents submitted by the applicant, including but not limited to those materials constituting the Project and listed in Section III of these findings. B. The NOP, comments received on the NOP and all other public notices issued by the Town in relation to the EIR (e.g., Notice of Availability). C. The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, all appendices to any part of the EIR, all technical materials cited in any part of the EIR, comment letters, oral testimony, responses to comments, as well as all of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing between August 26, 2015 and September 9, 2015. D. All non -draft and/or non -confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the Town and consultants related to the EIR, its analysis and findings. E. G. Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings or scoping meetings held by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and Council Meetings on the Project and supporting technical memoranda and any letters or other material submitted into the record by any party. H. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and Town Council which they consider, such as the Los Gatos General Plan, any other applicable specific plans or other similar plans, and the Los Gatos Municipal Code. August 2017 35 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR VII. SUMMARY A. Based on substantial evidence in the foregoing Findings and in the information contained in the record, the Town Council has made the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the proposed Project identified in the Final EIR: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment. 2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that: All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the proposed Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. 36 August2017 TOWN OF IIOS C ATOS 110 East Maki Sired, Dos' Gatos, CA 95032 1I408) 354-6874 SUN MARY CIF DISCIUSSICIN 011 A RE CIULAR MHEIINCI OA 11HE CONCIDPIUTAIL DI+IVELOHM ENT ADVISORY CIOM11N HIRE OF SHE 7CIWNI CIF LCIS GATOS ACIR WEDN1= SDAY, SHATIIMBIIR 8, 2010, HFIIID IN THFI LIOS WflIOS ADUIIT RE CREATION CIEN➢ER, RCICIN 208, I08 El. MAIN! iI]IR1IFI1, IJOS CIATOS, CAIIIFORNIAI. The n eeling was called to ocular at 4:30 ATTENDANCI I Memibeaisi >1 resienl : Diana N cNut , Sieve Riaa, Clharla s Hneksa n, N erica Sayoc, Joanna Talesfone Absences: Nc ne Silaiif Flnes'nt: 9luzanna Davis, Sonia r Mannar I]1EN l : Twin Oaks I]rive Conceptual Developrnenl Review CD-1 0-004 Requesting pnelinnina ryl review a fa plan 1 o rezone a pa party ions d RCI'I o HR:1:11D, with a General Alan ainiendmenl fk m Aglicultune io Hillside Residential and subdivide info l 0 minimum 0,000 square foot lots. AFN: 532-'I 6-001 AROIIF R ➢Y CIWNER/ AF AI1ICAN7: ➢onn L a dge IIROJACIT FILAINNFR: Marni Mosialay Tonic, Larrj, Jefll& hinds I11c dge and Fla cigar Griffin were preseni fon ihls itain Zbin Doc€le aornmenied Ilia I the pnaparty is zoned RC due to llie Williamson Act conlraut. 7ha ID( dge family purchased the prc party in I1Ia 1950s. When Brooke Acres went in, the rc ad was aonslruatacl up to Iha auudFenn pralarty line. 9Ievaar is already installed. lllnoposing a l0-lot subdivisic n. Tien are soniie native blank c al s on tlla side. Ro4mer Giffin corium an Iad that a trail extension is proposed from Twin Oaks and dial only lot 7 ear be seen Born oilf the site. Lois on the sleeper hillside me larger. CIa morr ien is : • Concerned about the removal of large c ak and Einglisli Walnut and pnefen a plan Thal would riic t nequira these trees to be Taken outl. • Chastening development at the bol.lom of hill is' desiral le • Off site HIV_ ll unit is acacptabla • Aichil cIureofnewhomiaswillba imporant • Rwial character should ba retained EXHIBIT 7 CIDACI Agenda Sepiernibe]I 8,10: 0 Pad le 2 • Not all a11i11enew Ilona s s ha uld be two -stories • Neighborhood no eel ings eanlA in the proces s It] on ra a ommended • Conceptu allA an infill deuelopmant iambi 9 sense • HR-1 zoning prlovicles an apprlopriaie buflar between 11-1: I 0 and lar8 ar hillside lots • Actual number of late will be delerrninad by the ggading volumes • Access points to Twin Oaks and Brook Acne' appropriate • Opportunity is davalap 11ie pnoparty in a way that will flow with the surrounding nieighbarhoods • Be aware oiexisiing arahitaature and how the new developmlenl will fit ini will) it (jmlass and scale moue imlpartani ti ai the 9pecifia aralliteatuiial style; • Design of rile w home 9 should be sympathetic 10 the situ and alma • flats fI and 1 pnesant the biggest ahallenga (Is lope, geateahHiaal, viiibilit3l • Developmlanl aoi ld be aluilaracl an set on lager parcels • Brojecl has the potential to fit ini and be in harmonl with the surrounding area • Concerned about visibility of ha me site an lot 7 • Twa assess paints desirable iprl emlarganal purposes • Iilreserva the axis ling hi Carle wall ALI]OURNMIINT Mae ting adjourned al 9::I 0 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Conceptual DeMelopmieni Advisory Clan niliue is Wednesday, October i11, 2010. Priaparad by: 'fie J' Suzanne Davial, ii11CP Senior Pham ell ea: Planning Clominirion CI11air N:\DEVVIDACIN INUT1912114 11-1I-1(Icdrim in. dca TOWl1I CIF I CI9 GA]IOS 1:10 Hasi Main SlreaI, Los Galas, CA 95030 (1408) 3V-6872 SUMN PIPY Iv 1NU`➢ES CIA PI RHGULAII MBE`➢INICI OH `➢HE GENERA L 11I PIN CICIIv MIT71EH CIF IIHE ICIWN OF I OS CIPITOS ON SEIPTIIMBER 12, 2012, HELD A` 1 THII I OS GATOS ADULT RECIREAIICIN CENTER, 208 H. N. PIIN S`➢RI El, ROOM 208, I OS GA` ICISI, CIPIL: FCIRNIA. I he nie sling was called 10 orders al 5:3 3 g.mi. by John Ile ungeois. All IENDANCE: Members pne9ant: Barbara Spector, Jlaa flinzynsldi, John Bourg dais, Manic() Slayoc, Marcia la nsen, la dd ;la ivis Members a bsenl: Matti ew Hudes, Barbara Clardillo S1afi1 present: Sandy Baily, Ac ling Assisi an I tlomimnanity Developmienl Director; Joel flaulson, Acting Hnincipal Manner; Marni Mosela% Assoc iale Planners; Judith IUiopp, Town A ttorniay II EM 1 'MIN OAKS DRIVE n rsesponse to Cla mmitl ee quasi is ns, Town Ali la r ney Judith Paiajlil sumni ariaed 11ie not Hid a tion pre aass ar d provided an ovew oil lha Williamia n plat and the aancellatia n process. Staff briefly discussed the environmental review process in conjunclian with the Genenal I11an Comrr iitl ea's re a ommiendal ion. Tha Cla mmitl a e nuenubers clis cusMa d the possibility of a a ntinuing the item and decided to pm( eed with accepting pul lic and a a minim a input. Manic o commented Thal site would like 10 see the required findings fon lha Planning Commission 1PICI`, and the lawn Cloancil ITC; fan the subject application. Jill Fa iic} ci corn men l a d that she i c one erne d that the papa sed project would altars I ha na ig hl a nhood, and I hat the Genenal Hla n (la signal is n Mould remain. Also commented her unclarslanding is 1hal the VLllilliarruson Act aantnacl cancellation can only occur in an extreme c Inc rga na y. Maack ifkineai +Jail dented that the project does not comply with the intent of the Ilillsida par is n a it 11i e Genenal Alan . Sloan Faiaiier commented that 111a neighborhood eansis-Is al aul-de-sacs and that whin people 1 aught into the na ig hbonhood the "fingers" of 1 he sub j ea t site was not appara nt. EXHIBIT 8 General Plan Comrr idea N. inut( ] September 12, 26 :12 Aar la 2 of .I Thal �lihi� aammenled 11ia1 multiple aace]s point] to 1he property are a n a; or ob'eclian as wd 11 as the incnea]e in truffle and loss of open space. ]lol aril �Ileinbaak commented 1ha1 thane ivai nuier an inieni ]br anathan road to go thalough there and 1ha1 There are inilbiasta uc-Mra issues, and wildliff, and areal' impact]. Tom Doc. je (Applicant; noted 1ha1 Iha story poles wf re installed early in the process to assist lha envinonniantal a a nsultar t regarding visual an a lysis of 1 ha DEIR, and 111e site was graded in 1999. Corr millte f Comamients /Disicumion: Marico Sa}oc aaturret-tied that the Bnvironrr.erial Impact faeport .IHR. is iha vehicle for these Types of aon manta and 1hal it would bf halpjlul to share his inforn aiian with the neighborhood during th ( process, and encoura gad tl a ma ml ens aide pnblia to gat on the e not ifia at ion Marcia Jensen ma vad io con1inua 1he item to a dale uncer ain witl the negnest to review iha Draft HIR. 1Innbara Skicitali raqua sled infarrr.ation regarding the criteria for llle cancellation of a Williamson Ac1 a ontraa t, General lilan Amer dui en I and 21one Change, and ti a require cl findings for the proposed pro,.aai. Todd Jaaiuis nequestacl infonma lion regarding the background an tle last tvslo Hill]ide Planned Development 1ha1 were appna5iacl, as well as 1he background on the Iasi lima the ]Town aaisellsd a Williamson Ac1 coninael. Abu iski noted that due To the aamplexily all the appliaalian, the diraalian of the GAC is not the normal pia aass and seaandacl 1he miation with 1Ee vaguest that the next mac ling be hold in a larg fl r noon] it a nder i a batten ace a mimiodal e the neighbors. Mo1ion passed 6-d . I7DM 2 AC N]ING (IC DF AI ENDMENII Maniao kclay oc and Aarbara 5lpecdon moused l h emise Ives from the i l eni and left the meeting because They live within 500 feel 'Mille applicant'] site. Manni Mo.sala) sum miariaad iha pnoposed amandmen1 and ba iafly discussed 1he properties. Tha applicant's representative presented 1he negiresl. Marcia Jansen moved io recomimiarcl approval of the amendment 10 allow aiIiaa and personal service uses in The rear two suites 01 1121 lIa;laa Street 10 the Town Claunail. II HV1G1C11a12minubi T; General Alan Clommitlee Minutes Sepler]ber 12, 2012 Aaga 3 of 3 Jha PiraAnski aammlenied that the site is veny aonsltnained and the way tle north side of the building abu Is the parking 1o1 a anima t be fixed 1 o make it mane a time tive Ion a retail usia . HIe would be inclined 10 auppor the mioiion in lhal 1hi5I does not impact the inlenl of the negula lion]. Marcia Jenian requested that staff gel in 1ouc11 witl the property owners of 1i1 (I fie yea Since and 301 University Avenue 11ty l o Alen sited siu ggesl ed by slag) lo sea ill information could be provided to nuppor inaluaioni of tl a pnoper ies in the application. 2lodd Jarvis seconded Iha motion. 7lha motion passed 4-0. ITEM 3 AY PROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGU6PD 8,10:12 Marcia Jansen made a molion lo approve the minute tom August 8, 2a1]. illle miolian waa seconded Jo Pirzj nski and passed unanimously. ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT ]Iha meeting was adjourned al 6:21 p.mi. 'Me next regular meeting a it the Gemini Alan Coma ittee is scheduled for Sep temibar 26, 2012. Are paned by: f / /-7 JJ Muni Moseley, Associ�t lane slGPC 9-12 .doc er This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON OCTOBER 22, 2014, HELD AT THE LOS GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by Marico Sayoc. ATTENDANCE: Members present: Marico Sayoc, Marcia Jensen, Barbara Spector, Margaret Smith, Michele Boudreau, Bob Beyer Members absent: Matthew Hudes, Charles Erekson, Todd Jarvis Staff present: Laurel Prevetti, Assistant Town Manager and Community Development Director; Joel Paulson, Planning Manager; Marni Moseley, Associate Planner; Robert Schultz, Town Attorney ITEM 1 APPOINTING CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chair Marico Sayoc continued this matter to next year since the appointments to the Committee will most likely change at the end of the year. ITEM 2 TWIN OAKS DRIVE Chair Marico Sayoc recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Marcia Jensen chaired the remainder of the meeting. Staff provided a brief staff report and background of the application. The Committee members asked questions about: the Williamson Act cancellation and process, the impact of the existing General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Town on the application, and the possible intensification of the application on that EIR. The applicant's representative, Roger Griffin, provided a brief background on the application Committee Comments/Discussion: The Committee members discussed the status of the EIR for the application. The Committee members discussed the possibility of continuing the item until the EIR is available. EXHIBIT 9 General Plan Committee Minutes October 22, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Barbara Spector commented that most of the provided General Plan Policies cannot be determined without the information contained in the EIR. Marcia Jensen commented that additional policies beyond those provided in the report would be relevant. Robert Shultz clarified that the role of the General Plan Committee is to assist the Planning Commission and the Town Council on the consistency of the General Plan Amendment to the existing General Plan. If the additional information within the EIR would assist the Committee in making a recommendation on that limited scope, it is within their purview to request that. Marcia Jensen moved to continue the item to a date uncertain once the Draft EIR is available. Motion passed 5-0, ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Marcia Jensen continued the item to the next regular meeting due to a lack of a quorum for the item. ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 p.m. The next regular meeting of the General Plan Committee is scheduled for November 12, 2014. Prepared by: Marni Moseley, Assocraie Planner N:IDEV\GPC12014minutes\GPC I0-22-14.doc TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON OCTOBER 28, 2015, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Marcia Jensen. ATTENDANCE: Members present: Marieo Sayoc, Marcia Jensen, Charles Erekson, Joanne Talesfore, Melanie Hanssen. Members absent: Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes, Bob Beyer Staff present: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager/Community Development Director; Joel Paulson, Planning Manager; Marni Moseley, Associate Planner; Robert Schultz, Town Attorney ITEM 1 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR The committee moved to elect Marcia Jensen as Chair and Charles Erekson as Vice Chair. Motion passed 5-0-3, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes, and Bob Beyer absent. ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 22, 2014 The committee moved to approve the minutes from October 22, 2014. Motion passed 5-0-3. ITEM 3 TWIN OAKS DRIVE Staff provided a brief staff report and background of the application. The Committee asked questions of staff. The applicant's representative, Roger Griffin, provided a brief background on the application Public Comments: Chris Bajorek discussed concerns regarding existing traffic on Kennedy Road, and that the land should preserved as open space as the environmentally superior alternative. Jill Fordyce stated that the information available and provided within the GPC memo is not sufficient. That the project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of Town documents, and that the rural agricultural land has greater public value in preserving natural assets and habitat corridors. EXHIBIT 10 General Plan Committee Minutes October 28, 2015 Page 2 o f 2 Katherine Briggs stated that the responses to comments are not included and as a result the facts of the application are incomplete. Lee Quintana asked about the history of the property and the required findings for the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. Roger Maltbie spoke about the quiet and safe neighborhood, and that the type and length of the construction associated with the project would change the character of the neighborhood. Steven Markman stated that the impacts of the project are not easily mitigated. Roger Griffin stated that the site is surrounded by residential uses and that the proposed project would be consistent with those uses. Tom Doge spoke about the history of the site and the neighborhood. Stated that the original Williamson Act Contract did not automatically renew, and that the family's intention was always to develop the remaining piece of land. Bob Steinbock stated that when he purchased his property the potential use of this land was limited and that he's concerned about the potential development creating a para-vector site adjacent to Hillbrook School. Committee Discussion and Comments: The Committee discussed the concern about providing a recommendation without discussing and having the facts of the application available. Melanie Hansen moved to continue the application until the Final EIR is certified with the understanding that the Town Council may choose not to request a formal recommendation from the GPC at that time. Motion passed 5-0-3, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes, and Bob Beyer absent. ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the General Plan Committee is scheduled for November 11, 2015. Prepared by: arni Moseley, Associate Planner N:\DEV\GPCIGPC Minutes12015 Minutes'GPC 10-28-15.doc Surrey Farm Estates, LLC Letter of Justification Surrey Farm Estates PD Subdivision Letter of Justification for Surrey Farm Estates Subdivision (PD) Proposal i 70 Twin Oaks Drive & Cerro Vista Court This letter is intended to provide supplemental and background inlbrmation on the proposed Surrey Farm Estates PD subdivision. Our proposed development plan is the final phase of the existing Surrey Farm Subdivision that abuts Kennedy Road. The proposed development consists of 10 single- family lots plus one 3.6 acre Open Space lot on a 17.55 acre vacant site. The proposed single-family Tots range in size from 0.92 acre to 2.22 acres, Individually designed homes will be submitted at a later date for Architectural and Site processing at a future date. All on -site roadways are to be private and along with the Open Space will be maintained by the new Home Owners Association. I. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS This 17+ acre site is relatively flat at the lower elevations and becomes steeper on the east side of the central Swale that diagonally crosses the site and levels out approximately 2/3 of the way across the site. This site contains 485 protected trees. • One animal corral in deteriorated condition near the entrance from Twin Oaks Dr. • Ross Creek crosses the property near the Twin Oaks entry and is contained in a pipe Access to this site is from Twin Oaks Dr. and a future access from Cerro Vista Ct. An emergency access is shown abutting the current dead end of Brooke Acres Dr. II. PROJECT PROCESSING. ENTITLEMENT AND APPROVALS A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING This 17+ acre site is within the Town Limits of Los Gatos as is all of the surrounding properties. The Town of Los Gatos General Plan currently designates the subject site as -Agriculture'". We are requesting a General Plan Ainendment to -Hillside Residential"" (0 to 1 unit per acre). The proposed density of0.57 lots per acre would conform. This site is an Infill Project as it is surrounded on the south and west by Low Density Residential (0 - 5 units per acre). contiguous areas to the north, east and southeast are Hillside Residential (0 - 1 unit per acre) The proposed density of 0.57 lots per acre is consistent with surrounding residential and is significantly lower than the density that was specified in the 1961 General Plan. ragu 1 or 5 Lit of ocx EXHIBIT 11 Fhe requested rezoning is to HR-1:PD that is consistent with the existing surrounding Lower density home sites. fIR-1 is consistent with Policy LU-1.5 of the General Plan. which states that ..Intl11 projects shall be designated in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with established character of the area." Rezoning this property would be considered consistent with the 'Town's General Plan. B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE This site proposal was presented to the Town's CDAC on September 8, 2010. Comments from the Committee have been incorporated with consideration to the environmental aspects of the site. C. INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Town initiated the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was finalized in August of 2015 and circulated for public comment. A Partial Recirculated Draft EIR was completed in May of 2017 and was recirculated for additional public comment. The Initial Study and the Partial Recirculated Draft FIR both identified potentially significant effects on the environment, However, the Two -Access Alternative would result in fewer impacts overall than the original proposed project. The Studies recommended mitigation measures reduce the potentially significant impacts to less -than -significant levels, Following approval from Town Planning Commission and Town Council of this 10 lot subdivision a Final Map will be submitted for approval and recordation to create 10 home sites. one common lot and 2 roadway lots. Each home site will be processed later through separate Architectural and site Development Permit applications. III.PROPOSED SITE DESIGN The original proposed 10 home site subdivision utilizes the existing site access from Twin Oaks Dr, In addition to the 10 home sites there is one 3+ acre open space parcel. In keeping with Town Policy for PD zoning. all roadways are private and along with the trail extension and the open space will be maintained by the 10 future homeowners. A. ORIGINAL PROPOSED SITE PLAN In addition to the single primary access this project provides for an emergency access to and from Brooke Acres Dr. The original proposed (one access) site plan roadway swings to the north with 6 home sites and then crosses the upper portion of the existing riparian area to access four upper home sites. The upper portion of the roadway follows along an existing roadway cut that crosses the upper portion of the riparian area and proceeds along the lower edge of the open space. Page 2 of 5 Lir of Just-Rev-2 211. 111.dmik B. TWO ACCESS ALTERNATIVE During the preparation of the Initial Study. a title search revealed an offer of ingress and egress from Cerro Vista Ct. to the proposed subdivision. This easement for roadway purposes and the installation and maintenance of utilities was recorded on April 4, 1973. This access was presented to the Los Gatos Town Council and was reserved for a future date by Council action. A Two -.Access Alternate site was prepared that provides access from Twin Oaks Dr. for six home sites and access from Cerro Vista for four home sites. This Alternate Plan removes the crossing of the riparian area and still provides for the trail extension as well as an enlarged 4 acre open space lot. This site has been determined by the Draft EIR to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. C. GRADING 1. ORIGINAL. PROPOSED SITE PLAN The single access site has fill up to 13 feet where it crosses the riparian area. Internal street intersections require five foot to seven foot of cut or fill to accommodate engineering standards for roadway slopes. The driveway for lot number 7 proposes a seven !but cut with a five foot wall on the high side. This driveway is outside of the LRDA but follows along an existing cut roadbed. TWO ACCESS ALTERANTIVE SITE PLAN Grading quantities for the Two -Access Alternate site is reduced for the construction of the two access roadways. The majority of the grading involves cuts and tills five feet to seven feet with strategically placed five foot retaining walls along the roadway edge where needed. The roadway alignment is proposed to minimize the disturbed area and preserve trees on the site. Much of the roadways utilize an existing roadbed cut into the hillside. The two -access site eliminates the fill required to cross the riparian area. thereby significantly reduces site grading. Cut & fill total for the one access site is 18.050 CY and for the two accesses site is 12.000 CY. This decreases the grading by one third (33%) from the single access site and preserves an existing watercourse to its natural ending. No pad grading is proposed for the building sites: each site can be designed to minimize ground disturbance and comply with grading criteria established within the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines of this PD Zoning. After the two private drives are constructed and separate A&S approvals. each home site will be graded to construct individual driveways and finished grades around each home. Page 3 oI 5 I.ir ,lust-Rcr-2 2{) I R.dcicx D. BUILDING SITES No final design home designs have been prepared at this time. Preliminary design investigation was prepared to determine that each building site was feasible and would significantly comply with the town's Hillside Development Standards. Each of these proposed home sites are located within the LRDA. Sheets A-1 and A- I A clearly illustrate their inclusion in the LRDA. Each custom home site is envisioned to follow a high standard of design and architecture to properly tit each site. Each home site will submit at a later date a separate A&S application for each site. IV. TREE IMPACTS This site has 485 existing protected trees. 30 protected trees are to be transplanted and 70 protected trees removed. 83% of the protected trees ‘. ill be maintained in their natural position and 5% will be transplanted. Result is that 88% of the existing protected trees will be preserved on this site. We have worked closely wit the Town's Arborist to preserve trees on the site and with the alternate Site 1,ve have realigned the lower roadway to completely avoid both the riparian habitat and the focus lone oak in the habitat. Further we are proposing to place large and significant rocks near the drip line of this focus oak to discourage future disturbance of the trees natural habitat. V. VISA131LITY Exhibit A-2 illustrates the proposed site from the viewing platforms. These illustrations clearly show that this site is not visible from these locations. VI. UTILITIES Preliminary designs have been completed and coordinated with the Towns Engineering Departrnent Staff for water supply, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage for the proposed project. A. DOMESTIC WATER For the Alternate Site. existing water service lines in Twin Oaks will be extended to the lower six home sites. For the upper f"our home sites existing water lines will be extended from Cerro Vista Dr. San Jose Water Company will provide water service to this project. See attached will serve letter. B. SANITARY SEWER I'4ge 4 of 5 I.Rr of Jug-Rev-2,20 18.doc?c Sanitary sewer service will be provided by West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD). All service will via an on -site gravity system. The lower six lots will utilize and existing SS along the west property line. The upper four lots will be served via an existing PUE to Cerro Vista. Ct. WVSD will provide sewer service for this project. See attached will serve letter. VII. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT This subject is subject to hydro modification management requirements as set forth in the C.3 Storm water Handbook prepared by the SCVURPPP and the Bay Area Hydrology Model (13AHM ). Storm water Detention Modeling was prepared for this site by Balance Hydrologics. Inc. with a summary report of June 21, 2013. Two stormwater detention basins are shown on the site to capture initial runoff and meter water into the existing storm drain system at the northwest corner of the property. Neighbors expressed concerns about these basins stability and to fully contain short-term retention of the water during an earthquake event. Balance Hydrological worked with GeoForensics to evaluate this stability and issued a letter on July 29. 2014 that address' the issue. Their conclusion is -Based upon the proposed design, it is our opinion that the dam slopes will not be subject to failure during a major earthquake as a result of slope stability, nor due to overtopping due to seethe. Hence the presence of these retention perms do not pose a threat to the downslope properties". As an added safety measure. we are proposing to place a small concrete swale that would direct any water that might flow from the berm to the existing storm drainage channel adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. VIII.DEVELOPMENT DENSITY The Original Proposed Site and the Alternate Site have 10 individual home sites on 17.55 acres. The proposed rezoning is to HR-I-PD. This proposed density of 0.57 lots per acre is well within the 0 r I lot per acre allowed in the requested zoning. IX. PD ZONING STANDARDS The Alternate Site is intending to meet the governing standards for Hillside Development by significantly reduces the required grading with the following exceptions: I. Grading cut and till depths may extend up to seven feet in depth at Street A cul-de-sac as shown on sheet C8 of PD Zoning plan set. ?. Grading at the intersection of Street A and the Emergency Access may extend up to five feet in depth. 3. Grading for the turn -a -round of Street B may extend up to live feet in depth with a five foot wall on the high side. 4. Grading for access drive to lot #7 may extend up to seven feet in depth and follow an existing cut roadbed. Page 5 of 5 I.►r IB.dnck X. COMMUNITY BENEFIT In the process of meeting with San Jose Water Company. it was discovered that the water pressure in the Cerro Vista area is below the desired pressure for safety protections. Surrey Farm Estates has agreed to provide space for a new pumping station on this site with access from Cerro Vista Dr. It is important to state that this pump station is needed now and is not required because of this proposed development. COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THIS PROPOSED PROJECT • New site for SJWC Pump Site • Emergency access to existing dead end of Brooke Acres Dr. • Dedicated Open Space of 4 acres in AIt. site & 3.6 acres in Proposed site • Extend existing trail from Cerro Vista Ct. to Brooke Acre Dr. We appreciate your consideration of this project proposal. We look forward to providing any additional clarifications that might be needed, just let us know. Respectfully bin itied FAIBD Paragon Design Group. In 669.888.3707 I'egr 6 vl' 3 LtrofJust-Rev-3.20.IR.docx San nose wat r +c.Oynpany 110 W. Tay le. Strout San Jose, CA 951 E D-2131 April 16, 2014 Town of Los Gatos Engineering Depat lmenL Post. Office Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Attention: Bud Lortz REFERENCE: Prorosed 10 Lot Subrt;Tision Twin Maks way, Los Gatos uenllemen: San Jose Water Company W..te. SePPiee7. Admini=t. fedi 1255 S. AT. ., Son Jcvc, CA 95128 Facsimile: 4D8-279-7889 Writers Direct Dial: 408-279-7874 Please be informed that the above -referenced propel ty is within the jurisdiction of the San Jose Water Company and that we will serve fuller development of this property in accordance with our rules and regulations in effect and on file with the California Public Utilities Commis5ion. Sincerely, ORICIN4 SIGNED SY James R. Bariteau Senior Water Services Representative 7R13:bct NB 10-05 8. doc cc: 1 om Logue, �uney rarnl _names, LLC Lc2«r c-m JIc. an. m..ilcd zo: Rodger G. Zfii, Puraguri Gmnp, Inc. West Valley Sanitation District January 10, 2011 Rodger W. Griffin Paragon Design Group, Inc. 405 Alberto Way, Suite #C Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE: Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision Surrey Farm Estate, APN 532-16-006 Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos Dear Mr. Griffin: RE-cc,vED JAN 12 2071 This letter will serve as the "Will Serve Letter" for the above -referenced residential development on Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos. District staff will coordinate the design and approval of the sanitary sewer improvement for this project. Please be advised that under District Ordinance Code section 10.130, the property owner/developer is required to pay all required fees (connection fee, capacity fee, etc.) prior to the recordation of the Final Map. A clearance letter will be issued after the fees are paid. Please call me if you have any questions. Senior Civil Engineer cc: John Gaylord, Los Gatos West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County Serving: City of Campbell • Town of Los Gatos • City of Monte Sereno . City of Saratoga • Unincorporated Areas 100 East Su nnyoa ks Ave. Campbell, CA 95008-6608 408.378.2407 • fax 408.364.1821 www.westvalleysan.org State of California • Natural Resources Agency Department of Conservation Division of land Resolute Protection 801K Street • MS 14-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-0850 • FAX (916) 327-3430 January 11, 2018 VIA EMAIL: JARMERaLOSGATOSCA.GOV Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 1810 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Ms. Armer Edmund G. Bnumir., Governor kat),1 M. Lyddan, DiVI:skQrl Uiredor NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT NO. 75-913 (SANTA CLARA RECORDER'S OFFICE DOCUMENT #4954827) AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE REQUIRED FIVE CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Thank you for submitting notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1. The petition proposes to cancel a 17.8-acre non -prime parcel (APN:532-16-006) subject to a Williamson Act contract in the Town of Los Gatos (Town). The property is surrounded on all sides by residential development and Hillbrook School. If the cancellation is approved, the applicant plans to subdivide the site into 12 lots for future development consisting of 10 new single-family residences, one lot for private streets, and one lot for open space. The requirements for cancellation of land conservation contracts are outlined in Government Code section §51282. The County must document the justification for the cancellation through a set of findings. The project is being considered under the consistency with the Williamson Act findings, Government Code §51282(b). Based upon the information submitted, it appears the Town is able to make the required findings as stated in the Town Staff Evaluation included with the applicant's petition. However, the Department recommends the zoning and general plan amendment changes occur prior to, or at the same time as the approval of the tentative cancellation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancellation. Please consult Government Code §51284 for further requirements and notifications to the Department. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Annie Giovacchini, Environmental Planner, at (916) 324-9038 or via email at annie.Govacchiniconservation.ca.gov. S Kathryn ddan Director EXHIBIT 12 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 ARBORIST REPORT Surrey Farm Estates, Los Gatos Prepared for: Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B, International Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science DECEMBER 2, 2014 ©Deborah Ellis, 2014. This report may be reproduced in whole or in part by only the client and the client's authorized representatives and only for use with the subject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduction. • 9- * " AP 0 QC)" + 84- OW &. #(+#)+-$$AASCA'F1 IPA C C C /o%TTTIBCA?F 1 2c9K1PcpC RCiF VA??cxPQC, P$AitCACKC Of "4&'* EXHIBIT 13 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Contents TREE MAP 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Purpose of this Report: 3 LIST OF TABLES 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES I HAVE MADE TO THE TREE TABLES: 4 CLARIFICATIONS* 6 TREE TABLES 8 Table 1 Complete Tree Table 8 Table 2 Trees to Preserve 14 Table 3 Trees to Remove 16 Table 4 Trees to Transplant 19 Table 5 Trees that are Debatable 21 Table 6 Unused Numbers 21 APPENDIX 22 List of Previous Reports for this Project by D. Ellis 22 Plans I have reviewed from project arborist Michael Bench 22 9 MJ4 - "A ?CP OW" Aa2 + 8(- kt 64. # ( #) + - CA) Fl NPAaJr14.C4146fGWITTSCRFSAM: 2 (39/139QIi CNVOWADA GECV/F? CK PCZ(V$IC CACK @X4 "4 &'* A A A AIANNAVOIVAANA ?EC14 44)4 ) AVAIAMENAVANANAI Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE MAP %-81+374 +716. A 0--/CGT RNK CAZATCARK C CCBACCCCPA ?C CA3®ARPPCBALW®A CNAUA 9AMP) -'*"A?CPC e?"A42A'+&-&41964&. #(+#)+- CA)F1 MAC J CC, l96fC,i /o%TTT$CRFSAM: $A 2 0910 c CNVOQUA34 RQEVA??CK /6PIZ, P CACK C OR "4 &'* A A A AAAANA3 AAA?EC4 A(14 ) AMONAIMANAMAi Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 INTRODUCTION I have reviewed the following documents since my last report on this project which was dated May 7, 2013: • Impacts to Trees by Proposed Plans A-1 and A -IA. Michael Bench, October 20, 2014 (Excel spreadsheet). • A Comparison between a Single Access Entry Road Plan <A 1>and a Two Access Entry Road Plan <A- IA> Surrey Farm Estates, Los Gatos, California. Michael Bench, October 20, 2014. • Proposed Subdivision PD. Sheet A-1, Paragon Design Group. August 18, 2014 Revision. • Same as above, Alternate Subdivision PD, Sheet A-1A. • Same as above, with Lot 6 house relocated (partial plan). Received November 29, 2014. • Same as above, associated plan sheets AO-A5 • Civil Plans for the project by HMH Engineers, August 15, 2014, sheets CI -C7. In addition I visited the site again on November 6, 2014 to review the trees that are of concern relative to the two different entry schemes that are proposed (Plan A-1 with a single entry off Twin Oaks Drive) or Plan A-1 A, (a double entry with one entry of Twin Oaks Drive and another off Cerro Vista Court). The tree condition ratings and dispositions in this report are taken from Michael Bench's October 20, 2014 report. For trees not listed in that report that I added, I referred to Michael Bench's January 8, 2013 tree spreadsheet which includes all evaluated trees on the project site. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: The purpose of this report is to consolidate all of my previous reports and also previous reports and tree spreadsheets by Michael Bench. A history of my reports for this project can be found on page 22. In this current report I have organized and made some changes to Michael Bench's latest Excel spreadsheet dated October 20, 2014. I have also made some corrections to my last report dated November 7, 2014. The Tree Tables in this report are listed on the next page. I have also sent you a copy of my Excel spreadsheet dated November 3, 2014 which contains the same tables. :9,MJ,-'*"A?0Q ?"A42A!+&-& &. #(+#)+-*EC A'Fl N>P(CJZ . C$116FCatsWo%TTT$C/9F$WK$A A 2 CeCIPC4 CNValtM34 RCECV/F?CK PQCip$A5 CALK C O(i "4 &'* $161AMANAANAMAIONNAVAIPAIAMPA A A A ?EC4 Att4 ) Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 LIST OF TABLES • Table 1 Complete Tree Table (listed only impacted trees, totaling 141 trees, including trees that are adjacent to proposed improvements but have estimated low impacts). Trees are color -coded as to their Disposition (Preserve, Remove, Transplant, Debatable or Unused Number. Debatable is a category containing 3 trees that have a questionable impact and disposition. Read about these trees in order to determine how they should be handled. Unused number is a category that contains no trees but contains 4 numbers that were not used, within the range of numbers that were used). • Table 2 Trees to Preserve (33 trees) • Table 3 Trees to Remove (71 trees) • Table 4 Trees to Transplant (30 trees) • Table 5 Trees that are Debatable (3 trees) • Table 6 Unused Numbers (4) SUMMARY OF CHANGES I HAVE MADE TO THE TREE TABLES: 1) Three trees listed with an estimated construction impact of "Severe" have been changed from "Preserve" to "Remove", if they were previously listed as "Preserve". We can try to save these trees during construction, but for EIR purposes I am listing them as probable removals. These are trees #162 (7" coast live oak) #544 (10" valley oak), #545 (5" coast live oak) and #546 (12" coast live oak). These trees all grow together in a small grove near the natural drainage area that the existing dirt road crosses and the new roadway will also cross. These trees are labeled in the photo at right. 9A3MJ4-'*"A?Ogif?"/42A1+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- 2 09/W 1 CNVOQINDA RUECVAPCK ikPQ(P CACK C O4 "4 &' * A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA?ECAANp4() ANNOINAMANAAVEM Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 2) Three trees were changed to the designation "Debatable" by me, after review of the plans and Michael Bench's spreadsheets. These are trees: a) #302, 28" valley oak, shown to be removed on the plans but the Town Engineer does not think this tree needs to be removed. This is a nice tree on the side slope of the natural drainage area, so it seems important for the environment in this location. The tree was listed as "Preserve" in Michael Bench's October 20, 2014 spreadsheet. b) #303, 24" coast live oak. Same as above. c) #549, 15" coast live oak (not shown on any of the construction plans, but visible on the aerial maps of the site. This tree will be very close to a house on lot 8. The house should be moved farther from the tree or the tree should be transplanted. This is a very nice tree and we should keep it. ° -.: AN06:60t;oast live oak #303fQLBAsalley oak #302"/M. CrCEFQRSCA CATC/S PBA HRPQ PAQ E?BPARNA C/EGITAP: 0ASVGEAI CA cis az..?EC$A A ) ]/O: f406: 6016oast live oak #549/9A0WPAtOVK /blue oak #550" kC?B(fzE 17CBACFCA BCKPECA? 12$4 9MJ4-'*"A?CPC ?"A}2A1+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 NPAC J.t .CC C /o%TTTSCRF WK $A 2 09/139C 1 CNVOWADA RC VA??CK IkPCZ(Wilitt CACK @:o "4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA?ECA ANpA( ) ANNOINAMARNAMO Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 CLARIFICATIONS: Tree #162 (7" coast live oak) is not missing on the plans. It is not located near trees #161 - 165_near Cerro Vista Court (see photo below). Instead, it is located near trees #544, 545, 546 and across the roadway from #550 (see photo on page 4). 4CCXJ Gf( ACT C4LBA4A4a0Q610CA&1IECAPLBAWFli1eppo pines and Incense cedars #145-159°'# LB4alley oaks #161 and 383 $ 9 MJ4 - ' *"A ?CPOW"A}2 A(+&- &SIONt &. # (+#) +- CA)F1 NPAC J..CC C /o%TTTSCRF$6WK $A 2 09/W 1 CNVOWADA RC VA??CK ikPQ(P CPCK C O>< "4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA ?EC AlVIX ) ANNOIMANANAAMIA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 A ' +8/-A+-<A6+2Ar# $ APAPFMTLA CkFA ATQfC C,IA CZICLI JC ARQ?QQCFCOt'4P4 (4CCEMA ®gACGEC"4 PQSOVITA C CA4CCOAA (PC QAARJ#3C#P?A$ 2 LACXMTA\MICRA IEVAIPIA #160 (11")*XF&BA(#' , ' $JAA 8LATCADEFQWMWPFG4F ,r 4AJNcN41A1CRCC9JK?NCFCA ?AACPPA®PBA164\124\UPCBA6Q41RPP1QQCCLAIRIs #' , ' APLBA) ) $AAFCA PK?JrO PIPA€QTCCLA' , (VA, ) "A *"APLB4 +! APC 't7M\ARCBAQJ€CA CEPLPNPLCB$1 A : 9 A3MJ, - ' *"A ?CPC e?"A42 A'+&- &41964&. # (+#) +- CA)F1 MAC J CC, l9 C,if/o%TTT$CRF$WK $A 2 091459QA CNVOQUADA RQEVA??CKPQC, P$k5C?CKC C ("4&'* A A A AAAANA3 AAA ? ECA A #t ) AMONAIMANAMAi TREE TABLES TABLE 1 COMPLETE TREE TABLE Continued through page 14. Eir' Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Tree Name Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed Service since 1984 001 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 002 Coast live oak 003 Valley oak Quercus lobata 11 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 6 Good 10/20/14 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Transplant Roadway Construction 004 Coast live oak 005 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 9 5 Good Good 10/20/14 Remove 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction 006 Coast live oak 13 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 007 Incense cedar 4 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact 008 009 010 Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 9/7 7 8 Good Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Transplant Transplant Transplant Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 011 Coast live oak 012 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 10/20/14 11 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Transplant Roadway Construction 013 California black walnut 19 Juglans hindsii 014 Aleppo pine 5 Pinus halepensis 015 English walnut 11 Juglans regia 016 Aleppo pine 12 Poor Fair/Poor Poor Poor 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 017 Valley oak 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 018 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 9RMJ4-'*"A?00*?"10-2A+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PPErJ.) .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$6WK $A 2 CI9A1PQ1 CNVOQINDA RC VA??CK ikPQ(P CPCK C C ("4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAANA?ECA ANp4( ) ANNOINAMANAAVEM *+, 3A A&6473:-k8--Ak+, 3A411.4ERCB,vK. C.91 '.SI RPAVEC.IA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 019 Coast live oak 024 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Remove Roadway Construction Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 025 Coast live oak 026 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway / Storm Drain Construction Transplant Roadway Construction 027 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 028 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 029 030 034 035 048 062 063 064 065 Coast live oak Valley oak Coast live oak Valley oak Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 14 19 12 17 8 18/15 15 8 16 Good/Fair Fair Good Good/Fair Fair/Poor Good Good Good Good/Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Transplant Remove Remove Remove Remove Transplant Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction/Storm Drain Storm Drain Construction Storm Drain Construction Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Retention Pond Construction Retention Pond Construction 090 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 109 Coast live oak 110 Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 123 Coast live oak 124 Coast live oak 125 Coast live oak 126 Coast live oak 134 Valley oak 135 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove 6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 12 14 10 16 39 8 Dead Fair Good Good/Fair Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Preserve Remove Remove Preserve Transplant Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction 9AMJ4-'*"A?O ?"/42A1+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PAEraCC C /o%TTTSCRFSAM: $A 2 CJQ/W 1 CNVOQUADA RC VA??CK ikPQ(P CACK "4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA ?ECA' AlVIX ) ANNOINAMANANA *+, 3A A&6473:-k8--Ak+, 3A411.4ERCB,vK. C.91 SI RPAPEC.IA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Tree Name Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 136 Valley oak 7 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 137 138 139 Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 5/5/3 10 8 Ext Poor Good/Fair Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Preserve Preserve Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 149 Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Remove Grading for Retention Pond 152 Aleppo pine 153 Aleppo pine 8 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction 154 Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 155 Aleppo pine 160 Valley oak 161 Valley oak 9 11 56 Good Fair Good 10/20/14 10/11/12 12/20/10 Preserve Preserve Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 162 Coast live oak 7 Good 1/08/13 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction. DE (11/13/14) changed from preserve to remove. #162 is near trees #544, 545, 550. 163 Valley oak 164 Valley oak 165 Coast live oak 10 11 5 Fair Fair Excellent 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Preserve Preserve 277 Unused Number 299 European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 301 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 302 Valley oak 303 Coast live oak 28 Good 10/20/14 Debatable 24 Good 10/20/14 Debatable Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. 330 Coast live oak 5 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 331 333 336 Unused Number Coast live oak Valley oak 11 23 Good Fair 10/20/14 Transplant 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 9-'*"A?OOW"A2A + 000 &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 NPFCCIS.CC (/o%TTTSCRF$AM:$A 2 CJQ/w 1 CNVOQUADA RGECVA??CK ikPQC P CPCK C 1:1"4 &'* A A A AAAAAIAAA VAANA?ECA&Al4 ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA *+ 3A A&6473-:-A`8--EC`+, 3-AAtitG RCB%2�KACVA'.SI 2PAVEC.IA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 337 Valley oak 338 Coast live oak 25 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 342 Valley oak 345 Coast live oak 346 Valley oak 13 8 14 Fair Fair Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 349 350 351 357 358 Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Incense cedar Incense cedar 10 6 10 9 8 Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 359 360 361 362 363 Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine 5 6 7 6 13 Fair Poor Good Ext Poor Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 364 365 366 367 368 Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar 7 9 9 5 6 Poor Excellent Good Poor Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 369 Incense cedar 6 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 370 Incense cedar 371 Valley oak 372 Coast live oak 10 5 5/3 Fair Good Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Preserve Preserve Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction 3737`3L Unused Number Am 9A3MJ)-'*"A?CPC ?"A2A(+&-&$AAB &. #(+#)+- CAPF1 MACaJ .CC, (,i) /o%TTTIBCRFSA/VK $A A 2 091459QA CNVOQVADARCii:CVA??CK A,PIZ, P CACKC C ( "4 &'* A A A AVAAAA9ANAMAAA?ECA' AO) ANANAVAMAAAVAM * +, 3-A A&6473-: -, 8--A* +, 3-A AiliGiIERCM lK 'SSRP, PEC.lA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 374 382 383 403 449 451 452 454 455 459 460 461 462 502 507 510 512 515 516 520 521 522 525 526 527 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Unused Number Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Aleppo pine Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Incense cedar DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 49 Good 10/20/14 Preserve 38 Good 10/20/14 Remove 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 8 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 10 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 7 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 8/7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 15 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 6 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 9 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 10 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 5 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Minor Root Damage house construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading 9-'*"A?O WW2 + &$416 &. #(+#)+- CA?F1 I\PA J .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$APoK $A A 2 09A1PQ1 CN Cki RUECVA??CK f&PQc P CPCK C O1 "4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA ?ECA ( Alm ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA * +, 3 A A4(64 73- : -, 8- -EC` +, 3- AAM.C,IERC2 At'1lK,C 'SSRP, PEC.cA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Tree Name Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 529 530 531 532 534 544 545 546 Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 9 11 13 11 16 10 5 12 Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Excellent Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 1/08/13 1/08/13 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Severely Damaged by Grading and Severely Damaged by Grading and Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction Retaining Wall Construction Retaining Wall Construction 549 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/2010 Debatable Appears too close to house, not on construction plans. Move house or transplant 561 Valley oak 18 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Road Construction - Moderate Impact 571 Wild plum 6 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 572 Monterey cypress 7 Cupressus macrocarpa Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 573 Valley oak 574 Incense cedar 14 Good 10/11/12 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction Transplant Roadway Construction 575 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 576 Coast live oak 8 6 577 Cypress 5/4/4 Cupressus species Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 578 Coast live oak 586 Valley oak 5 6 Excellent 10/11/12 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Grading for Retention Pond Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 590 591 592 593 Monterey pine Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 40 33 32 10 Fair Fair Good Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact Grading for Pond- Moderate Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe 9, AAJ4-'*"A?Go OW" A}2A1+&- Oat &.#(+#)+- CA)Fl I\PA J .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$AM: $A 2 09A1PC 1 CNVOQUADA RUECVA??CK /kPQ(, P CACK 4 &'* A A A AAAAAE3AAAAXIVAA9AAA ?EC A) A ib4 ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA *+, 3A A&6473:-k8--Ak+, 3A411.4ERCB,vK. C.91 '.SI RPAVEC.IA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Tree Name Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 594 Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 595 European Olive 8/8/5 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 6LBA1 ?CAA$1*' A CP$A TABLE 2 TREES TO PRESERVE Continued on the next page Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Last Date Condition Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 007 011 124 134 137 138 139 152 153 155 161 163 164 165 364 Incense cedar Coast live oak Coast live oak Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Coast live oak Incense cedar 4 7 14 39 5/5/3 10 8 8 9 9 56 10 11 5 7 Fair Good/Fair Fair Good Ext Poor Good/Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Excellent Poor 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 10/20/14 Roadway Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Roadway Construction 9, AAJ4-'*"A?CPOW" Al2A1+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- CA'F1 I\PPa .CC ( -TTSCA)FSAM: $A 2 39/11P(1 CNVOQINDARC VA??CK ikPQ(, P CACK "4 &' * A A A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAtk)AAAA ?EC A*Alm ) ANAIOAANNAMINAM * +, 3-A A' 8--9A6A(8-9-8; -AAlt aRCB ArliKATC 'S' RP.tDEC.IA r Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Last Date DBH Condition Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 365 Incense cedar 366 Incense cedar 367 Incense cedar 368 Incense cedar 370 Incense cedar 371 Valley oak 372 Coast live oak 383 Valley oak 561 Valley oak 572 Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa 575 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 576 Coast live oak 577 Cypress Cupressus species 590 Monterey pine 591 Valley oak 592 Coast live oak 593 Coast live oak 595 European Olive 9 9 5 6 10 5 5/3 49 18 7 8 Excellent Good Poor Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Excellent 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction- Low Impact Roadway Construction Minor Root Damage house construction Road Construction - Moderate Impact Roadway Construction Good 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 6 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 5/4/4 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 40 33 32 10 Fair Fair Good Fair 8/8/5 Good 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact 10/20/14 Grading for Pond- Moderate 10/20/14 Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 6LBA ?QE$) A C CPSA 9A3MJ4-'*"A?O0*?"142. + 8(- &$106 &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PPErJES.CC (/o%TTT$CA)FSAM: $A 2 CJQAC®C 1 CNVOQINDA RUECVA??CK PQ(P CPCK C O1 "4 &' * A A A AAAAAAAAAAAAAEk11AAAA ?ECA+ Ai 4 ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA TABLE 3 TREES TO REMOVE Continued through page 19. Field Data Sheet DBH Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 004 Coast live oak 005 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 013 California black walnut Juglans hindsii 014 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 015 English walnut Juglans regia Aleppo pine Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 016 018 019 024 027 029 030 035 048 062 063 065 109 110 Coast live oak Coast live oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 123 Coast live oak Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 9 Good 10/20/14 Remove 5 Good 10/20/14 Remove 19 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 5 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 12 Poor 10/20/14 Remove 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove 14 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove 19 Fair 10/20/14 Remove 17 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove 18/15 Good 10/20/14 Remove 15 Good 10/20/14 Remove 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove 6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove 12 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway / Storm Drain Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction/Storm Drain Storm Drain Construction Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Service since 1984 9�MJ4-'*"A?O ?"/42 + &SO &. #(+#)+- CA)Fl I\PA CJ.S.CC C o%TTTSCRFSA/VK $A A 2 09/11PQ1 CNVOQUAEA RC VA??CK f&PQ(P CPCK C O>< "4 &'* A A A AAAAAE3AAAfVOIVAA9AAA ?EC A , Alm ) ANAIOAANNAMAAMA * +, 3-A' A` 8--9A 64 -4 6;-AA41.C,iERC8A /CFCALZ:52RPAPECIA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 125 126 149 154 162 299 330 336 337 342 345 346 359 360 361 362 363 382 403 449 451 452 454 455 Coast live oak Coast live oak Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Coast live oak European olive Coast live oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Coast live oak Valley oak Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine Valley oak Valley oak Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar 10 16 9 16 7 6/5/5/5/4 5 23 25 13 8 14 5 6 7 6 13 6 38 9 11 14 11 8 Good Good/Fair Excellent Excellent Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Ext Poor Good Poor Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Ext Poor 10/20/14 10/20/14 12/20/10 10/20/14 1/08/13 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Grading for Retention Pond Sanitary Sewer Construction Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction. DE (11/13/1 changed from preserve to remove. #162 is near trees #544, 545, 550. Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading / Driveway Construction Grading 9"18MJ4-'*"A?O ?" /42 / + (&- &SA &. #(+#)+- CA?F1 I\PPErJ.t .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$APoK $A 2 (39A1P 1 CNVOQINDA RC VA??CK ikPQC P CPCK C C ("4 &'* A A A AAAAAIAAA VAANA?ECA- AID ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA * +, 3-A' Ac 8--9A 64 -4 6; -As aERCB W/CfC SAPPAPEC/A Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 459 460 461 462 502 507 510 512 515 516 520 521 522 525 526 527 529 530 531 532 534 544 545 546 Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Aleppo pine Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Incense cedar Incense cedar Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Aleppo pine Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 5 9 10 7 8/7 5 11 15 6 6 9 13 9 10 7 5 9 11 13 11 16 10 5 12 Ext Poor Fair Poor Ext Poor Fair Ext Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Excellent Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 1/08/13 1/08/13 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading / Driveway Construction Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 9RMJ4-'*"A?O ?"10-2. + 8(- &$106 &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PAErJ.) .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$6WK $A A 2 09/11PQ1 CNVOQINDA RUECVA??CK f&PQ(P CPCK C O1 "4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA ?EC A. AID ) ANAVOMOBANNOWA ■ * +, 3-A' A` 8--9A 6A) -4 6; -AAltaRC84)0l/K/CFCAITSMPAPECIA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 571 Wild plum 586 Valley oak 594 Incense cedar 6 6 5 Dead Fair Fair 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Roadway Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction Sanitary Sewer Construction TABLE 4 TREES TO TRANSPLANT Continued on the next page. Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 001 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 002 Coast live oak 003 Valley oak Quercus lobata 006 Coast live oak 008 Coast live oak 009 Coast live oak 010 Coast live oak 012 Coast live oak 017 Valley oak 025 Coast live oak 026 Coast live oak 028 Coast live oak 6LBAlt ?GEC* ' ACCP$A DBH Condition Last Date Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Reviewed 11 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 13 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 9/7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway / Storm Drain Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction 913MJ4-'*"A?00*?"/}2. + 8(- 01116 &. #(+#)+- CAFl NPAC J.I4.CC C /o%TTTSCRF$6WK $A 2 C39A1P1 CNVOQINDA RC VA??CK ikPQ(P CPCK C C ("4 &' * A A A AAAAAE3AAAAXIVAA9AAA ?ECA / AID ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA * + 3- C` 8--91% 6i 8+5973.5: A Mt aiERCBAX;14:4. C 'WC/A Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 034 064 090 135 136 160 301 333 338 349 350 351 357 358 369 573 574 578 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Tree Name Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Valley oak Valley oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Incense cedar Incense cedar Incense cedar Valley oak Incense cedar Coast live oak 12 8 12 8 7 11 6 11 6 10 6 10 9 8 6 14 10 5 Condition Last Date Disposition Reviewed Good 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/20/14 Transplant Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Good 10/11/12 Transplant Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Storm Drain Construction Retention Pond Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Near hammerhead Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Grading for Retention Pond 6LBAl ?GT$96 &4 C CPSA 9,MJ4-'*"A?O W" /42 + 8(- 0164 &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PPEraCC (/o%TTTSCRFSAM: $A 2 CJQ/w 1 CNVOQUAEA RC VA??CK ikPQC P CPCK C 1:31"4 &'* A A A AAANNAVOIVAANA?EC4 &AIA ) AFAMANAMANAMI Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TABLE 5 TREES THAT ARE DEBATABLE Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 302 Valley oak 303 Coast live oak 549 Coast live oak 28 24 15 Good Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 12/20/2010 Grading (but Town engineer removed. Grading (but Town engineer removed. Appears too close to house, Move house or transplant thinks doesn't have to be thinks doesn't have to be not on construction plans. 6LB4t ? C G$1 A CLCP$A TABLE 6 UNUSED NUMBERS rField Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 277 Unused Number 331 Unused Number 373 Unused Number 374 Unused Number 6L14/04 ?@IGIOTt A CCP$A 9RMJ4-'*"A?CpC,,E?°Al2A1+&-&$ &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 I\PPErJ.) .CC C /o%TTTSCRF$6WK $A 2 09A1PQ1 CN Cki RUECVA??CK ikPQ(, P CPCK C O1 "4 &' * A A A AAANNAVOIVAA9AAA ?EC 4 ' Alm ) AAAPAINAMBANNOWA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 APPENDIX LIST OF PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR THIS PROJECT BY D. ELLIS 1) March 30, 2011. Surrey Farm Estates, Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos. 2) September 21, 2011. Arborist Review of the most current set of plans for Surrey Farm Estates/Twin Oaks Drive 3) June 12, 2012. Surrey Farm Estates - Review of plan set dated May 21 and 22, 2012 relative to existing trees to be removed and saved 4) January 29, 2013. Surrey Farm Estates Proposed Subdivision 5) February 23, 2013. Surrey Farm Estates Proposed Subdivision 6) May 7, 2013. Surrey Farm Estates Proposed Subdivision. Update on status relative to existing tree issues 7) November 7, 2014. Surrey Farm Estates (comparing differences in Plan Al, Proposed Subdivision PD and Plan A-1 A Alternative Subdivision PD PLANS I HAVE REVIEWED FROM PROJECT ARBORIST MICHAEL BENCH 1. December 20, 2010. An Evaluation of Trees at the Surrey Farm Estates. 2. January 8, 2013. Tree Spreadsheet for Twin Oaks Drive. (Excel spreadsheet). 3. October 20, 2014. Impacts to Trees by Proposed Plans A-1 and A-1A. (Excel spreadsheet). 4. October 20, 2014. A Comparison between a Single Access Entry Road Plan <Al >and a Two Access Entry Road Plan <A-1 A> Surrey Farm Estates, Los Gatos, California. :9,M1,-'*"A?CPC€?"A42Al+&-& &. #(+#)+-*EC A'Fl MA( ICC Cso%TTT$C/9F$WK$A A 2 CeCIPC4 CNValtM34 RCECV/F?CK PQCip$A5 CALK C O(i "4 &'* $161AMANAANAMAIONNAVAIPAIAMPA A A A ?EC4(4A$) Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 ****************************** I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. Wt, Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B Enclosure: Surrey Farm Estates Tree Table Spreadsheets. Excel Spreadsheets. D. Ellis, December 2, 2014. 9A3MJ, -'*"A?CPCg?" /42 / + 841964 &. #(+#)+- CA)F1 MAC J .CCtarf i /o%TTT$CRF$A4( $A 2 091459QA CMCQUADARCECVA??C): PCQC,QP CACK ErOf "4 &'* A A A AAAAAAA9AANNO?EC4) MX ) APAOPiPAANNAAPAIMA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 November 26, 2014 Surrey Farm Estates Replacement Tree Calculations Dear Marni: Based upon the 71 definite tree removals as listed in my November 19, 2014 Arborist Report for this project, my calculations for the number of replacement trees required are listed in the Table below and continued on the next page. Since arborist Michael Bench did not include canopy dimension measurements in his tree tables for this project, I have modified the Town's tree replacement requirements based upon trunk diameter, as explained in the Table. Table 1 Tree Replacement Calculations Cano p dimension Tree tag #'s of trees to be removed Numees of to be removed Box size of replacement tree required Number of replacement trees required Notes Category 1 4,5,14,19,48, 4 to 9 feet: 110, 125, 149, (4-10" trunk diameter): 162, 299, 330, 345, 359, 360, 361, 362, 382, #571 is dead, so it 449, 455, 459, 2 x 24" box 74 x 24" is not counted 460, 461, 462, 38 37 ( ) OR OR toward 502, 507, 515, 1 x 36" 37 x 36° replacement trees. 516, 520, 522, 525, 526, 527, 529, 544, 545, 571, 586, 594 Category 2 13,15, 16,18, 10 to 27 feet: (>10-20" trunk diameter): 27, 29, 30, 35,62, 63, 65, 109, 123, 126, 154, 342, 346, 363, 451, 452, 29 (28) 3 x 24" box OR 2 x 36" 84 x 24" OR 56 x 36" #123 is dead, so it is not counted toward 454, 510, 512, replacement trees. 521, 530,531, 532, 534, 546, Category 3 28 to 40 feet: 4 x 24" 12 x 24" (>20-30" trunk diameter): 24, 336, 337, 3 OR 2 x 48" OR 6 x 48" 21 A'?b,) $ ,, 4A4B?: 4,A. A (#) #AW # ) %( $&() !, 864; - t 1658«!> 89A1AA BBc""CCC!7864; !6?= !A A 4: 8A A'9,QA Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Cano pY dimension Tree tag #'s of trees to be removed Numees of to be removed Box size of replacement tree required Number of replacement trees required Notes Category 4 40 to 56 feet: 6 x 24" 6 x 24" (>30-40" 403 1 OR OR trunk diameter): 2x24"+2x48" 2x24"+2x48" 56 to 60 2x24",36"and 0 x 24" feet: 48" 0 x 36" (>40-50" OR 0 x 48" trunk 0 0 To be OR to be diameter): determined by determined by Director Director 60 feet + (>50" trunk To be To be determined diameter): 0 0 determined by Director by Director Potential Totals (Depending upon how which approved box size trees the applicant chooses to use for each category of removed tree): • 24" box: 74 + 84 + 12 + 6 + 2 = 178 • 36" box: 37 + 56 = 93 • 48"box:6+2=8 ***************************** Sincerely, Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B 21 A'?D,) $ ,44A4B?: 4,A. A (#j #AAMA #-k ) %( $&() !A 864; - @4658«!> 89A9AA BBc""CCC!7864; !6?= !A 4: 8,Q, 9,QA A 5756 Almoden Evp. isway, ]) Join CA 45 0 t8-3614 ) 140B) 265 2606 I www ta'leywtstpf org File: 9925 East Ross Creek June 30, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Arrner Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Notice of Availability of Partial Recirculation Draft Environmental Impact Report 170 Twin Oaks Drive, Surrey Farms Estates Dear Ms. Armer. Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff reviewed the Draft Environmental impact Report (DEIR) for Surrey Farms Estates, received on May 9, 2017. In accordance with the District's Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any work on or within District right of way (fee title or easement) is subject to review and issuance of a District permit prior to construction. East Ross Creek is contained within a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe which extends across the southwestern portion of the project site behind Parcel 1. The District has a 110-foot wide easement on the site for flood control purposes. Work within the easement will require an encroachment permit. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 630-2586 or at kturner(a valleywater.ord. Please reference District File No. 9925 on any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, `t' Kathrin A. Turner Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: U. Chatwani, C. Haggerty, K. Turner; File Sonica Clara %ley Water Oisirit6 e1/4,.,.) Our mission is io ids Silicon volley safe, clean watt r for o healthy life, ervironmer,i, and economy EXHIBIT 14 Jennifer Armer From: Mary Patterson <mmpmitzi@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:01 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Surrey Farms Please...no more homes...we need some space to breathe!! It's just getting ridiculous! The town is being ruined AND we have no water, no electricity, no roads AND no school space for any more people!!! Please don't permit this to happen!! Thank you, Mary Patterson Sent from my iPhone ORDINANCE Draft Ordinance: subject to modification by Town Council based on deliberations and direction ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM RC TO HR-1:PD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TWIN OAKS DRIVE (APN: 532-16-006) THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on property on Twin Oaks Drive (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 532-16-006) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from RC (Resource Conservation) to HR-1:PD (Hillside Residential one to five acres for each dwelling unit, Planned Development). SECTION II With respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Town Council finds as follows: A. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed for the proposed development and no significant unmitigated impacts are associated with the application. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adopted. SECTION III The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Removal of existing site improvements. 2. Construction of ten (10) market rate single-family detached residences. 3. Landscaping, private streets, parking and other improvements shown in the Proposed Subdivision (not the Alternate Subdivision) and required on the Official Development Plans. 4. Uses permitted are those specified in the HR-1 (Hillside Residential one to five acres for each dwelling unit) zone by Sections 29.40.235 (Permitted Uses), as it exists at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future. EXHIBIT 15 Page 1 of 45 SECTION IV COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise. SECTION V A Tentative Subdivision Map and Architecture and Site Approvals are required before construction of subdivision improvements or new residences, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 (PD Ordinance) of the Town Code. SECTION VI The attached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans), are part of the Official Development Plan. The following performance standards must be complied with before issuance of any grading, or construction permits (mitigation measures are so noted and are flagged with an asterisk): TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided are conceptual in nature. Final building footprints and building designs shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process. Colors and building materials shown on the Official Development Plan are not approved and shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval process. 2. TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 3. SUBDIVISION REQUIRED. A Tentative Subdivision Map application shall be approved for the project prior to the issuance of building permits. The Development Review Committee may be the deciding body of the tentative map. Page 2 of 45 4. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Site (A&S) application and approval is required for each of the new residences. The Architecture and Site applications shall be reviewed by the Development Review Committee. Architectural details, including fencing and a project entry sign, shall be refined as part of this process with input from the Town's Consulting Architect. 5. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. A final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Landscape Architect and approved as part of the Architecture and Site process. Minimum tree size at time of planting shall be 24-inch box. 6. WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. The proposed landscaping shall meet 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. SETBACKS. The minimum setbacks are those specified by the HR-1 zoning district or as otherwise shown on the Conceptual Development Plans. 8. BUILDING HEIGHT. The maximum height of the new residences shall be the maximum height listed in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The maximum height for detached structures shall be 15 feet. 9. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All exterior building and outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from neighboring properties, to shine on the project site only. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for pedestrian safety and security. Lighting specifications shall be reviewed as part of the Architecture and Site process. 10. TREE PRESERVATION: All recommendations of the Town's Consulting Arborist shall be followed. Refer to the report prepared by Deborah Ellis, dated March 30, 2011 for additional details. The Arborist Consultant shall reevaluate the plans for the new residences during Architecture and Site review. 11. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees approved for removal prior to the issuance of demolition permits. 12. REPLACEMENT TREES. New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being removed. The number of trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Tree Protection Ordinance. New trees shall be double staked and shall be planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. 13. TREE FENCING. Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to the report prepared by Deborah Ellis dated March 30, 2011 for requirements. Fencing shall be six foot high Page 3 of 45 cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans. 14. FINAL UTILITY LOCATIONS. The applicant shall submit plans showing the final locations and screening of all exterior utilities, including but not limited to, backflow preventers, Fire Department connections, transformers, utility boxes and utility meters. Utility devices shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for new construction. 15. PLAN INCONSISTENCY. Any inconsistencies between sheets shall be limited to whichever is more restrictive. 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS. This Planned Development shall comply with provisions in Town Code Sections 29.40.015 through 29.40.070, and Article V, unless more restrictive provisions are required in other performance standards for the subject Planned Development. 17. DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINES: Development shall take place within property lines unless written permission is obtained from neighboring property owners. 18. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-2: Protection of Nesting Special - status and Migratory Birds: In order to prevent mortalities of special -status and migratory bird species during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. Removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible, but where tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities must occur, the following measures, shall be implemented: a. If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds are not warranted as no significant adverse effects would occur. b. If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are scheduled to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February 1 and August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Town. The survey shall be performed 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, depending on access and lines of sight. If no active nests of special -status or other migratory birds are found, work may proceed without restriction and no further measures are necessary. If the commencement of Page 4 of 45 work is delayed more than two weeks from the date of the preconstruction survey, the survey shall be repeated, if determined necessary by the project biologist. c. If occupied nests (i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present) of special -status or migratory birds are detected, the project biologist shall designate non -disturbance buffers at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non -disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist approved by the Town. The appropriate buffer size shall be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist approved by the Town. Typical buffer zones are 50 foot -radius for songbirds and 300 foot -radius for raptors. If, despite the establishment of a non -disturbance buffer it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately. Work may only resume once the project biologist has determined that it is safe to do so (e.g., after the young birds have fledged). d. If project activities must occur within the non -disturbance buffer, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that take of the nest (i.e., nest failure) is not likely to result. If it is determined that project activities are resulting in significant nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately. Work may only resume once the project biologist has determined that it is safe to do so (e.g., after the young birds have fledged). 19. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-3: Protection of San Francisco Dusky -footed Woodrat: In order to prevent mortalities of San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat during project construction and implementation, the following measures shall be implemented: a. A qualified biologist shall perform a ground survey to locate and mark all woodrat nests in the proposed construction area. The survey shall be performed no less than 30 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbances. The Contractor shall walk the site to assist in determining which nests cannot be avoided. Nests to be avoided shall be fenced off with orange construction fencing and their locations marked on construction plans as being off limits to all activities. b. Any woodrat nest that cannot be avoided shall be manually disassembled by a qualified biologist, after notification of CDFW, to give any resident woodrats the opportunity to disperse to adjoining undisturbed habitat. Nest building materials shall be immediately removed off -site and disposed of to prevent woodrats from reassembling nests on -site. Page 5 of 45 c. To ensure woodrats do not rebuild nests within the construction area, a qualified biologist shall inspect the construction corridor no less than once per week. If new nests appear, they shall be disassembled and the building materials disposed of offsite. If there is a high degree of woodrat activity, more frequent monitoring shall be performed, as warranted. 20. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-4: Protection of Roosting Bats: In order to minimize impacts to special -status bats during project implementation, impacts to suitable roost sites shall be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Where impacts to suitable roost sites cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be implemented: Mitigation 1. A habitat assessment (e.g., visual inspection of trees for sign or evidence of bats) for roosting bats should be conducted prior to any demolition or tree removal. The explicit purpose of these surveys is to identify potentially suitable roosting habitat in the trees and outbuilding onsite. For example, not all trees or structures support potential roosting habitat, and many of these features can be excluded from further consideration by a thorough habitat assessment by a qualified biologist. In addition, a qualified biologist can also employ a lift to visually inspect potential tree cavities to more definitively determine if roosting bats are present. Mitigation 2. For any trees and/or the single outbuilding that are found not to be suitable roosting habitat or for any tree or outbuilding definitively determined that roosting bats are absent, may be removed with no further action. Mitigation 3. For any trees and/or the single outbuilding that are found to be potentially suitable for roosting bats, different measures are required depending on the season they are to be removed. a. From March 1 - April 15 and August 15 - October 15 a two-step removal process should be in place under the direction of a qualified biologist. b. From October 16 - February 28 the two-step removal process should not occur so as to avoid take of overwintering bats. c. From April 15 - August 14, the two-step removal should not occur if a maternity colony is detected or suspected. At this time, nighttime emergence surveys can be conducted to determine if bats are using these trees or the outbuilding. i. If nighttime emergence surveys determine that the tree(s) or outbuilding do not support roosting bats, these can be removed within 2 days of the survey. ii. If on the other hand, nighttime emergence surveys determine that the Page 6 of 45 tree(s) or outbuilding do support a maternity colony, then tree removal or demolition would have to wait until August 15 or until a qualified biologist has determined the maternity colony is no longer present. iii. If nighttime emergence surveys determine that the tree(s) or outbuilding does support roosting bats but does not support a maternity colony, a two- step removal process may commence under the direction of a qualified biologist. 21. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-5: Protection of California Red - legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow -legged Frogs: In order to avoid impacts to California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs during project implementation, the following measures shall be implemented: a. Construction activities shall be timed to occur outside of the wet season (i.e., April 15- October 15) when California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs are less likely to venture into uplands; this is the optimal season for avoiding conflict with these species. b. No work shall occur during or within 24 hours following a rain event exceeding 0.2- inch as measured by the NOAA National Weather Service. c. Prior to the start of construction, wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed along Ross Creek and the associated riparian corridor (i.e., areas where California red - legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs could enter the project site). The location of the fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist prior to the start of staging or surface disturbing activities. The fencing specifications including installation and maintenance criteria shall be provided in the bid solicitation package special provisions. The fencing shall remain in place throughout the duration of the project and shall be regularly inspected and fully maintained. Upon project completion, the fencing shall be completely removed, the area cleaned of debris and trash, and returned to original condition or better. d. To prevent California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs from becoming entangled, trapped or injured, erosion control materials that use plastic or synthetic mono -filament netting, photodegradable or biodegradable synthetic netting (which can take several months to decompose) or small aperture matrix (i.e., less than 2 inches x 2 inches) shall not be used within the study area. e. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist immediately prior (i.e., on the same morning as work occurs) to the initiation of initial site clearing activities that may result in take of California red- legged frogs and foothill Page 7 of 45 yellow -legged frogs. All upland habitat including refugia such as dense vegetation, small woody debris, refuse, burrows, etc., shall be thoroughly inspected. If a California red -legged frog is observed, the qualified biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine if capturing and relocating the individual(s) is necessary and authorized. If handling of California red -legged frogs is necessary, the qualified biologist shall be in possession of a 10(a)(1)(A) Recover Permit and valid Scientific Collecting Permit. The qualified biologist shall take precautions to prevent introduction of amphibian diseases in accordance with the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red -legged Frog (USFWS, 2005). f. A qualified biologist shall be on -site during all construction activities that may result in take of California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs, specifically, work in or adjacent to Ross Creek. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work to avoid take of either species. The qualified biologist shall conduct clearance surveys at the beginning of each day and regularly throughout the workday when construction activities are occurring that may result in take of California red -legged frogs and foothill yellow -legged frogs. g. A Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted for all construction crews and contractors. The education training shall be conducted prior to the commencement of ground -clearing or grading and upon the arrival of any new worker. The training shall include a brief review of locations of sensitive areas, avoidance measures, and corrective actions in the event sensitive species are encountered. The program shall cover the mitigation measures, environmental permits and regulatory compliance requirements. Additional training shall be conducted as needed, including morning "tailgate" sessions to update crews as they advance into sensitive areas for projects with multiple work areas. In addition, a record of all personnel trained during the project shall be maintained for compliance verification. h. All slopes or unpaved areas affected by the proposed project shall be re -seeded with native grasses and shrubs to stabilize the slopes and bare ground against erosion. Following construction, native (and non-native if appropriate) plant species shall be installed at the disturbed area. 22. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-7a: Conformance with Applicable Federal and State Regulations: In order to conform to federal and State law and to offset significant adverse impacts on waters of the U.S. and waters of the State, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. Page 8 of 45 a. Prior to initiation of project construction, the project applicant shall secure a verified jurisdictional determination from the USACE. b. For impacts to federally regulated waters of the U.S. that cannot be avoided, the applicant shall apply for and receive authorization pursuant to CWA. The project applicant shall comply with all permit conditions, as specified by the USACE. Mitigation ultimately required by the USACE could include on -site habitat creation, off -site habitat creation, purchase of credits from an approved habitat mitigation bank, and/or payment of in -lieu fees to an approved conservation organization for wetland habitat enhancement of preservation activities. c. For impacts to waters of the State or other State -regulated habitats that cannot be avoided, the applicant shall apply for and receive authorization pursuant to CFGC Section 1602 and Porter -Cologne, as applicable. Section 1602 applies to impacts to the ephemeral swale that drains into Ross Creek, while Porter -Cologne would apply to impacts to waters of the State that are not also waters of the US subject to regulation by USACE under the Clean Water Act. The project applicant shall comply with all permit conditions (including monitoring of any restoration plantings for long-term survivorship), as specified by the CDFW and RWQCB. Mitigation ultimately required by the CDFW/RWQCB could include on -site habitat creation, off - site habitat creation, purchase of credits from an approved habitat mitigation bank, and/or payment of in -lieu fees to an approved conservation organization for wetland habitat enhancement of preservation activities. 23. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-7b: Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation: The project applicant shall implement avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures to reduce impacts on jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats to a less than significant level. Avoidance. The preferred method of mitigation would be avoidance of all waters of the U.S. and State by designing the project so that it avoids the placement of fill within potential jurisdictional waters and impacts on riparian habitat. The proposed project has been designed to avoid all but approximately 5,400 square feet, totaling 0.12 acres, of ephemeral stream and associated riparian vegetation. Riparian woodland habitat associated with higher order stream on the site, Ross Creek, have been avoided. Minimization. Because full avoidance is not possible, actions shall be taken to minimize impacts on the ephemeral stream area. Measures taken during construction activities shall include placing construction fencing around the aquatic features or riparian areas to be preserved to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact these Page 9 of 45 areas. Mitigation. Because impacts to the ephemeral drainages at the site cannot be avoided, a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed to mitigate for impacts on these features. The applicant can use one or a combination of the following options to satisfy the mitigation requirements to provide replacement of riparian and aquatic habitat at a replacement -to -loss ratio of up to 2:1 for permanent acreage impacts (up to two acres created for each acre permanently impacted). Option 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a letter from a qualified mitigation bank showing that the appropriate mitigation credits for wetland habitat have been purchased at a replacement -to -loss ratio of 2:1. The mitigation bank must be a habitat mitigation bank approved by the appropriate federal and State regulatory agencies. Additionally, the habitat mitigation bank must be within the same watershed (or other hydrological connection, to the satisfaction of the resource agencies listed in Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a above) of which Ross Creek is located. Option 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a mitigation plan that results in the creation of new habitat as replacement for habitat lost or enhance the quality of existing habitat for native plants and wildlife. Mitigation measures shall include replacement of riparian and aquatic habitat at a replacement -to - loss ratio of up to 2:1 for permanent acreage impacts (up to two acres created for each acre permanently impacted) as well as reseeding or replanting of vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas according to a site -specific mitigation plan. At a minimum, this plan shall identify mitigation areas, a planting plan, site maintenance activities, success criteria, and remedial measures to compensate for lack of success. The mitigation goal shall be to create and enhance riparian or aquatic habitats with habitat functions and values greater than or equal to those existing in the impact zone. This could include enhancing the ephemeral drainages to increase their wetland and riparian value, which would benefit native wildlife in the region. A detailed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including specific success criteria, shall be developed and submitted to permitting agencies during the permit process. The mitigation area shall be monitored in accordance with the plan approved by the permitting agencies. The basic components of the The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum: • Define the location of all restoration/creation activities; Page 10 of 45 • Provide evidence of suitable water availability (e.g., from precipitation and surface runoff) to support any created wetland and riparian habitats; • Identify the species, amount and location of plants to be installed; • Identify time of year for planting and method for supplemental watering during the establishment period; • Identify the monitoring period which should be not less than five years for wetland restoration and not less than five years for riparian restoration, defines success criteria that shall be required for the wetland restoration to be deemed a success; • Identify adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include (but not limited to) measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed wetland plants by native wildlife; etc.; • Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasive, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and, • Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created wetland and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity. 24. Option 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan, the applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a wetland restoration plan that results in the daylighting of a portion of Ross Creek on the project site. Currently a portion of Ross Creek is conveyed through an underground culvert on the project site. The project applicant, with the concurrence of the resource agencies (listed in Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a above) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District proposed, shall remove the culvert (daylight) from a portion of Ross Creek on the project site. The restoration plan shall include replacement of riparian and aquatic habitat at a replacement -to -loss ratio of up to 2:1 for permanent acreage impacts. The wetland restoration plan shall include a hydrological report, prepared by a qualified civil engineer to demonstrate that the restored creek has been designed such that it is compatible with the upstream point of connection, the design is appropriate for the specific stretch of Ross Creek, and that it has been designed to accommodate the appropriate flood conditions. The restoration plan shall also include a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A detailed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including specific success criteria, shall be developed and submitted to permitting agencies during the permit process. The mitigation area shall be monitored in accordance with the plan approved by the permitting agencies. The basic components of the monitoring plan consist of final Page 11 of 45 success criteria, performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, as -built plans, monitoring schedule, contingency/remedial measures, and reporting requirements. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum: • Define the location of all restoration/creation activities; • Provide evidence of suitable water availability (e.g., from precipitation and surface runoff) to support any created wetland and riparian habitats; • Identify the species, amount and location of plants to be installed; • Identify time of year for planting and method for supplemental watering during the establishment period; • Identify the monitoring period which should be not less than five years for wetland restoration and not less than five years for riparian restoration, defines success criteria that shall be required for the wetland restoration to be deemed a success; • Identify adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include (but not limited to) measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, excessive foraging of installed wetland plants by native wildlife; etc.; • Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasive, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and, • Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created wetland and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity. 25. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-8: Creek and Swale Protection: Mitigation for the placement of fill into the ephemeral swale is outlined in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7, above. Construction in and adjacent to Ross Creek and the ephemeral swale requires conformance to the Town's adopted sections of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. In order to conform to these guidelines, the following measures shall be implemented: a. Protection of the riparian zone shall be assured by establishment of an appropriate riparian corridor buffer: • Based on site conditions, channel geomorphology, slope, size of watershed, and type of habitat, a minimum riparian setback of 25 feet from the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater, would provide for an appropriate protection of the habitat values and water quality associated with Ross Creek. • Based on site conditions, channel geomorphology, slope, size of watershed, and type of habitat, a minimum riparian setback of 10 feet from the top of bank of Page 12 of 45 the incised portion of the ephemeral swale and outer oak canopy edge would provide for an appropriate protection of the habitat values and water quality. It is recognized that the placement of fill into the ephemeral swale is necessary to construct Streets A and B. At these locations, there is no habitat meeting the definitions of "riparian vegetation" or "stream/channel/creek"2 as provided in the Guidelines. As such, this portion of the proposed project is not in conflict with the Guidelines. Mitigation for these impacts is specified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7. b. Grading and culvert construction to accommodate the construction of Street B would result in impacts on the portions of the ephemeral swale that are incised and situated directly beneath the canopy of mature oak woodland. Such grading and construction at this location would not necessarily conflict with the Guidelines,3 but would be subject to review and permitting requirements by the regulatory agencies. Mitigation for these impacts is specified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-7. c. A 10-foot wide protective easement shall be recorded over the length of the preserved swale across Lot 9. No grading, filling, or trenching shall be permitted within this easement. d. Orange construction fencing or a similar visual barrier shall be installed to prevent accidental grading or movement of equipment beyond what is specified on the grading plans and approved under the grading permit. e. Construction activities shall conform to the Town of Los Gatos' Tree Protection Ordinance, as required in Mitigation Measure 4.3-10, Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. 26. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-9: Riparian Encroachment Offsets: In order to offset potentially significant effects of encroachments into the recommended 10-foot riparian setback, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. The Town shall allow an exception to the Guidelines to permit construction of Streets A and B. b. The hydrologic connection between the ephemeral swale and upstream watershed and Ross Creek shall be maintained by the installation of appropriately sized culverts beneath Street A and Street B, and between Lots #3 and 4. c. Protective measures as recommended by the Town's arborist and required by Town Ordinance shall be implemented to preserve the health of oak trees located on Lot 9 and they include the following: Page 13 of 45 Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees During Construction a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: 1) Size and materials: A five (5) or 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 10-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 I: 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.4 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 be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-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 begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. 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 8.5 x 11- 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". b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions: 1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, 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 or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the director. 3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. Page 14 of 45 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. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved. 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." d. Native trees and shrubs shall be planted in existing non-native grassland on Lots 3 and 9 to enhance the vegetative cover within the 10-foot setback. 27. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-10: Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: To compensate for the loss of protected trees, a Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, peer reviewed by an arborist selected by the Town, and implemented by the applicant. As noted above, mitigation will be based on the tree replacement ratios outlined in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance (see Table 4.3-3). The planting of approximately 178 24-inch box size, 93 36-inch box size, and 8 48-inch box size replacement trees (or equivalent as specified by the Town's arborist) would compensate for the loss of approximately 70 trees. The following minimum standards shall be incorporated in the Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: a. The primary replacement species to be planted is valley oak; blue oaks may also be planted among the existing blue oak stand at the southern boundary of Lot B. The planting stock shall be from locally collected material, and planting shall be conducted from November to January. b. Minimum container size of the replacement trees shall be 24 inches. Trees shall be staked and provided with appropriate predator and weed control devices, such as anti -browse cages and weed mats. c. To ensure successful establishment of all container plantings, a temporary drip irrigation system shall be installed, utilizing emitters, as determined by Town staff. Overhead irrigation shall not be used, as it fosters dense growth of undesirable weed species, may lead to erosion, and is not an efficient use of water. Irrigation will be supplied for up to three years, with the possibility of extending irrigation for another two years or as deemed necessary by the consulting restoration ecologist approved by the Town. The objective, however, is to turn off irrigation at the end of Page 15 of 45 the third growing season. d. Site maintenance shall be conducted regularly for the first three years after initial planting, including weed control, irrigation system maintenance, and foliage protector maintenance. e. Invasive exotic species that could threaten the successful establishment of the replacement plantings, as determined by the consulting restoration ecologist (approved by the Town), shall be removed at least once annually for a five-year period. f. The success of the Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be monitored by a qualified restoration ecologist (approved by the Town) for a period not less than five years after initial installation. Elements such as plant survival, percent cover, tree height and basal area, plant vigor / health, and natural recruitment / reproduction shall be evaluated during the annual monitoring of the replanted sites. The following criteria for monitoring the replanted trees shall be employed: i. Tree Survival. Replacement trees shall exhibit an 80% survival rate at the end of the five-year monitoring period, after two consecutive growing seasons without supplemental irrigation. Dead trees shall be replaced the following winter after each mortality is noted. If the survival drops below the 80% survival threshold, the monitoring period shall be extended another five years from the date of replanting. Survivorship following the two years without supplemental irrigation is intended to demonstrate a good indication as to whether plant roots are sufficiently developed to support the plants under natural conditions. ii. Vegetative Growth. The mean tree stem diameter, plant height and canopy spread shall show a consistent annual increase. By year five, the mean value for each of these parameters shall have increased by no less than 100%. iii. Plant Vigor / Health. The overall plant vigor and health of the installed trees shall be monitored. Taken into consideration in the qualitative observation of vigor and health would be the factors of plant color, bud development, new growth, herbivory, drought stress, fungal/insect infestation, and physical damage. If a plant's foliage is abnormally sparse, then the health/vigor rating shall be lowered accordingly, even if the foliage present is healthy. Overall health and vigor shall be rated according to the following scale: Scale Rating Description 1 Excellent Healthy plant with vigorous growth, no necrotic or chlorotic leaves; no other signs of damage. 2 Good Plant appears healthy, but with limited signs of vigorous growth. Page 16 of 45 3 Adequate Plant healthy but with no signs of vigorous growth; some necrosis or damage may be present. 4 Poor Low vitality, but plant with at least some signs of life; plant severely damaged, weak or stressed, or main stem dead. 5 Dead No evidence of live tissue. 28. SOILS AND GEOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4-3: Topsoil Salvage: The Town shall require the project applicant and future lot owners to ensure that topsoil, if present, is salvaged during grading. The topsoil shall be stockpiled separately from subsoils, and the stockpiles shall be protected from erosion (e.g., by covering or watering). Once construction is completed, the stockpiled topsoil shall be reused for site restoration in open or garden areas. Excess soil may be used in approved open space or landscape areas, if approved by the landscape architect. 29. SOILS AND GEOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4-4a: Debris Flow Protection: The project applicant shall require construction of improvements to protect Lots 8 and 9 from damage due to a debris flow from the head of the drainage swale located to the southeast portion of the project site in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and any associated updates or revisions. Such improvements may include a catchment basin constructed across the swale or construction of deflection walls or berms to protect Lots 8 and 9 from debris flows. When Lots 8 and 9 are proposed for development, the geotechnical engineer shall review future home designs on these lots to select the appropriate method of protection. 30. SOILS AND GEOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4-4b: Geotechnical Report Recommendations: The project applicant and future lot owners shall implement all of the recommendations of the project geotechnical report, and any associated updates or revisions, related to site preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining walls, and drainage improvements. To ensure correct implementation, the geotechnical engineer shall review project plans and observe geotechnically relevant aspects of proposed initial construction of roads and infrastructure. When future homes are proposed on project lots, a site -specific geotechnical investigation shall be conducted if deemed necessary by the Town Engineer and project geotechnical engineer and the recommendations of that report shall be implemented. 31. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.5-1b: C.3 Compliance: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure compliance with the C.3 requirements and reduce project -related water quality impacts to less than significant: a. The project applicant shall obtain coverage under the Municipal Regional Page 17 of 45 Stormwater Permit pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No, R2-2009-0074. As part of the grading and improvement application for the project, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the Engineering Division of the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department: i. A site plan showing the locations of stormwater treatment and flow control measures. All stormwater treatment and flow control measures shall be designed to allow appropriate equipment access for maintenance. ii. A detailed maintenance plan for stormwater treatment and flow -control measures, including inspection checklists as appropriate. iii. An Operations and Maintenance report form shall be attached to maintenance agreements that are transferred to future owners or operators of the project site or portions thereof. The project applicant shall also provide a signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance of stormwater control facilities until this responsibility is legally transferred. This statement shall also ensure site access by Town of Los Gatos, Water Quality Control Board, West Valley Clean Water Program for inspection purposes. b. Proper operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association (HOA) in perpetuity. The applicant shall prepare and submit, for the Town's review, an acceptable Stormwater Control Operations and Maintenance Plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits and shall execute a Stormwater Management Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the Town before sale, transfer, or permanent occupancy of the site. The applicant shall accept the responsibility for maintenance of stormwater management facilities until such responsibility is transferred to another entity. The Stormwater Management Operations and Maintenance Plan shall include treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). 32. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURE 4.7-1: Administrative and Source Controls: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department that the project complies with the following: a. Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction activities (including operation of haul and delivery trucks) shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Page 18 of 45 b. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.20.035(2) the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department, that construction noise shall not exceed 85 dBA outside of the property line. This shall be accomplished by using the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment (including mufflers) should be in good mechanical condition and properly maintained so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive -train, and other components. If necessary to achieve compliance with the Town's Noise Ordinance, one or more of the additional noise control measures below shall also be used: • Temporary berms or noise barriers, such as lumber or other material stockpiles and construction trailers, shall be utilized where necessary to meet the Ordinance noise limit. • Stationary equipment, such as compressor and generators shall be housed in acoustical enclosures and placed as far from sensitive receptors as feasible. "Quiet" or "sound suppressed" equipment shall be utilized where the technology exists. • Use wheeled earth moving equipment rather than track equipment. • Provide a "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" with a phone number and email address so that the nearby residents have a contact person is case of a noise problem. • Keep vehicles routes clean and smooth both on -site and off -site to minimize noise and vibration from vehicles rolling over rough surfaces. • Nail guns should be used where possible as they are less noisy than manual hammering. 33. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.8-2: BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures: Prior to issuance of any Grading or Demolition Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction measures be implemented as specified in the BAAQMD Guidelines during all project construction (including individual lot development): 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 Page 19 of 45 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 two minutes. 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. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 34. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MITGATION MEASURE 4.10-1: Implement Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste: The project applicant, working with the Town of Los Gatos and County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, shall implement a Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste, developing materials to educate buyers about the identification of household hazardous wastes, environmental hazards associated with mishandling of the wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. Such materials shall explain that improper disposal of such materials is against the law. At a minimum, the materials shall provide a list of example household hazardous wastes, discuss the environmental impacts of improper disposal, explain how to make an appointment for disposal, and list safer and less toxic alternatives to hazardous products commonly used. The educational materials shall be provided to the buyer at the time of purchase. 35. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITGATION MEASURE 4.11-1: Observation by Construction Personnel: The project shall include the following conditions: a. Construction personnel involved with earthmoving shall be alerted to the potential for the discovery of prehistoric materials. Prehistoric archaeological resources could include but not be limited to the following: darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature, concentrations of rock, bone or fresh water shellfish, artifacts of these Page 20 of 45 materials, and evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered earth or rock) and burials, both human and animal. b. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 30-foot radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and determine whether the archaeological traces qualify as either "historical resources" or "unique archaeological resources." c. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological find is neither an historical resource nor a unique archaeological resource, work may resume unless the find consists of human remains, in which case the requirements of subdivision (e) below shall be triggered. d. If the archaeologist determines, and the Community Development Director agrees, that the find is either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist shall prepare a proposed mitigation program that he or she believes could be feasible and appropriate under the circumstances, and shall submit it to the Community Development Director for his or her consideration and approval. Where the find qualifies as a unique archaeological resource but not an historical resource, the mitigation shall be in conformance with the protocol and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Where the find qualifies as an historical resource, such limitations shall not apply. To the extent feasible in light of project design, logistics, and costs, proposed mitigation for either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource shall reflect the policy preference for preserving the resources in place. Data recovery may be acceptable, however, where such preservation in place is not feasible under the circumstances and where the data to be recovered would be scientifically consequential. Mitigation may also take the form of additional hand excavation to retrieve and analyze significant archaeological materials, coupled with additional monitoring of earthmoving inside the zone of archaeological sensitivity. After the mitigation approved by the Community Development Director has been completed, the project archaeologist shall prepare a final report that includes 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. e. 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 Page 21 of 45 Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, he or she will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). 36. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITGATION MEASURE 4.11-2: Halt Construction and Evaluate Resource: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant or its successor(s) in interest shall provide for a qualified paleontologist to provide construction personnel with training on procedures to be followed in the event that a fossil site or fossil occurrence is encountered during construction. The training shall include instructions on identification techniques and how to further avoid disturbing the fossils until a paleontological specialist can assess the site. An informational package shall be provided for construction personnel not present at the meeting. In the event that a paleontological resource (fossilized invertebrate, vertebrate, plant or micro -fossil) is found during construction, excavation within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is evaluated. Upon discovery, the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to document and assess the discovery in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, and recommend procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Community Development Director determines that avoidance is not feasible in light of project design, logistics, and costs, the paleontologist will prepare a recommended excavation plan, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, for mitigating the project's impact on this resource, including preparation, identification, cataloging, and curation of any salvaged specimens. Building Division 37. PERMITS REQUIRED: A separate Building Permit shall be required for each new single- family residence and each detached structure including retaining walls. 38. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2017, are the 2016 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12. 39. 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 Page 22 of 45 prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 40. SIZE OF PLANS: Submit four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36", maximum size 30" x 42". 41. STREET NAMES, HOUSE & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new street names and house numbers/suite numbers to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 42. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the 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. 43. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations. 44. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations 45. 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 Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 46. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wood backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, 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 if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inch doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36 inch wide door including a 5'x 5' level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18 inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. Page 23 of 45 47. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue -lined (sticky -backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 48. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 49. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance or gas appliance per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of chimneys. 50. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies. 51. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and new buildings must comply with Section R337 of the California Residential Code regarding materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. 52. 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. 53. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 54. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 55. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development — Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 56. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Page 24 of 45 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 mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction 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 by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner, Applicant and/or 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 issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's expense. 57. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval 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. 58. 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 Owner/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 (Caltrans). 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 permit. 59. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed private improvements within the Town's right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk -Recorder, prior to the issuance of any permits. 60. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements encroaching into the Town's right-of-way. 61. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their Page 25 of 45 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 penalties and rejection of work that went on without inspection. 62. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., 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 Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 63. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any permits or recordation of the Final Map. 67. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as -built" plans. 68. PARKING: Any proposed parking restriction must be approved by The Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department. Page 26 of 45 69. GATE: New gate(s) providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38 foot turning radius shall be used. Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated, a minimum of 24 feet in width, with a setback of 35 feet from face of curb/flow line. Gate access shall be equipped with a rapid entry system. Plans shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic/manual gate pins shall be rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot pounds. Automatic gates shall be equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 70. 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. Additionally, any post -project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant. 71. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). 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(s), 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). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant/Developer's soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 72. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town's Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required grading permit fees associated with an application for grading proposed will be charged accordingly. Page 27 of 45 73. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not commence until after the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15-April 15), has ended. 74. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section III of the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All development shall be in compliance with Section II of the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 75. DRIVEWAYS: The driveways shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 76. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit. 77. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: a drainage study of the project including diversions, off -site areas that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification of any diversions; a drainage study evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing storm drain facilities; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems (including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding) will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. 78. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map (except maps for financing and conveyance purposes only) or prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 79. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 80. 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 Page 28 of 45 the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 81. PAD CERTIFICATION: A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. 82. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre -construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub -contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on -site at all times during construction. 83. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. SUBDIVISIONS/MAPS: 84. GENERAL: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall comply with all Town, County, State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to this land division. No other proposed development is included in this particular application of the Certificate of Compliance. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance will acknowledge the Town's acceptance of the parcel as legally created in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Any subsequent development will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Town Development Standards and Codes. 85. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: A Certificate of compliance shall be recorded. Two (2) copies of the legal description for each lot configuration, a plat map (8-Y2 in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than ninety (90) days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall Page 29 of 45 be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits. 86. FINAL MAP: A final map shall be recorded. Two (2) copies of the final map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide the Engineering Division with an electronic copy (in PDF format) and two hardcopies of the signed recorded map along with a CAD drawing of the Parcel Map after it is recorded. 87. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision or tract maps with respect to the subject property or properties or immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation. 88. PRIVATE UTILITIES —STREET: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map the Applicant/Subdivider shall place a note on the map, in a manner that meets the approval of the Town Engineer that states: "The private streets, utilities constructed within this map shall be owned, operated and maintained by the Developer, successors or assigns." 89. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the final map by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued: a. Public Service Easement, ingress -egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required. b. Trail Easement: Fifteen (15) feet wide, as shown on the site map. c. Emergency Access Easement: Twenty (20) feet wide, from the end of Brooke Acres Dr to Private Street A . GEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGY: 90. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 91. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: 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 surface fault rupture on the site. The Page 30 of 45 geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, 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. 92. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design -level geotechnical and 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, retaining walls, 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 submitting a Plan Review Letter prior to issuance of building permit(s). 93. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer'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 permit is granted. 94. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Subdivision at the dodge Family Subdivision by GeoForensics, Inc, dated December 2010, 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 Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. 95. SUPPLEMENTAL GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES: Supplemental geologic and geotechnical engineering studies shall be performed in support of the design of the infrastructure and the residences, and the reports and plans shall be submitted to the Town for review. IMPROVEMENT PLANS: 96. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to issuance of any permit. The Applicant shall provide two (2) Page 31 of 45 copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permit. 97. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 98. WATER DESIGN: In the event of any required improvements to the existing water service and/or meter, water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 99. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Private street, curb, gutter, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, as required. 100. UTILITIES: The Owner, Applicant and/or 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. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer 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. 101. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation. The Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation. Page 32 of 45 102. UTILITY EASEMENTS: Deed restrictions shall be placed on lots containing utility easements. The deed restrictions shall specify that no trees, fences, structures or hardscape are allowed within the easement boundaries, and that maintenance access must be provided. The Town will prepare the deed language and the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's surveyor shall prepare the legal description and plat. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall pay any recordation costs. 103. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany any proposed private easement. Access driveway shall be within the recorded access easement. A new private access easement shall be recorded, and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to issuance of building permit or realigned access driveway shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permit. 104. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 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. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 105. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 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. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Page 33 of 45 106. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within two hundred (200) feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080. 107. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030. 108. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor's property will need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: 109. USE OF EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENTS: Submittal of recorded documentation of the existing Private Access Easements shall be required to confirm if said easements may be utilized by the development as a means of access. The determination must be finalized prior to the issuance of any permits. 110. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the issuance of a/any building/grading permit(s), the Owner/Applicant/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 amount based on the current resolution is $930/new average daily trip generated. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a/any building/grading permit(s). 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. 111. PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the project applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent of existing pavement defects using a 35-mm, smartphone video (in Landscape orientation only) or digital video camera. The survey shall extend Twin Oaks Dr, Longmeadow Dr, Brook Acres Dr, Cerro Vista Ct, and Cerro Vista Dr. In addition, a pavement deflection analysis conforming to the same limits as the photographic survey shall be performed to determine pavement strength. The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review. Page 34 of 45 112. POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: The project applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey and pavement deflection analysis to determine whether road damage occurred as a result of project construction and whether there were changes in pavement strength. Rehabilitation improvements required to restore the pavement to pre -construction condition and strength shall be determined using State of California procedures for deflection analysis. The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review and approval before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Applicant shall be responsible for completing any required road repairs prior to release of the faithful performance bond. 113. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right- of-way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the Town. 114. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and approved prior to any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. 115. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to beginning of any work. 116. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off -site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department 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 of the project site. This may include, Page 35 of 45 but is not limited to provisions for the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer 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. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 117. 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 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case -by -case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 118. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 119. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer to the Town's Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information. 120. SHARED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Owner/Applicant/Developer shall record a shared Maintenance Agreement at the time of recordation of the parcel subdivision map. The shared Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Town prior to recordation of the parcel map. The owners of the ten (10) properties shall be responsible for the maintenance of all private utilities, wildland fire and buffer areas, storm water treatment facilities and other common areas/facilities within the proposed subdivision. The owners of the ten (10) properties shall be responsible for keeping the private roadway(s) signed, marked, free and clear for fire Page 36 of 45 department access. 121. SHARED PRIVATE STREET: The private street 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 shall be provided at least one week in advance of closure. OTHER PERMITS: 122. FISH AND GAME REQUIREMENTS: A "1603" permit shall be obtained for the California Department of Fish and Game for proposed improvements in or near riparian areas within their jurisdiction. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the Parks and Public Works Department before any permits are issued/final or prior to the recordation of any maps. 123. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (SCVWD): Prior to start of any work along or within Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) right-of-way/easement, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall submit construction plans to SCVWD for review and approval and obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed work. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to Grading Permit issuance. 124. JARPA: (The Bay Area Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application). The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall apply for a permit through JARPA for any proposed drainage system within the creek setback. This permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any permits. 125. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used. A Sanitary Sewer Clean -out is required for each property at the property line, within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town. 126. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims Tess than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as Page 37 of 45 defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 127. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs one (1) acre or more which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than one (1) acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request. 128. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 129. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their design consultant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements. 130. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. Page 38 of 45 c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 131. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater, or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay. Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to: discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning or vehicle cleaning. 132. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook. 133. SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES: Site design and source control measures shall be shown on plan sheets. 134. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (N01) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one (1) acre. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by Page 39 of 45 the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed forty-eight (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on -site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 135. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust 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 disturbed 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 (3) 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 shall 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 (1) 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 twenty-five (25) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 136. DUST CONTROL: The following measures shall be implemented at construction sites greater than four (4) acres in area: a. Hydroseed or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). b. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non -toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Page 40 of 45 c. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to fifteen (15) miles per hour. d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 137. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble -ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation. 138. 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. 139. WATER FEATURES: New swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and/or fountains shall have a connection to the sanitary sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District's authority and standards, to facilitate draining events. Discharges from this/these feature(s) shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system. 140. 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 a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 141. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMPs together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by Page 41 of 45 a professional pre -qualified by the Town. In the event that the storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 142. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the storm water management plan: "The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP. Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Los Gatos a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement." 143. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here: 144. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL. 145. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner/homeowner's association shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by the Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner/homeowner's association and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 146. MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE STREETS: It is the responsibility of the property owner(s)/homeowners association to implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets. 147. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner 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. Page 42 of 45 148. 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 Owner, Applicant and/or 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 penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. GENERAL: 149. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 150. FUTURE STUDIES: Any post -project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant. 151. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW: Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall be provided prior to the recordation of the final map. 152. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall submit a seventy-five (75) percent progress printing to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention devices, fire department connections, gas and water meters, off-street valve boxes, hydrants, site lighting, electrical/communication/cable boxes, transformers, and mail boxes. Above ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any permit. 153. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the final map. A copy of the recorded agreement(s) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permit. 154. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING: Public street lighting will not be required/allowed per General Plan update and Hillside designation. On -lot lighting shall be incorporated and promoted. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 155. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROAD REQUIRED: Provide access roadways with a Page 43 of 45 paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. For installation guide lines refer to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. 156. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. CVC Sec. 503. 157. TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS: Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. CFC Sec. 501. 158. FIRE HYDRANT(S) AVAILABLE: The number of fire hydrants available to a complex or subdivision shall not be less than that determined by spacing requirements listed in CFC Table C105.1 when applied to fire apparatus access roads and perimeter public streets from which fire operations could be conducted. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in table C105. Hydrants shall be a maximum of 500 feet from each other, as measured along the curb line. Fire protection water supplies shall be subject to approval by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and shall comply with locally adopted Standards and CFC Sec. 507. 159. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s)shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. CFC Sec. 501. Page 44 of 45 SECTION VII This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS\2018\Twin Oaks_Surrey Farm Estates.doc Page 45 of 45 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Application No. PD-10-006 A.P.N. # 532-16-006 Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance. ® Zone Change From: RC To: HR-1:PD ❑ Prezoning Forwarded by Planning Commission Approved by Town Council Clerk Administrator: Date: Date: Mayor: Ord: EXHIBIT A Surrey Farm Estates PHOTO ILLUSTRATION (PROPOSES SITE) NOT TO SCALE rctht ont Or 228 0 ieadow Or 0 Longmeadow Dr +•74 + � 0 0 15 0 • 0 0 413 Cerra VINCINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE S rr y Farm E st to s II -Oafs-- rive: AT-N-532-16-006 Los -Gtos ; C Project 2923 Revised 8-16-2f-1 6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Los Gatos, California SHEET INDEX CS COVER SHEET A-0 A-1 A-1A A-2 A-3 A-3A A-4 A-4A A-5 A-5A A-6 L1.0 L1.1 L1.2 L1.3 L1.4 L1.5 L2.0 L2.1 EXISTING SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUB -DIVISION SITE PLAN ALTERNATE SUB -DIVISION SITE PLAN VIEWING PLATFORM, SITE PROFILES SITE SECTIONS ALTERNATE SITE SECTIONS PROPOSED PHOTO ILLUSTRATION ALTERNATE PHOTO ILLUSTRATION TREE DISPOSITION TABLES PROPOSED SITE TREE COMPARISON TABLE & LETTER ALTERNATE PHOTO ILLUSTRATION, LANDSCAPE PROPOSED LANbSCAPE PLANTING PLAN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN PROPOSED OVERALL SITE LANbSCAPE ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN ALTERNATE OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE HYDROZONE PLAN ALTERNATE HIDROZONE PLAN CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS C-1 TENTATIVE TRAC MAP C-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C-3 STREET "A" PLAN AND PROFILE C-4 STREET "B" PLAN AND PROFILE C-5 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C-6 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL & HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGMENT PLAN C-7 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL DETAIL & NOTES C-8 ALTERNATE SITE PLAN C-9 ALTERNATE SITE PLAN DETAIL • COVER SHEET • GENERAL DATA SCOPE OF WORK: GENERAL PLAN Amm. Agg-HR & ZONE CHANGE RC TO HR-1:PD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, 10 LOTS & 1 OPEN SPACE WITH NEW PRIVATE STREETS Project Info Owner: Address: SURREY FARM ESTATES, LLC TWIN OAKS DR. LOS GATOS CA Owner Address: 851 MCGLINCY LANE CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: General Plan: Existing Lot Area: Average Slope: PROPOSED SITE AREA TABLE: LOT 1 0.98 AC. 42,648 5.F. 5.58% LOT 2 0.98 AC. 42,776 5.F. 5.58% LOT 3 0.96 AC. 41,810 5.F. 5.45% LOT 4 0.94 AC. 40,912 5.F. 5.36% LOT 5 1.03 AC. 44,698 5.F. 5.87% LOT 6 2.00 AC. 87,022 5.F. 11.39% LOT 7 2.37 AC. 103,258 5.F. 13.65% LOT 8 1.21 AC. 52,598 5.F. 6.89% LOT 9 1.20 AC. 52,217 5.F. 6.80% LOT 10 1.08 AC. 47,017 5.F. 6.13% OPEN SPACE 3.62 AC. 157,611 5.F. 20.53% PRIVATE STREET 1.183 AC. 55,041 5.F. 6.77% TOTAL AREA 17.553 AC. 767,608 S.F. 100% CIVIL ENGINEER Civil Engineering Utililty Design Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com 532-16-006 RC HR-1:PD Agg 17.553 AC. 23.92% ALTERNATE SITE AREA USE TABLE: LOT 1 0.98 AC. 42,648 5.F. 5.58% LOT 2 0.98 AC. 42,776 5.F. 5.58% LOT 3 0.96 AC. 41,810 5.F. 5.45% LOT 4 0.94 AC. 40,912 5.F. 5.36% LOT 5 1.15 AC. 50,016 5.F. 6.55% LOT 6 1.85 AC. 80,381 5.F. 10.53% LOT 7 2.35 AC. 102,524 5.F. 13.35% LOT 8 1.24 AC. 53,845 5.F. 7.06% LOT 9 1.30 AC 56,764 5.F. 7.39% LOT 10 1.26 AC. 54,886 5.F. 7.15% OPEN SPACE 3.60 AC. 156,991 5.F. 20.45% PRIVATE STREET 0.933 AC. 44,055 5.F. 5.55% TOTAL AREA 17.553 AC. 767,608 S.F. 100% DESIGNER Paragon Design Group, Inc. Rodger W. Griffin, FAIBD 409 Alberto Way, Suite #1 Los Gatos, CA. 95032 408.358.3707 � DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 16165 Monterey Road Suite 103 Mcrgan Ph Hill, 669 888 CA 3707 95037 office ondgi.om com Olt G� www.paragondgi.com .parag LANDSCAPING REED ASSOCIATES. Paul Reed 477 5. Taffe Ave. Sunnyvale, CA. 94086 408.481.9020 C 5 EXHIBIT B N 0 0 R-1:10 R-1:12 �40N LONGMEADOW DfIVE R-1:10 GO X N1,600 R-1:10 Nei TW S u ire R-1:12 X TREES TO BE REMOVED BY ROADS (BETWEEN CURBS): 1, 13, 27, 29, 62, 63, 65, 109, 110, 332, 336, 342, 363, & 571 X LIST OF TREES TO BE REMOVED BY CONCEPTUAL HOUSE PADS: LOT No. 8 : 568 (IN POOR HEALTH RECOMENDED TO BE REMOVED) LOT No. 7: 460, 449, 502, 510, 512, 520, 521, 525, 529, 530, 532, 531 (NON NATIVE TREES) X TREES AFFECTED BY GRADING : 4, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 ,30, 49, 304, 302, 303, 337, 345,347, 348, 359, 360, 362, 382, 562 & 563 (MUST OF THESE TREES ARE LIVE OAK OR VALLEY OAK) X TREES AFFECTED BY EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD (TO BE EVALUATED) : 342, 336, 346, 299 TREES IN POOR HEALTH RECOMENDED TO BE REMOVED (OPTIONAL TO REMOVE): 87, 92, 137, 142, 143, 172, 201, 202, 205, 219, 222, 223, 224, 307, 330, 361, 404, 416, 446, 455, 459, 462, 466, 468, 471, 481, 507, 516, 526, 527. TREES TO BE PRESERVED FROM THE LIST OF TREES WORTH TO BE PRESERVED: 49, 77, 78, 85, 108, 111, 121, 134, 161, 167, 168, 173, 177, 188, 229, 236, 237, 241, 249, 256, 270, 278,280, 285, 340, 341, 383, 390, 392, 403, 441, 442, 443, 467, 483, 495, & 561. TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED USING A TREE SPADE 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 25, 26, 28, 34, 64, 90, 125, 135, 136, 160, 162, 301, 333, 338, 349, 350, 351, 357, 358, 369, 544, 573, 574, 578. NOTE: ALL REMAINING TREES TO REMAIN IN PLACE. INDICATES LIMITS OF TREE CANOPYS, PER AERIAL SURVEY. " -" -" - INDICATES LIMITS OF GRADING, BY GRADING PLAN NOTE: ALL FUTURE HOUSE PADS, DRIVEWAYS AND MOTOR COURTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. THE FUTURE LOCATION OF THE HOUSES ON THE LOTS SHALL BE DECIDED & APROVED BY THE PLANING DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUALY ON EACH LOT. ALL TREES AFFECTED BY THE PROXIMITY OF A CONCEPTUAL HOUSE PAD GONi2002/Q Y 1 T eaks Dri Lo Pro- eel Revis A R-1:10 R-1:10 1 532-15-028 PN C t 16 s 6 EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE (UNDER GROUND UP TO HILL/ /%' BROOK SCHOOL) X �X R-1:1 532-12-008 _X R-1:12 532-12-007 532-12-003 532-12-002 C NON HILLSIDE I HILLSIDE / / HILLBRO532-11-011 OK SCHOOL ' I SUB -AREA 2 ..o HR-1 X • 1 - -- - 1129 `1 1130 • T128 T131 • • • T587 . 1127 1124 •TR II { I T,19 T116 • 1121 -_ - I 1• T11' •1115 11206 • Ti. 4�• • 13 )993 •1•1585195 158z •T 72 • • ° � T4C • 1 1 /1 'Y 140 15" \ / ` '102 3. :133 i39•1 -�B5208` /900 145 // 4�2•T3, T37 T38 • 11//•1.5/ I•/ 42`✓ j 1578 ,6410 l •Teo _ k * / / , / / // .'/ \ //I T2>® IS X-X I I 1T2TR I / T73 • 1100 186 T87 T88 • � . / 7__ /__• -/ 4ZS R-1:10 y� 11352 \ I - I HR-1 532-18-034 •••••• \ \ / • (E) 20' Q tai ° ce m /-- 1 1-592 •41 1565 I 5 7 • I 141 _ 1569, 57• / • 1 532-18-038 1293 • / 1279 537-30-010 \ / • T543 1 • 1276 • •1275 7.163 ACRES • EXISTING SITE • TREES & DRIP LINES _ SCALE. 1"=5O'-O" • / / (OJ 1 / T262 �- � T251 `� I:/ / �_�4'0 • / �` 7412..1,144.......,,,_,I151:8 1:4:12%5: 11______t_\ ‘ .... ♦ 1 / .� 12.63 - 48� \49� �4gS �02 �570 10.39 ACRES m10 0 1/2 532-18-039 HR-1 / 1384 4_- c ON u R 139`'1396 • 1394 133 - - `• g3 • • 1458 BA 1 D N 61 E • q4' SIGN GROUP, D 65 ESIGN & P Monter9y Road S Mc off w rgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669.888 370 1423 1424 • T444 1425 I 1443 • 445 (U.) \ 1-4. 6 INC. LAN uite 10 03/ 7 ire@paragondgi. ww.paragondgi.c core Dm N 3 IN G , T,9S /I •• '\ 10, • / I, r\ 59a ,HR_1 I ,537-30-017 HR-L . __6'0S �.. 1199 •1201 • T 203 • V 0 1217 1 0 0 1231 I \ ram\ �3 439 . 1z • 635- z 0 HR-1 537-30-013 __HR-1 .537-30-018 -1- A IMIND 0 R-1:10 1 LONGMEADOW DRIVE R-1:10 TWIN OAK (E) HYDRANT -X R-1:12 SITE LOTS INFO SETBACKS INDIVIDUAL LOTS FRONT SETBACK 30'-0" SIDES SETBACK 20'-0" REAR SETBACK 25'-0" x MIN. LOT SIZE 40,000 S.F. MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT FROM (E) GRADE 25'-0" 1 379 „Is/ • X T38u • T317 `/ / • (6T315 T316 / / / / 00NT2002/Mp6 R-1:12 • 139' 1 �2 1•\ \ I / I \ ��371 6 - ` / Tj1 - R-1:1 EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE (UNDER GROUND OVER WITKIN PROPERTY TO HILLBROOK SCHOOL) DODGE Ma R-1:10 532-15-028 MONTOY S u rre yF arm T �ak� Brivc Los Gatos , Ca. Project #-2923 Revised 8-16-2046 Est 532 ate 16 s 008 .A•P. N / • • \_ 532-11-01 HILLBROOK SCHOOL _X_ 18' WIDE EARTHEN CHANNEL (OVERFLOW) SEE CIVIL PLANS 5' AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE I I^ X R-1:12 532-12` MELEYCO FORDYCE R-1:12 532-12-007 WITKIN R-1:10 532-12-003 532-12- HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO BE PRESERVED / / / 7 / 46 /1 / •.7 48 / 45 / _ �,a2/.j41/1 ///j_ / / 1'4�//791\ / •T33 / /! 1 / I Tq5 •T31 / di T38// • /I 11 / /• /6 1 / .-- , T23 T2 / /t / • T35 I '/ / - T22 1 1 LO / 410 // � �3 63 / / / 11 TI HILLBROOK/SCHOOLS \\ 1391 1 • +41,810 SF ra.96 ACRE t119 17 •T11 g1<116 •• 11.1 I• 1 •T1153,� + -4,14 Ir• • / I 11,08 'I . 1 ±42,7 6 SF 1 I o6 +0'1 /98%AC E �92T9'1 LI�j. I•T951•1,s85(1s 31584 12 •I g4 T 11• 9/I • / 77 96 • T100 1109 / ?WV / / /f --- --- < _ no, \SCVyl7D EASTMENTI / • /55 4 i57�'. 11 1.9 1 T5 / 1/ • j '(97 L. 1 T•0/ 151 Ts3 /9 •T60 T75 T98 , . T•1 T67 • • ••168 81 • 166 / / / s 1 / 1s. 1.6 • \• —/ / ice j/ / / • 49a - - / ±42/,848 / +Q.98 A • 10' PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER-1- - EASMEIi (E)- 186 T87 T881 T335 • • ••/ /_� T348 'I i T352 POTENTAIL -'- \ .DRIVEWAY, TYP. O • I ' n / ONN HR-1 c<k� DUGGINS 532-18-034 425 0 • • 1 T592 (593 •it\• 1 912 SF 4 ACRE � 41 10' BUFF FROM TREE CONOPY, TYP. 10' PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 3' NATURAL ±52,598 SF 1.21 ACRES T5.91 J� i 1 57.•/ `� -+-. 1 301 TR / 1 `I 13.27 \ / / 4� xa� 1 • / 326 • �!313 j1 / ,Y'3 p / / .7314 3 - 309 _ — ` T293 T 1 r;12 AS• / i \ • .133 13 303.811i 321 4 6 316 ( 1/4 ` �1• 11 30 •J \ 1 3 4 T329 0 _ 1 13z, • 1306 •1// T29`1 / T3.1 1319 I , Tx96• 1 T322 • .I 130a 307 T297 • •1�5\ 0 EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD NOTE: EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE ALL WEATHER DRIVIABLE SURFACE OF CONTAINED COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK. THE SURFACE SHALL BE DESIGNED & MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT A 65,000 POUND WATER TENDER. \� 44,6" 8 .02 • CRE TYP. . •20' -0' 3213 1272 • T265 1258 • •T216 • • T275 1 RE -03 — / 1304 T261' 1 • /j T264 / / �y 1 / ,•/ •� /! T2s8 . 1 \ / T2 \ ` ` ♦ /y �qB I"` �29 12g9 1 1 1263 12N • 1 1250 , / — / \ \ — / ••/ / — ` — 10'-0" (E) ■ ,P.U.E. EASEMENT • PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN / PROPOSED 5' WIDE I PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN `. TRAIL, TYP. 1 \ 1-251 a_q • / \ T2s7 • \ •PROPOSED 5(JbDIVISION PD• 10 HOME SITES 100 200 300 SCALE. 1"=50'-0" 400 500 FT 505 510 HR-2 1/2 BERTOLOTTI 532-18-039 b LOT B ±157,6 1 S 3.62 ARE CERRO VISTA COURT EXISTING R.O.W.- -• ,— EASEMENT 448\ 1• / \ / EXISTING R.O.W. EASEMENT 1398 9' OUTLINE OF \ 1- �/� POTENTIAL HOUSE PADS / -R 30'-0"'' \ \ - " 4 1 ` / 136s ` / ` / / Tao1 j / jijr111/1:617:1'6\':-..: V \ _ i j...:1 17 `\ 951396 \ ___ I` T4 /1 8/T6TWIGE 13�3 ••.T394 1/ -- —`T _�•I /R 25'-0" T387N38 •• \ g3 • • 1 \ .� - • / ` / \ i. T178 I, . \ •� — / 139a / `� /' 1 T3� T3.1 •• 1• ; T179 I \ 1458 / 5 • � T464\ 1 1 X , 5o6, /1 T509 / 405 • • 50g 1514 T511 (E) HYDRANT b,50 • / HR-1 T&R REALTY \ i6 CROUP /537-30-017 / v9� T195 19 • 3$S 1'8 • aro �• ` 9q 4,25' 0" \' ±103,258 SF,1 4,6\ 4,6 •• 4,5 1a,4 4s J1 1 T4• VO� I T1•T201 \ ' ` 06 1205 1 • T202 1 615 • T422 1216 T2:51214 •T208 1 • 620 / C../ • / 9' • 498 •\ • \ /T496 / / 742 • \\ 1 • // /-1 • \� T4.7 // // _ — ` `• N.�`,//r//mil/ /► 1 • VI 1442 / V \ 1 /• ) (( 1494 \ ` 1443 •' \ � • I I- e \ ?Oha45 C — 1 • I i1 6j (1• 01 T446 /T489 ^ / �r ✓1 y� T447 �1' 1 /�\ ems. 48 1P C.71 / T4791-478 23j2 • c�d240 / • 8 3 N12� _ T229 ` a T y s� \ 2Q1 ,,. 1\ `\ 1 1NT2z� cP I P 6 1 0 \.� /1485 1 / 1483 1 1•— / 1 • I • / •/ 1482 \• • /"- 1 / T284 • 1 • • ` T283 / 1424 1444 -,q25 T427 1426 _� DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 16165 Monteroy Road Suite 103 Morgan Ph Hill, 669.888 CA 3707 95037 office@paragondgi.con tON www.paragondgi.com • • •9 ZHILAI ZHENG 7-30-013 ;, HR _ •BREWICK 6537-30-018 635 T239 12 5 • • A 70 T165 HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO REMAIN IN PLACE 4 5 6 8 1 9 3 7 N O R T H 10 OPEN SPACE 25'-0" 25 ' 20 ' 20 ' 30 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' 2 5 ' 20 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 25 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 20'-0" 2 5 ' - 0 " 2 5 ' - 0 " 20' - 0 " 20' - 0 " 30'-0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 25'-0" 25'-0" 20' - 0 " 20'-0" 2 5 ' - 0 " R-1:10 A-1A 3' NATURAL STONE WALL STREET "A" 532-12-008 532-12-007 532-12-003 532-12-002 532-12-005 532-18-039532-18-038 532-18-034 537-30-018 537-30-013 537-30-017 537-30-010 532-15-028 532-11-011 LOT A LOT B LRDA LINE TYP. 10' PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 10'-0" (E) P.U.E. EASEMENT STREET "A" ST R E E T " B " MONTOYA DUGGINS SAYRE BERTOLOTTI BREWICK ZHILAI & ZHENG GROUP T&R REALTY HOEPPNER MELEYCO FORDYCE DODGE 177,465 SF 4.07 ACRES 42 ,648 SF 0.98 ACRE 55,660 SF 1.28 ACRES 41 ,962 SF 0.96 ACRE 55,392 SF 1.27 ACRES 40,237 SF 0.92 ACRE 41 ,703 SF 0.96 ACRE 47,785 SF 1.09 ACRE 44,705 SF 1.02 ACRES 80,381 SF 1.85 ACRES 96,643 SF 2.22 ACRES RET. WALL RET. WALL RET. WALL 30'-0" CERRO VISTA COURT POND POND 21' 2 1 ' 38' (E) HYDRANT PROPOSED HYDRANT PROPOSED HYDRANT 24'-0" C E R R O V I S T A W A Y (E) HYDRANT (E) HYDRANT • A L T E R N A T E S U B D I V I S I O N PD • RET. WALL 30'-0" DR I V E W A Y 30'-0" E M E R G E N C Y A C C E S S EXISTING R.O.W. EASEMENTEXISTING R.O.W. EASEMENT PROPOSED 5' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, TYP. (15' EASEMENT) R 40'-0" R 30'-0" R 25'-0" OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD TYP. OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD TYP. 20'-0" 18'-0" POTENTAIL DRIVEWAY, TYP. LIMITS OF GRADING R-1:10 10' PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASMENT (E) C C D D F F E E C C D D F F E E SCALE. 1"=50'-0"10 HOME SITES 0 100 200 300 400 500 FT 110' SCVWD EASTMENT 18' WIDE EARTHEN CHANNEL (OVERFLOW) SEE CIVIL PLANS 5' AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 5' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, TYP. 2 4 ' - 0 " 10' BUFFER FROM RIPARIAN AREA, TYP. TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TRTR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TRTRTR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR RIPARIAN AREA, (DARK SHADED) MON MON MON CONT2002/ M A G CONT2008/ M A G T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T12 T11 T13 T15 T14 T16 T17 T25 T18 T19 T20 T22 T21 T572 T24 T23 T31 T30 T26 T77 T78 T79 T80 T81 T82 T83 T84 T85 T89 T88T87T86 CONT2054/ 6 0 D T28 T27 T29 T90 T62 T63 T64 T65T35T34 T36 T37 T38 T33 T39 T41T42 T43 T44 T40 T45 T46 T47 T48 T49 T3 T76 T75 CONT2085/ 6 0 D CONT2087/ 6 0 D T68 T67 T66 T61T51 T50 T56 T55 T53 T54 T70 T52 T4 T97 BS2085/210 2 T59 T58 T57 T69 T73 T74 T102T103T104 T105T100 T101 T96 T106 T108 T107 T93 T95 T94 T92 T91 T72 T71 T99 T98 T113 T114 T118T117 T119 T116 T115 T120 T121 T122 T125 T126 T124 T123 T127 T128 T129 T130 T131 T132 T133 CONT2159- 6 0 D T136 T135 T383 T164 T163 T160 T159 T158 T145 T146 T148 T147 T149 T150 T152 T151 T153 T154 T155 T156 T157 T137 T138 T139 T140 T144 T143 T142 T161 T166 T398 T384 T385 T386 T387N388/ T G T W I C E T389 T395T396 T394 T393 T390 T391 T392 T402 T401 T400 T399 T175 T174 T173 T172T171 T170T169 T167 T168 T176 T179 T177 T178 T180 T181 T186 T185T184 T183 T182 T403 T404 T190 T191 T192 T193 T388 T189 T188 T187 T405 T408 T407 T409 T406 T194 T195 T197 T198 T196 T410T411 T417 T416 T415 T412 T414 T413 T204 T200 T199 T201 T202 T203 T205 T209 T208 T206T207 T214T215T216 T217 T422 T421 T420 T418 T423 T424 CONT2298 T224 T225 T226 T222 T218 T213 T211 T210 T212 T219 T221 T220 T223T433 T429 T431 T435 T434 T436 T228/BDEL T227T437 T438 T229 T432 T440 T428 T425 T426T427 T444 T442 T441 T443 T445 T446 T447 CONT2339 BS2296-229 8 T448 T236 T233 T232 T230 T231 T237 T238 T240 T465 T466 T467 T281T283 T282 T284 T468 T476T477 T478T479 T480 T481 T482 T483 T484 T485 T486 CONT2372 BS2339-237 2 T493 T494 T495 T492 T491 T490T489 T487 T488 T469 T499 T500 T501 T471 T291 T292 T289 T288 T287 T286 T285 T290 T470 T475T474 T473 T472 CONT2403 T496 T497 T498 CONT2408 T449 T450 T451 T452 T453 T455 T456 T458 T454 T459 T457 T464 T463 T507 T506 T505 T504 T502 T510 T512T513 T511 T509 T503 T461 T462 T460 BS2408-240 6 T520 T519 T521T522 T525T524 T523 T526 T527 T528 T530 T529 T532 T531 T534T535 T537 T536 T533 T363 T364 T365 T366T367 T368 T380 T379 T376 T362 T361 T360 T359 T375 T358 T357 T377 T378 T573 T381 T372 T369 T370 T371 BS2372-240 1 T248 T247 T246T244 T245 T243 T242 T241 T539 T271 T270 T268 T269 T265 T263 T256 T260 T255 T253 T249 T250 T251 T261 T541 T543 T542 T547 T545 T544T546T162 T548 T540 T262 T264 T258 T257 T252 T254T259T266T267 T272 T273 T274 CONT2537 T294 T295 T280 T278 T276 T275 T279 T293 T570 T569 T296 T298 T297 T307T308 T305 T306 T318 T317 T323 T334 T333 T332 T331 T329 T330 T325 T324 T312 T319 T320 T321 T322 T336 T337 T338 T339 T340 T354T355 T353 T352 T341 T348 T347 T346 T345 T342 T301 T343 T326 T327 T228 T313 T314 T311 T315 T310T309 T568 T566 T567 T565 T564 T563T562 T356 T351 T350 T349 BS T550 T554 T553 T551 T552 T560T559T558 T557 T556 T555 T561 T112 T111 T134 T110 T109 T590 T591 T593T592 T589 T588 T587 T586 T382 T574 T577T575 T576 T300 T299 T316 T335 T1 T2 T578 T579 T581 T580 T582 T583 T584 T602 T601 T600 T234 T235 T239 T430 T419 T599 T304 T603 T595 T596 T597 T598 T397 T514 T515 T517 T516 T518 T594 T585 T571 T302 T303 T165 439 141 508 538 T60 T32 549 T344 TW I N O A K S D R I V E R-1:10 HILLBROOK SCHOOL R-1:12 R-1:12 R-1:12 HR-1 2 HR-1 HR-1 HR-1 HR-2 1/2 HR-1 SURREY&FARM&ESTATES AREA&COMPARATION&LOTS&AFFECTED&BY&RIPARIAN&CORREDOR REVISIONS&TO&LOTS&AND&ROAD&ON&ALTERNATE&PLAN PARAGON&DESIGN&0972572012 LOT&#AREA&&&&SQ.&FT.AREA&&& ACRES PROPOSED& AREA&&&&SQ.&FT. PROPOSED& AREA&ACRES SLOPE&&&%MAX.&FLOOR& AREA&ALLOW 1 42,648&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.98 42,648&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.98 5%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 2 42,776&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.98 41,962&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.96 10%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 3 41,810&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.96 40,237&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.92 8%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 4 40,912&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.94 41,703&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.96 16%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 5 50,016&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.15 47,785&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.09 21%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 6 80,381&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.85 80,381&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.85 30%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 7 102,524&&&&&&&&&&2.35 96,643&&&&&&&&&&&&&2.22 30%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 8 53,845&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.24 55,660&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.28 22%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 9 56,764&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.30 55,392&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.27 21%6,000&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 10 46,197&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.06 44,705&&&&&&&&&&&&&1.02 26%5,400&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& O.S.156,991&&&&&&&&&&3.60 177,465&&&&&&&&&&4.07 NA NA REVISION TO STREET A WITKIN 532-12-003 R-1:10 STRE E T "A" 465 .95 96 440 .27 104 640 635 510 505 500 495 490 485 425 4 9 5 4 9 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 480 485 42 0 410 490 485 480 475 470 465 460 45 5 450 52 0 5 1 5 51 0 50 5 50 0 495 415 46 5 4 6 0 4 5 5 4 5 0 4 4 5 4 4 0 43 0 42 5 42 0 43 5 49 0 48 5 48 0 50 5 50 0 49 5 47 5 47 0 5 1 0 5 1 5 5 2 0 5 2 5 5 3 0 5 3 5 5 4 0 5 4 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 6 0 5 6 5 5 7 0 5 7 5 5 8 0 5 8 5 5 9 0 5 9 5 6 0 0 6 0 5 61 0 6 1 5 6 2 0 6 2 5 6 3 0 6 3 5 6 4 0 6 4 5 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 59 5 59 0 585 580 57 5 57 0 56 5 56 0 470 465 465 470 475 42 5 5 5 5 55 0 54 5 5 4 0 5 3 5 5 3 0 52 5 460 4 5 0 45 5 460 42 5 42 5 4 3 0 43 5 4 4 0 4 4 5 420 4 2 5 575 570 565 56 0 55 5 55 0 545 540 52 5 530 53 5 520 51 5 51 0 4 7 0 43 0 4 3 5 4 4 0 4 4 5 4 5 0 4 5 5 4 6 0 46 5 415 40 0 42 0 42 5 510 505 500 515 5 0 0 4 9 5 4 9 0 4 7 0 4 6 5 4 6 0 4 5 5 455 450 445 440 435 5 2 0 5 1 5 5 1 0 5 2 5 560 555 (N) RET. WALL x x x EXISTING WETLAND AREA TO REMAIN JACK AND BORE 27" SD WITH 30" MIN. DEPTH BELOW WETLAND AREA EXCLUSION FENCE 1 5 ' EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD NOTE: EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE ALL WEATHER DRIVIABLE SURFACE OF CONTAINED COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK. THE SURFACE SHALL BE DESIGNED & MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT A 65,000 POUND WATER TENDER. SETBACKS INDIVIDUAL LOTS FRONT SETBACK 30'-0" SIDES SETBACK 20'-0" REAR SETBACK 25'-0" MIN. LOT SIZE 40,000 S.F. MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT FROM (E) GRADE 25'-0" SITE LOTS INFO 03-21-2016 EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE (UNDER GROUND OVER WITKIN PROPERTY TO HILLBROOK SCHOOL) F L O W O F E A S T R O S S C R E E K I N T H I S D I R E C T I O N DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 16165 Monterey Road Suite 103 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Ph.669.888.3707 office@paragondgi.com www.paragondgi.com r1 �41 t *we' e. ,ems P '191 -.fit 0� 0 ■ r I it 0( SITE LOCATION MAP 400 NORTH SANTA CRUZ AVE. 360 i 414 *5HANNON RD. di Ill li 1 !ill iiii4 r a ... . ,•` 1 M It' 1� ,t il!a. ir !ill �r 41*Of i► ae M � is*p/ �� 0» r ( ■,�tiii t At 111 HWY 17 LO5 GATOS CREEK & LOS GATO5-SARATOGA RD. 4 * IS& 11' ■* ■ PIOS I 370 CORNER OF LOS GATOS BLVD & BLOSSOM HILL RD. PROFILE A -A LOS GATOS �BLV►. — S u rr yF arm E St te s Twin -Oaks -Drive . A .P, N, 5 3 2-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #-2-923 8-16-20-16 is PROFILE B-B Ator fli . I � .e •f LOCATION .�,. �*3: i �. RIDGELINE 565 HIGHELEVATION PAD I 45 00 I SUBJECT PROPERTY' lk a •. 6 826 RIDGELINE 400 600 565 HIGH ELEVATION PAD SUBJECT PROPERTY I. • VIEWING PLATFORM • •SITL PRONL.LS• SCALE 1" = 500'-0" 800 ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 888 370 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 COM om N 3 IN G 1,000' 800' 600' 400' 200' 1,000' 800' 600' 400' 200' A 2 OUTLINE OF EXISTING HOME LOCATED AT NEIGHBOR SITE (E) TREES TO REMAIN ACTUAL LOCATION OF STORY POLE ON SITE CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & =T III , 1 1 ��ji1 r, .F \ F.F. 575 _ N . t 570 PAD 567.84 II III IIII GRADING FOR 540 III FUTURE DRIVEWAY LOT STREET B PRIVATE ACTUAL LOCATION OF 7 STORY POLE ON SITE ' ► 510 11 CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & im I ----- HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10 _ F.F.507.16 _-__ 480 ►� N • M , SHADED AREA INDICATES II 111 N 597.16 M PAD 505� FILL, TYP. PAD 495 1111 P PAD 490 450 11 (E) TREES TO REMAIN III "A" STREET CUL DE SAC CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & Ft - HOUSE PADS @ LOT 3 420 I N NOPI -1TI--� F.F.5 5 6 �� .:: „I ^ ^— 11 - — SECTION C - C PAD 523 "II IIII HI 1111 SITE SECTION C-C VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet 480 450 SECTION D D 540 LOT 5 ACTUAL LOCATION OF STORY POLE ON SITE STREET •B 510 I CONCEPTUAL HOUSE HOUSE PADS @ LOT & 5 480 ' I N F_F.497.16 "' (E) GRADE iiro F.F. 4 16- IIII =1 -PAD 495 T ' -PAD 490 \ 450 W WI 1111 420 PARTIAL Hil E - E illl SECTION PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION E-E VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet CERRO VISTA RD. SITE SECTION SECTION b-b VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet S u rr yF arm E st te s Twin -Oaks -Drive . A .P, N. 5 3 2-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Pro o-eet V2923 Revised 8-16-2{11 6 (E) TREES TO REMAIN CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5 FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT SEE PARTIAL SITE SECTION E-E CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10 FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT SEE SECTION C-C LOT 6 5TC 570 LOT BLOT 6 & 540 CONCEPTUAL HOUSE __ cm o `�� HOUSE PADS @ LOT R. 1 (I ! m M _--_ F.F.511.16 510 FF 507.16 GARAGE 500.00 ,,,;�„ -+ " . it/ I ps wi J. % CERRO VISTA =PAD 509.00'I . _ PAD 505.00' - F.F 480 Hu 499.00- A PAD IM 1111 y 450 PARTIAL SECTION F - F III11II�IIII Hil III PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION F-F VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet RY POLE ON sr CONCEP HOUSE 'PAD 447.84 rUAL HOUS 'ADS @ LOT •PROPOSED SITE 5ttCTJON5• SCALE. 1 "=50'--0„ ON u R BA 1 D N 61 PTUAL HOU PADS @LC 11 PAD 450 0 EES TO REMAN 150 FT ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 888 370 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 con om N 3 IN G A 3 OUTLINE OF EXISTING HOME LOCATED AT NEIGHBOR SITE (E) TREES TO REMAIN ACTUAL LOCATION OF STORY POLE ON SITE CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & ��j11 r, .F =T I I I , 1 l I A:.1 UM - \ F. F. 575 _ N I . , N � 1' ' 570 -- - - t�.F. 570 -, 'AD 572.84 PAD 567.84 COMMON III 1111 GRADING FOR DRIVEWAY FOR 540 FUTURE DRIVEWAY ACTUAL LOCATION OF LOT LOTS 7 & 10 1 7 STORY POLE ON SITE IIII ' ► '—..- 510 11 CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & ---_ HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10 F.F.507.16 - --- 480 SHADED AREA INDICATES II III N 597.16 M PAD 505E FILL, TYP. ,F F. 592.` PAD 495 P PAD 490 450 11 (E) TREES TO REMAIN "A" STREET CUL DE SAC CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & i 1H R HOUSE PADS @ LOT 3 420 IIII� N „� N Y �/r r n F.F.5 5 6 DTI --I � „I11m- - SECTION C - C PAD 523 IIII IIII HI 1111 SITE SECTION C-C VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet 480 450 SECTION D D 540 LOT 5 ACTUAL LOCATION OF STORY POLE ON SITE STREET • B • 510 I CONCEPTUAL HOUSE HOUSE PADS @ LOT & 5 I 1 480 ' 1 a\ N F.F.FF497.16 "' (E) GRADE 1 opo IIII F. F. 4 t6- - = -PAD 495 T ' -PAD 490 \ 450 • 1111 1111 420 PARTIAL Hil E - E illl SECTION PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION E-E VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet CERRO VISTA RD. SITE SECTION SECTION b-b VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet S u rr yF arm E st te s Twin -Oaks -Drive . A .P, N. 5 3 2-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Pro o-eet 2923 Revised 8-16-2{11 6 (E) TREES TO REMAIN CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5 FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT SEE PARTIAL SITE SECTION E-E CONCEPTUAL HOUSE & HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10 FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT SEE SECTION C-C LOT 6 5TC 570 LOT BLOT 6 & 540 CONCEPTUAL HOUSE cm `�, HOUSE PADS @ LOT 6 R. STREET (3, R LOT 5 R. 11.16 _ r, inF i --_ I .,,4(f . 510 - F F 507.16 ' GARAGE 500.00 I _ — I „ • I ni ��r,Yr :a. o/f ►��' ,� �� ► CERRO VISTA PAp�� 509.00' I� _ PAD 505.00 - F.F 480 1111 499.00- I PAD 1 1 1 1 II1H y 1111 450 PARTIAL SECTION F - F Illl 7 1 1 II IIIIIIII Hil III PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION F-F VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet RY POLE ON sr rUAL HOUS 'ADS @ LOT PTUAL HOU PADS @LC 11 PAD 450 EES TO REMAN •ALTERNATE SITE SLtCTIONS • SCALE. 1 "=50'--0„ ON u R BA 1 D N 61 0 150 FT ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 888 370 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 con om N 3 IN G A 3 A S u rr yF arm E st to s Twin -Oaks -Drive . A .P, N, 5 3 2-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #-2923 Revised 8-16-2{11 6 BERTOLOTTI HILL SCHOOLS JIU • PROPOSED PHOTO ILLUSTRATION • 10 HOME SITES SCALE. 1"=50'-0" ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph.669.888 370 INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c con om N 3 IN G 4 S u rr yF arm E St te s Twin-Oaks-Dr4 e. A.P,N, 532-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #--923 • ALTERNATE PROPOSED PHOTO ILLUSTRATION • 10 HOME SITES SCALE. 1"=50'-0" '\& ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GPOUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph.669.888 370 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 con om N 3 IN G 4 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia DBH 11 6 Condition Fair Good Last Date Reviewed 8/20/12 Disposition P Remove Construction Impacts P Roadway Construction Coast live oak 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak Quercus lobata 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction I Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant ICoast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction iCoast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 12/20/10 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair Preserve Coast live oak 11 Good Remove Roadway Construction California black walnut Juglans hindsii 19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Aleppo pine Pinus halapensis 5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve English walnut Juglans regia 11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction 'Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve California buckeye Aesculus californica 8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 'Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve European olive Olea europea 5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 'Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 'Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 'Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Last Date 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 Valley oak Coast live oak 9 29 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Good 12/20/10 Preserve Blue Blue Blue Coast Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Coast Valley Valley Coast European 31ue oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 23 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Slue oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 22 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 'oison Oak bxiodendron diversiloba 8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 21/10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction /alley oak 40 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve live oak 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction oak 28 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 24 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 4 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve olive 5/5/3 Good 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 6/5/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 561 Valley oak 562 Coast live oak 563 Coast live oak DBH 18 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Last Date Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Good 12/20/10 Preserve 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 564 Coast live oak 19 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 565 Coast live oak 16 Good 12/20/10 566 Valley oak 19 Good 12/20/10 567 Coast live oak 22 Good Preserve Preserve 12/20/10 Preserve 568 Wild plum 12/6 Poor 569 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 570 Blue oak 13 12/20/10 Preserve 12/20/10 Preserve Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 571 Wild plum 6 Dead 8/20/12 Remove 572 Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa 573 Valley oak 574 Incense cedar 7 14 Excellent Good Roadway Construction 8/20/12 Remove 10/11/12 10 575 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 576 Coast live oak 577 Cypress Cupressus species 578 Coast live oak 8 6 5/4/4 5 Excellent Good Good/Fai Good/Fai Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Transplant Roadway Construction 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction 12/20/10 Preserve 12/20/10 Preserve 10/11/12 Transplant 579 Coast live oak 5 580 Coast live oak 581 Coast live oak 6 Fair Fair Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Last Date Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts 44 45 46 47 148 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 (Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction Valley oak 23 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Aleppo pine 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 21 Excellent 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 7 Good/Fair Preserve Coast live oak 5 Fair Preserve Coast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 15 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 18/15 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 15 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve California sycamore Platanus racemosa 41 Good/Fair 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve California sycamore 36 Good Preserve California sycamore (California 37 Good Preserve sycamore 42 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Elderberry Sambucus caerulea 9/8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 46 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 16 Dead 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 15 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Elderberry 12 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak I 12 Good/Fair 8/20/12 I Remove Roadway Construction Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Last Date DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts 326 Val 327 Co 328 Co 329 Val 330 Co 331 Un 332 Val 333 Co 334 Co 335 Val 336 Val 337 Val 338 Co 339 Val 340 Co 341 Val 342 Val 343 Val 344 Co 345 Co 346 Val 347 Co 348 Val 349 Co 350 Co 351 Co 352 Val 353 Val 354 Cr Ma 355 Co 356 Val 357 Inc 358 Inc 359 Inc 360 Inc 361 Inc 362 Inc 363 Ale 364 Inc 365 Inc 366 Inc 367 Inc 368 Inc 369 Inc 370 Inc 371 Val 372 Co 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 ley oak abapple 16 Fair Good 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 6 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve used Number ley oak 10 Fair Good Fair Fair Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 11 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 7 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 10 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 23 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ley oak 25 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 25 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 13 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ley oak 24 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Transplant ast live oak 8 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ley oak 14 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant ast live oak 16 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 11 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 6 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ast live oak 10 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ley oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve lus species 6/6/5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 10 Excellent 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 17 Good Preserve ense cedar 9 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 5 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 6 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 6 Ext Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ppo pine 13 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 7 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 9 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant ense cedar 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 5 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction ense cedar 6 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant ense cedar 10 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact ley oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact ast live oak 5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Valley oak Va Co Va Va Co Co Va M Va Co Co In Eu Co Co Co Co BI BI BI 603 Va 5 Last Date Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 'ley oak (ley (ley onterey 4 hair Fair 12/2u/1u 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 4 Preserve oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 6 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction ast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 8/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 11 Fair Fair Fair Good Fair 12/20/10 Preserve pine 40 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact ley oak 33 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact ast live oak 32 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond / Storm Dram Construction ast live oak 10 1/08/13 Preserve Storm Drain Construction .ense cedar 5 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction ropean olive 8/8/5 Good Good Good Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 14 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 40 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 30 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve ast live oak 17 Good Fair Good Preserve ie oak 20 Preserve ie oak 17 Preserve ie oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ley oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve S u rr y Farm E st te s Twice-O aks-Drive : A P-N-5 3 2-16-006 Los -Gtos ; C Project-#-2923 -Revised 8-16-204 6 Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Last Date 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Coast live oak 6 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 13 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 22 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 6 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 12/20/10 8/20/12 Preserve Coast live oak 23 Good Preserve Coast live oak 15 Excellent Remove Roadway Construction Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 6 Ext Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 29 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak Quercus douglasii 14 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve i Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 20 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 14/10/10/7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Dead 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 10 Good 1/08/13 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 19 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve I Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 21 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 39 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 7 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor ,1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Field Data Sheet Surrey • Farm Estates Last Date Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts p p 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 Unused Number Unused Number Valley oak 5/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve CCoast live oak 18/9 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 10/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 11/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 6 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 49 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 43 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 36 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 12/8 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 26 Good 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Fair Preserve Hybrid oak Quercus species 26 Excellent Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 18 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 24 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 22 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 38 Good 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction Valley oak 22 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 20 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve !Valley oak 27 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 23 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 30/18 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Last Date 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 Coast live oak Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 8 Fair 1/08/13 Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 18 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 21 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Wild plum 5 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Wild plum 6 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 11/5/5 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 12 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 10 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Incense cedar 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 7 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 5 11 30 40 30 10/6/5/4/4 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak Good 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak Exellent 12/20/10 Preserve European olive Good 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 11/9/8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 45 Good 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 17/6/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 27 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Last Date DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts 420 Valley oak 421 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 422 Valley oak 23 Fair/Good 12/20/10 Preserve 423 Aleppo pine 6 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 424 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 425 Aleppo pine 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 426 Aleppo pine 8 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 427 Aleppo pine 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 428 Valley oak 24 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 429 Valley oak 10 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 430 Aleppo pine 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 431 Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 432 Blue oak 16 11 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 433 Valley oak Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 434 Valley oak Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 435 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 436 Valley oak 21 Dead 12/20/10 Preserve 437 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 438 Valley oak 40 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 439 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 440 Valley oak 12 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 441 Blue oak 26 Good 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve 442 Blue oak 23 Good Preserve 443 Blue oak 25 Good Preserve 444 Aleppo pine 8 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 445 Blue oak 9/9 Dead 12/20/10 Preserve 446 Valley oak 12 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 447 Valley oak 29 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 448 Coast live oak 60 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 449 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 450 Aleppo pine 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 451 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 452 Aleppo pine 14 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 453 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 454 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 455 Incense cedar 8 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 456 Incense cedar 6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 457 Incense cedar 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 458 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 459 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 460 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 8/20/12 12/20/10 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 461 Aleppo pine 10 Poor Preserve 462 Incense cedar 7 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 463 Incense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 464 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 465 Blue oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 466 Valley oak 14 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve • TREE DISPOTITION TAI3Lt5 • BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Last Date DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 Valley oak I18 25 16/15/15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve European olive Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 27 Good 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 6/5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 12/10/6/6 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 19/12/5 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 8/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Good Preserve Valley oak 8 Ext Poor Preserve Valley oak 12 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 21 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve California bay laurel Umbellularia californica 13 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak Quercus douglasii 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 18/10/8/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 8 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve European olive 13 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Coast live oak 32/21/10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Poor Preserve Valley oak 9 Dead Preserve Valley oak 9 Fair Preserve Aleppo pine 10 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 38 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name Last Date DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 Blue oak 36 Good Fair Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 16 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 28 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 'valley oak 8 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 31 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 20 Poor 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 21 Fair Preserve Blue oak 24 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 23 Fair Preserve Valley oak 21 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve 'Valley oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 28 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 19 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 12 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Blue oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 'Blue oak 7 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve i Incense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Incense cedar 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve loft ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 888 370 INC. LAN uite 10 03/ 7 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c COM om N 3 IN Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Last Date 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 i sue oaK Blue Coast Coast 14 14 14 hair 12/2u/lu -'reserve 31ue oak Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak Fair 12/20/10 Preserve flue oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 34 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 27 Fair Preserve /alley oak 15 Ext Poor Preserve :oast live oak 22 Excellent Preserve :oast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 17 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 12 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 11/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve live oak 19/18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve clue oak 9/9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve Clue oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 12/11 12 29 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 10/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve /alley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 9/9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 33 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ;oast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve :oast live oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve inused Number :oast live oak 28 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts Last Date 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 G Fair 6 ncense cedar Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve ncense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 9 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 ,Preserve ncense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 11 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve Aleppo pine 16 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Nild plum 9/6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve Nild plum 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 15/7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve ✓alley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Preserve oast live oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve oast live oak 12 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Roadway Construction -Low Impact oast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 27 Good 12/20/10 'Preserve oast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 i Preserve oast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 27 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve oast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 31ue oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 5 Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees By Proposed Plans A-1 and A-1A Los Gatos, California Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees By Proposed Plans A-1 and A-1A Los Gatos, California Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees By Proposed Plans A-1 and A-1A Los Gatos, California Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees By Proposed Plans A-1 and A-1A Los Gatos, California Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 1 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 2 Coast live oak DBH 11 6 Last Date Condition Reviewed Fair Good 10/20/14 Disposition Transplant 10/20/14 Transplant 3 Valley oak Quercus lobata 4 Coast live oak 15 9 Excellent Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 Transplant Remove Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Retention Pond Construction 5 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 6 Coast live oak 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 48 62 63 64 65 90 109 110 123 124 125 126 134 5 13 Good Good 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Transplant Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Incense cedar 4 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction California black walnut Juglans hindsii Aleppo pine Pinus halapensis English walnut Juglans regia Aleppo pine 19 5 11 12 Poor Fair/Poor Poor Poor 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 10/20/14 Remove Remove Remove Remove Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Roadway Construction Valley oak 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak ]Coast live oak 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak Coast live oak Valley oak Valley oak 19 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain 12 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Storm Drain Construction 17 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Storm Drain Construction 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction Coast live oak 18/15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Retention Pond Construction Coast live oak Coast live oak Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 12 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 12 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Valley oak 39 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 135 Coast live oak 136 Valley oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 7 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 137 138 139 149 152 153 154 155 160 161 162 163 164 165 277 299 301 302 303 330 331 333 336 337 338 342 345 346 349 350 351 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 8 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Remove Grading for Retention Pond Aleppo pine 8 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Aleppo pine 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction Aleppo pine 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Alternate Access Construction Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Moderate Root Damage - Alternate Access Coast live oak 7 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction 'Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction Coast live oak 5 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction Unused Number European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Valley oak 28 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading Coast live oak 24 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading Coast live oak 5 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Unused Number Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Valley oak 23 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 25 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Valley oak 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 8 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Valley oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 6 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Coast live oak 10 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Incense cedar 9 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Incense cedar 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Incense cedar 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Incense cedar 7 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Incense cedar 6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Aleppo pine 13 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction Incense cedar 7 Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Incense cedar 9 Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Incense cedar 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Incense cedar 5 Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Incense cedar 6 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Incense cedar 6 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction Incense cedar 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Valley oak 5 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact Coast live oak 5/3 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 37 37 38 38 40 44 451 45 45 45 45 46 461 46 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 521 52 52 52 52 52 53 531 53 53 54 54 54 561 571 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 58 59 591 3 Unused Number 4 Unused Number 2 Valley oak 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 1 Valley oak 49 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Minor Root Damage - Alternate Access 3 Valley oak 38 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 9 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 2 Aleppo pine 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 4 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 5 Incense cedar 8 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 9 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 0 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction Aleppo pine 10 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 2 Incense cedar 7 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 2 Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 7 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 0 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction 2 Aleppo pine 15 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 5 Incense cedar 6 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 6 Incense cedar 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 0 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 2 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 5 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 6 Incense cedar 7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 7 Incense cedar 5 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 9 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 0 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 2 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 4 Aleppo pine 16 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 4 Valley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 1 Coast live oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 1 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction Valley oak 18 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Road Construction - Moderate Impact Wild plum 6 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 2 Monterey cypress 7 Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Cupressus macrocarpa 3 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 4 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 5 Southern magnolia 8 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Magnolia grandiflora 1 Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction ' Cypress 5/4/4 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction Cupressus species 8 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Grading for Retention Pond 6 Valley oak 6 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 0 Monterey pine 40 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact Valley oak 33 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction -Low Impact Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 5 5 5 5 2 Coast live oak 32 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Moderate 3 Coast live oak 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe 4 Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 5 European Olive 8/8/5 Goog 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 \i Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 \wir 7327 Langley Canyon Road )(Itttt.:::-' Prunedale, California 93907 A Comparison Between A Single Access Entry Road Plan and A Two Access Entry Road Plan Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, California Assignment I was asked to prepare a comparison chart showing the impacts to the existing trees between the two plans: Plan A-1 — To Construct a Single Access Road to the Site, and Plan A-1A — To Construct Two Access Roads to the Site Observations Previously this was attempted with two spreadsheet charts, but these were long, consisting of multiple pages, and difficult to compare in such a format. After attempting to achieve this task again, I find that these charts, when viewed side by side, are near identical, which few differences between the other. In order to make the chart more manageable I have revised the chart omitting all of the trees (as requested) that would not be expected to be impacted by the construction proposed by these two plans. This Chart is attached. Thus, instead of preparing two near identical charts, I have included in this report a single Chart listing the impacts to both plans, but those trees impacted by the Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court are noted as "Alternate Access". Also, I shall list the differences between the Two Plans with regard to the impacts to individual trees later in this report. First, it appears useful to identify the scope of this comparison and the similarities between the two Plans. The Civil Plans C2 and C8 indicate that the grading for the roadway, regardless of the plan proposed, and the grading for the retention ponds would be done at the same time. The grading for the retention ponds are identical on both of the two plans. Thus, the impacts to the trees, as a result of grading for the retention ponds, is identical between the two plans. Also, the grading for the driveway to Lot 7 and the grading for building pad for Lot 7 is shown on both plans as identical. Thus, the impacts to the trees as a result of this feature are also identical. The entry Roadway from Twin Oaks Drive, titled Street A to the bulb turn -around is identical. The proposed Storm Drain construction between the two plans appears identical. All of these features, which appear to be identical between the two plans, create the long list of impacts to trees listed in the attached chart. The differences between the two plans are as follows. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 1 S u rr yF arm E st te s Twin -Oafs -Drive. A.P,N, 532-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #-2923 Revised 8 16-2{11 6 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Comparison 1 Plan A-1 provides the access to Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10 by proposed Street B, which would cross the swale between Trees # 550 and the cluster of Trees # 545, 546, 162 and 544. Retaining walls and a drainage pipe would be constructed. By this plan Trees # 545, 546, and 162 would not live very long (5-10 years estimated) as a result of this construction. Tree # 550 and the trees near it (north of the swale fill area) should survive in good condition. Tree #544 and the trees south of the swale area should survive in good condition. As the Access Roads proposed by the two plans do not connect, the Alternate Access Road Plan A-1A would not impact the trees in the swale area (Trees #545, 546, 162, 544). Comparison 2 Plan A-1 would provide a "Hammer Head" turn around at the end of Street B. No Trees would be removed, but Tree # 160 would be Transplanted. To the same geographical area of the site, Plan A-1A proposes instead an Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court. Trees # 160, 163, 164, 165 are proposed to be Transplanted. The proposed Alternative Access road would significantly impact Trees # 161 (56 inch diameter Valley Oak) and Tree # 383 (49 inch diameter Valley Oak). An estimated 30% of the root zone of Tree 161 would be damaged by fill and retaining wall construction, but Tree # 161 would be expected to survive with regular irrigation for 3 years. An estimated 20% of the root zone of Tree # 383 would be damaged by the road construction, including the construction of the proposed retaining walls. It is expected to survive this road construction, but the impact to Tree # 383 would not be limited to the road construction. The proposed new residence on Lot 6 would adversely impact the root system of Tree # 383 by an estimated 10% -15%. Also, the impacts of the landscape amenities upon Tree # 383 cannot be assessed at this time, but these impacts (road, residence, landscape) must not be considered separate and independent but must be considered collectively. Tree # 154 would be severely damaged and, thus, required to be removed resulting from the Storm Drain Construction. It appears that Trees # 152, 153 and 155 would survive. This feature is the same for both plans proposed. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 2 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Tree # 592 (32 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage as a result of grading for the retention pond. This feature is the same for both plans. Tree # 593 (10 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage from Storm Drain Construction. This estimate is based on the trunk diameter, which provides an estimate of the size of the root mass. This feature is the same for both plans. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist • TREE COMPARISON TAbLt Fy LETTER • 2 SITE OPTIONS BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST October 20, 2014 3 ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 B88 370 INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c con om N 3 IN G A 5 A Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 5 5 5 5 2 Coast live oak 32 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Moderate 3 Coast live oak 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe 4 Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 5 European Olive 8/8/5 Goog 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 \i Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 \wir 7327 Langley Canyon Road )(Itttt.:::-' Prunedale, California 93907 A Comparison Between A Single Access Entry Road Plan and A Two Access Entry Road Plan Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, California Assignment I was asked to prepare a comparison chart showing the impacts to the existing trees between the two plans: Plan A-1 — To Construct a Single Access Road to the Site, and Plan A-1A — To Construct Two Access Roads to the Site Observations Previously this was attempted with two spreadsheet charts, but these were long, consisting of multiple pages, and difficult to compare in such a format. After attempting to achieve this task again, I find that these charts, when viewed side by side, are near identical, which few differences between the other. In order to make the chart more manageable I have revised the chart omitting all of the trees (as requested) that would not be expected to be impacted by the construction proposed by these two plans. This Chart is attached. Thus, instead of preparing two near identical charts, I have included in this report a single Chart listing the impacts to both plans, but those trees impacted by the Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court are noted as "Alternate Access". Also, I shall list the differences between the Two Plans with regard to the impacts to individual trees later in this report. First, it appears useful to identify the scope of this comparison and the similarities between the two Plans. The Civil Plans C2 and C8 indicate that the grading for the roadway, regardless of the plan proposed, and the grading for the retention ponds would be done at the same time. The grading for the retention ponds are identical on both of the two plans. Thus, the impacts to the trees, as a result of grading for the retention ponds, is identical between the two plans. Also, the grading for the driveway to Lot 7 and the grading for building pad for Lot 7 is shown on both plans as identical. Thus, the impacts to the trees as a result of this feature are also identical. The entry Roadway from Twin Oaks Drive, titled Street A to the bulb turn -around is identical. The proposed Storm Drain construction between the two plans appears identical. All of these features, which appear to be identical between the two plans, create the long list of impacts to trees listed in the attached chart. The differences between the two plans are as follows. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 1 S u rr yF arm E st te s Twin -Oafs -Drive. A.P,N, 532-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #-2923 Revised 8 16-2{11 6 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Comparison 1 Plan A-1 provides the access to Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10 by proposed Street B, which would cross the swale between Trees # 550 and the cluster of Trees # 545, 546, 162 and 544. Retaining walls and a drainage pipe would be constructed. By this plan Trees # 545, 546, and 162 would not live very long (5-10 years estimated) as a result of this construction. Tree # 550 and the trees near it (north of the swale fill area) should survive in good condition. Tree #544 and the trees south of the swale area should survive in good condition. As the Access Roads proposed by the two plans do not connect, the Alternate Access Road Plan A-1A would not impact the trees in the swale area (Trees #545, 546, 162, 544). Comparison 2 Plan A-1 would provide a "Hammer Head" turn around at the end of Street B. No Trees would be removed, but Tree # 160 would be Transplanted. To the same geographical area of the site, Plan A-1A proposes instead an Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court. Trees # 160, 163, 164, 165 are proposed to be Transplanted. The proposed Alternative Access road would significantly impact Trees # 161 (56 inch diameter Valley Oak) and Tree # 383 (49 inch diameter Valley Oak). An estimated 30% of the root zone of Tree 161 would be damaged by fill and retaining wall construction, but Tree # 161 would be expected to survive with regular irrigation for 3 years. An estimated 20% of the root zone of Tree # 383 would be damaged by the road construction, including the construction of the proposed retaining walls. It is expected to survive this road construction, but the impact to Tree # 383 would not be limited to the road construction. The proposed new residence on Lot 6 would adversely impact the root system of Tree # 383 by an estimated 10% -15%. Also, the impacts of the landscape amenities upon Tree # 383 cannot be assessed at this time, but these impacts (road, residence, landscape) must not be considered separate and independent but must be considered collectively. Tree # 154 would be severely damaged and, thus, required to be removed resulting from the Storm Drain Construction. It appears that Trees # 152, 153 and 155 would survive. This feature is the same for both plans proposed. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 2 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Tree # 592 (32 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage as a result of grading for the retention pond. This feature is the same for both plans. Tree # 593 (10 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage from Storm Drain Construction. This estimate is based on the trunk diameter, which provides an estimate of the size of the root mass. This feature is the same for both plans. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist • TREE COMPARISON TAbLt Fy LETTER • 2 SITE OPTIONS BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST October 20, 2014 3 ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 B88 370 INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c con om N 3 IN G A 5 A Prepared by Michail Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 \i Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 \wir 7327 Langley Canyon Road )(Itttt.:::-' Prunedale, California 93907 A Comparison Between A Single Access Entry Road Plan and A Two Access Entry Road Plan Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, California Assignment I was asked to prepare a comparison chart showing the impacts to the existing trees between the two plans: Plan A-1 — To Construct a Single Access Road to the Site, and Plan A-1A — To Construct Two Access Roads to the Site Observations Previously this was attempted with two spreadsheet charts, but these were long, consisting of multiple pages, and difficult to compare in such a format. After attempting to achieve this task again, I find that these charts, when viewed side by side, are near identical, which few differences between the other. In order to make the chart more manageable I have revised the chart omitting all of the trees (as requested) that would not be expected to be impacted by the construction proposed by these two plans. This Chart is attached. Thus, instead of preparing two near identical charts, I have included in this report a single Chart listing the impacts to both plans, but those trees impacted by the Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court are noted as "Alternate Access". Also, I shall list the differences between the Two Plans with regard to the impacts to individual trees later in this report. First, it appears useful to identify the scope of this comparison and the similarities between the two Plans. The Civil Plans C2 and C8 indicate that the grading for the roadway, regardless of the plan proposed, and the grading for the retention ponds would be done at the same time. The grading for the retention ponds are identical on both of the two plans. Thus, the impacts to the trees, as a result of grading for the retention ponds, is identical between the two plans. Also, the grading for the driveway to Lot 7 and the grading for building pad for Lot 7 is shown on both plans as identical. Thus, the impacts to the trees as a result of this feature are also identical. The entry Roadway from Twin Oaks Drive, titled Street A to the bulb turn -around is identical. The proposed Storm Drain construction between the two plans appears identical. All of these features, which appear to be identical between the two plans, create the long list of impacts to trees listed in the attached chart. The differences between the two plans are as follows. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 1 S u rr yF arm E st te s Twin -Oafs -Drive. A.P,N, 532-1-6-006 Los -Gatos , Ca. Project- #-2923 Revised 8 16-2{11 6 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Comparison 1 Plan A-1 provides the access to Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10 by proposed Street B, which would cross the swale between Trees # 550 and the cluster of Trees # 545, 546, 162 and 544. Retaining walls and a drainage pipe would be constructed. By this plan Trees # 545, 546, and 162 would not live very long (5-10 years estimated) as a result of this construction. Tree # 550 and the trees near it (north of the swale fill area) should survive in good condition. Tree #544 and the trees south of the swale area should survive in good condition. As the Access Roads proposed by the two plans do not connect, the Alternate Access Road Plan A-1A would not impact the trees in the swale area (Trees #545, 546, 162, 544). Comparison 2 Plan A-1 would provide a "Hammer Head" turn around at the end of Street B. No Trees would be removed, but Tree # 160 would be Transplanted. To the same geographical area of the site, Plan A-1A proposes instead an Alternate Access Road off Cerro Vista Court. Trees # 160, 163, 164, 165 are proposed to be Transplanted. The proposed Alternative Access road would significantly impact Trees # 161 (56 inch diameter Valley Oak) and Tree # 383 (49 inch diameter Valley Oak). An estimated 30% of the root zone of Tree 161 would be damaged by fill and retaining wall construction, but Tree # 161 would be expected to survive with regular irrigation for 3 years. An estimated 20% of the root zone of Tree # 383 would be damaged by the road construction, including the construction of the proposed retaining walls. It is expected to survive this road construction, but the impact to Tree # 383 would not be limited to the road construction. The proposed new residence on Lot 6 would adversely impact the root system of Tree # 383 by an estimated 10% -15%. Also, the impacts of the landscape amenities upon Tree # 383 cannot be assessed at this time, but these impacts (road, residence, landscape) must not be considered separate and independent but must be considered collectively. Tree # 154 would be severely damaged and, thus, required to be removed resulting from the Storm Drain Construction. It appears that Trees # 152, 153 and 155 would survive. This feature is the same for both plans proposed. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 2 Surrey Farm Estates Los Gatos, CA Tree # 592 (32 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage as a result of grading for the retention pond. This feature is the same for both plans. Tree # 593 (10 inch diameter Coast live oak) would suffer relatively minor root damage from Storm Drain Construction. This estimate is based on the trunk diameter, which provides an estimate of the size of the root mass. This feature is the same for both plans. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist • TREE COMPARISON TAbLt Fy LETTER • 2 SITE OPTIONS BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST October 20, 2014 3 ON u R BA 1 D N 61 ESIGN GROUP, DESIGN & P 65 Monterey Road S Mcrgan Hill, CA 95 Ph 669 B88 370 INC. LAN uite 10 037 7 office@paragondgi. www.paragondgi.c con om N 3 IN G A 5 A s u ire y Farm Est Twin -Oaks- Drive A— P-;N C Los -Gatos , a. Project #-2923 evis-ed 8-16-2046 ates -16-C 06 • ALTERNATE PROPOSED PHOTO ILLUSTRATION • 10 HOME SITES, WITH LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCALE. 1"=50'-0" DESIGN GROUP, INC. URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING 16165 Monteroy Road Suite 103 Morgan Ph Hill, 669.888 CA 3707 95037 office@paragondgi.com GOB www.paragondgi.com MED 6 r � w PARRY /111K It; 4.0 ` 61. T'.... /®i®® 1v, Alt AN. alk t'� -- 1kw II., MI6 U11' ti Pik GI 116 111 pP119 7 O 10 rid ui II II! G4 u ARMS OfEr0 to 11 s 'info IL IA►_®•r�rlwiwr ViSMATAIRLI PLANT SYMBOLS J • \ EXISTING TREE TO REMIAN • V INDICATES PLANT KEY INDICATES PLANT QUANTITY 1 / / • / / / • / • 1 ................... � �/ 1 ) / • TCHLINE • ............... • • • • • • • • • • / • • • • + • + + \ + • + +\ • ++ +.+++ I+ \+ 4 3 + \ / + \+ + + + + + + \+ + + + + . + + + \+ \+ + •�+.1+ \ I • 1 / 1 / /I . • \ +\++ - + + ,+ + + �- +\ + + + + \ + + / - + +\+ + + + \ • i-1 + -+ + +I + + + + + + l+ + + + + + / + + + + t + +\ + + +c + + + + + + +,+ + + + +\ + + +-' + + + + + + -+ +) + +, + + + + + \ \ + -N + +\+ + �+ \+ + + + + + +� + \+ + +\ + + + c. + \ \ + •+ + t + + + -1 + ▪ + Of + + + \ + +/ + + + \+ + + + + •+ \+ •+ /+ + + + \+ + +I + + \+ +\+ + / \+ + + / / \ \ \ - J • • • .• / \ N • +/+ ' + • / /+ + 4 + + + V+ / +\ + + + + + + + \ \ + + + ++ + + + f. /+ / ` + + + �h + + + i4 + ' \+ + + • + \+ + + + + + \+ + + + \+ + \+ + / \+ + + + \ + + + + + + • • • • / \ 800-227-2600 0211,14-7--0 • • c / I I \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ I I RIPARIAN /REA EX STING TREE 1 10' k" BUFFER SETBACK\ � I I \ I I \ \ I I I \ PLANTING NOTES AND LEGENDS 1. SEE SHEET L1.1 FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING LEGEND. 2. SEE SHEET L1.1 FOR LANDSCAPE NOTES. • 30 60 90 • REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Issue Date 01-25-18 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN Ll .0 Sheet of / (SEE SHEET L1.0 0 1- 2 \50 / \\ \\\ \ \\ \\ \ / \ / \ \ I \ RIPARIAN REA I I �' I EXySTING TREE 1 10' -'0" BUFFER SETBACIZ\ \ \ \ . \ \ ++,++ + + + 38 / I I ' x I / 1 \ \\°oqo' /o0 • o 0o 0 oogo•ooboc 00000, Oo0,2 0N.CC 0°oo00� 0r o°o°0 0 0 000100 O 000�� O°b° 000b0 o°o\°o 0°OQo°0° 00 NO0 0°Ocecy( O 0 Qp o 0 0- 0 \°o°O°Oa° 0O°7 54 32 51% • it��'t 1;4 11 049 �4d0 �OTO- Rip 1 114140 of, - yip ally 4401904-4-( ........................ F;-1/<<\ .r \ N .o, I \ PLANT LIST: KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. SIZE REMARKS WUCOLS TREES TI QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK --- 24"3OX STANDARD LOW T2 CERCIS OCCIDENTAL IS WESTERN REDBUD --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T3 PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE --- 24"50X STANDARD LOW T4 QUERCUS CI-IRYSOLEPIS CANYON LIVE OAK -- 24"BOX NATURAL LOW SHRUBS S1 HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON --- 5 GAL LOW 82 CEANOTHUS x 'DARK STAR' DARK STAR CALIFORNIA LILAC -- 5 GAL LOUJ 83 CISTUS LADANIFER CRIMSON -SPOT ROCKROSE -- 5 GAL LOW 84 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'HOWARD MCMINN' MCMINN MAZANITA --- 5 GAL LOW S5 MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAHONIA -- 1 GAL 24" O.C. LOW 56 RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY --- 5 GAL LOW 87 MAHONIA 'GOLDEN ABUNDANCE' GOLDEN ABUNDANCE MAHONIA --- 5 GAL LOUJ S8 DODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSH --- 5 GAL LOW SS JUNCUS P. 'ELK BLUE' CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH --- 5 GAL LOW 810 PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY --- 15 GAL LOW GROUND COVERS GI BACCHARIS 'TWIN PEAKS II' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH --- I GAL 60" O.G. LOW G2 HYDROSEED- NATIVE SEED MIX EROSION CONTROL --- SEED LOW G3 ALVIA BEE'S BLISS CREEPING SAGE --- I GAL 36" O.C. LOW G4 CEANOTHUS G. H. 'YANKEE POINT' CARMEL CREEPER --- I GAL 36" O.C. LOW G5 COPROSMA X KIRKII N.CN. --- I GAL 36" O.C. LOW •I \ \ 0_000� 0 0=000g0C O 0g0c 00c( 0 0o0P0� -0-•-0� 0 000000000°�0'�� 070000 00/0 • O O 0 / \ if '• . 9 • O O 0.2Th\ I G • :11i..."t: .5 it • • b o� • • • ii • • • • • . .0.... .... of N. • f • / • X •• / 1 I 31 1 510 S1 5 3 OWwii•A1SAiI e off, w =•T• d joyar la it• • 101' . •1 • 2.37 ACRAS/ 2 • • • • T4 6 • • ( SI 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • N / • • • gio • o seo ses 610(1 604, 625 /630 635 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PLANT NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES FROM THE PLANTING PLAN. QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE LEGEND ARE FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. 2. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS AND THE PLANTING PLAN. 3. PLANT GROUNDCOVER IN SHRUB AREAS AS NOTED, USE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 4. SEE DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. THERE WILL BE NO MATERIALS OR PLANT MATERIALS SUBSTITUTIONS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER OR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. ALL SLOPES PLANTED WITH LAWN NOT TO EXCEED A 3:1 SLOPE. ALL SLOPES PLANTED WITH GROUND COVER NOT TO EXCEED A 2:1 SLOPE. 7. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL BUILDINGS (2% MIN.) 8. IN TI-IE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS PLAN AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS TO BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 9. ENTIRE SITE IS TO BE ROUGH GRADED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR TO WITHIN Yip FOOT OF FINISH GRADE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO FINE GRADE ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. 10. ALL SITE UTILITIES ARE TO BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PLANS AND UTILITIES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY TI-IE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, OR OTHER FEATURES TO REMAIN, AND CAUSED BY TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. 11. THE WORK IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MY RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH WORK BY OTHERS. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS. 12. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS FOR OVERALL SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE. 13. SOD LAWN SHALL BE DWARF FESCUE BLEND. 14. PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR TRENCHING, CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1.800.227.2600 PLANT SYMBOLS INDICATES PLANT KEY INDICATES PLANT QUANTITY -0)- —00— • — BASE LINE MR DIMENSIONS Scale 60 = 30 ft 90 800-227-2600 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Issue Date 01-25-18 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L1.1 Sheet of —x -x PLANT LIST: KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. SIZE REMARKS WUCOLS TREES T1 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T2 CERCIS OCCIDENTAL IS WESTERN REDBUD --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T3 PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T4 QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS CANYON LIVE OAK -- 24"BOX NATURAL LOW SHRUBS Sl HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON --- 5 GAL LOW 52 CEANOTHUS x 'DARK STAR' DARK STAR CALIFORNIA LILAC -- 5 GAL LOW 63 CISTUS LADANIFER CRIMSON -SPOT ROCKROSE -- 5 GAL LOW S4 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'HOWARD MCMINN' MCMINN MAZANITA --- 5 GAL LOW 65 MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAI-1ONIA -- 1 GAL 24" O.C. LOW S6 RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY --- 5 GAL LOW 51 MAHONIA 'GOLDEN ABUNDANCE' GOLDEN ABUNDANCE MAHONIA --- 5 GAL LOW SS DODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSH --- 5 GAL LOW S9 JUNCUS P. 'ELK BLUE' CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH --- 5 GAL LOW 51O PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY --- 15 GAL LOW GROUND COVERS GI BACCHARIS 'TWIN PEAKS II' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH --- I GAL 60" O.G. LOW G2 HYDROSEED- NATIVE SEW MIX EROSION CONTROL --- SEW LOW G3 ALVIA BEE'S BLISS CREEPING SAGE --- I GAL 36" O.G. LOW G4. CEANOTHUS G. H. 'YANKEE POINT' CARMEL CREEPER --- I GAL 36" O.G. LOW G5 COPROSMA X KIRKII N.CN. --- I GAL 36" O.C. LOW X 0 DQ -X- 1 Vii0 00 400 0 =iii te+ Rg_ T G \i .' ^_plfOa ►�I i►v n►.i vuA.S4 erqT _- _ ' 41- �w l•�n;e,Tj�TP o <!t•4�,17siipe O�7C0_' �� ditto / _ •. , ® qn®� -.f�� i JI : P_ -af �® v`-ef r1. \ � vv ._6^7t0 C ��,(e Vie' .•t l'a :- ®fci®®00 0 0 0000 ® A / / 0 0 x/ ° x x / row trl.... O Ail �;r l tr IA G ION,...., MI k NI, All "I 14 th Nal iI fir titcy To `. AD � c‘OF• i .40: �103.' 11Wi��To ° it ; 6t . 40 PO law :4111,401/ i41 ` ii i► ®� sr� \` lVii*U 4+ — fit is i► Mo ee� 0 m W 5 • — / ` — 1 — / i / \ \ \ \ \ \ • ►/I • /1 •I • • • \ \ \ �. I g RIPARIAN kREA \ I EX TING TREE IIll \� 10' " BUFFER SEThAC4c� \ I I \ `1 rd / • • \ \ \ \ / \� > \\, \ • I\® \ • 1 ° (-s-."6T tiF�ti� 6 'oj \ • \ 1 H v 1 X 0® ® X 0 00000\0cJ_M•�. c�, E °�o o°o�o•o°o\ oo�g-oo�co) o�,�.po� O00°ob°o°dd •°o°o°d°d bo°o°°gooddddd o°o ° 0 0 0� 00000 o°a o p 0 0 0', I ` N \ • \ t \�•\ • • 0 i / , \ •• \ • \ • 103,258 SF I 2.37 ACRES/ i I, J // ,— l.� I / / r I • J / o • — J • —\ • • / x x 50 / / 100 / . 1 • • / • • • / • • / Scale 1'" = 50 ft x x 150 • • • • • • 800-227-2600 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re- quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Scale 1”=50. Issue Date 01-25-18 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN Ll .2 Sheet of 1 • &/\tS I/ • / iW4A � Ii�[![�VIlS �9► �i�®„, gi tifirft-411PIMIU. oYIOr1 � / ��r_ F �Ti� �447�.�� II fir ..,: PLANT SYMBOLS J I • \ EXISTING TREE TO REMIAN • 2 ' i G4 E INDICATES PLANT KEY INDICATES PLANT QUANTITY I / / / / / / \ ----- 1\ 40/ °at WE; ditrA.&drr 14,1"' 1110" Away Air vir.r: A 40 •r • • • • %A.% rivAlt4141:%\71:11,1111::1 ono FT, hvi wlll� !WF �oo,►r 440 — 445 +/ + + + �...4,-.. + i / / / / // , I.'.• •r , ...... < / r \ / 11 / // / / \ i / fir / I tl // / I iii 41 1r \Eil \ 1.02 AC ES,% li 1 I 1 ( I 1 \ I I 1 I 1 \ 1 I r 1 1 11 I 1 �3i p p i 1 i cr i9 -.l cn rno �co 0 1 I 1 \ I I �/ i\ I 1. \ j I 11 \ fl I 1 1 i 1 I \ 1 1 .. 1 ` \\\\\ \, 1 \\\1 1\ \ I 1\1 1 i I I I I \..1 \ 'I \ 11 1\I \ \ \, \ I I 1 \ \ \ vy v \ \ \ `\ \ \ \\ / \ \ \ I I U i / //'\ / / '. / / / /, X ,/ 1 /' •::- X I / / f........'..'. 1 \\t \ 11• 1 11 1 i \ 1 1+;1:+\+ f+F *+ :.++ +.+/ +:t+:}++ \ { - r /'J \ \I I 1 / \1 E* 19-7 E . I \ \ \7 1.' ,m \ �ACI \ \\ I/ I\\ \{ 11:\1 1 N \\ I.. Rlit'AR I 1 \ 1�+ ,ram + 1+ i .1+ \ b+ ,+ ++:+++ +t+ ++++ / + 1 + + +++ + Na\ \ ++ \++++++ +4�++�++++++++++ I+15 + + 4+ +++ 11+)++++ (5)..\. C31 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / PLANTING NOTES AND LEGENDS 1. SEE SHEET L1.4 FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING 2. SEE SHEET L1.4 FOR LANDSCAPE NOTES. o� co aro, \, �r 4 LEGEND. 0 Amp + y AFA ikv awl Art AtifAtY p1 WA (I,' II \ IL 4,,,,,i?, 1 ) i , \ ; 1 \I , L i 1 1 ` ye i I I 1 I 1 1 ................... I 1 * _ I 1 ��. I• 11 I h� _ 1 I •....... \........... :.'....• .. ... ..1.• ... .. ...... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ..... ... ....... .. . :1: ... .. .. ....: ... ..1:),•• ..... .................. . '.n.. .......... •e•///'/ i �''.. \ 1. •1 \ 1 I 'fail; , . • ..,..............‘„. .,.....• . . .. . .............. %��I i0F1'ii$r 'AI,010. 0 iiiiii: . \ \. r4 \ il;r4l4 bt \ \ • .. 1 \ ;\\\++ + 4,e1; —7 ::,41:41 I:, -11"1 74("17 +.++++ +.+++.+ #�\ � ++ + / ++++ + / '/... I/ I • / /i /1 i r \ / -t-�,�` — / / \ • l , 1 / '. / / ,' / ---- ..1 / / 1 1.. / \ / / 1 / \,/ ; - // 48°- f ,--! / 1 r r 1 f................................................ r............................... / ............... / It / / 1 I i• / / \\ ` / 1 1 / . \ // i i • al • I 1- 1 , —.\ • /• \ ••/ F /. r, 1 I • 'I • I i \) / \ N 1 • 1 ' i i I 1. / \ / 1 • I I / 77. •. 1•5 I • I I: I ^ .. .• - it Its i� 1 \—•-‘ 1 • • /r\ • • \� • • • • • 1�1 1 1.• . 1 r \\\ \ 1 /4, `, � .\ / � �\ 41 \ -.. I • - `. / /j • 0 30 ........\ .............. \. . F... .. .\ • \.•.. .\'. . / \ \ \.... 60 Scale 1" = 30 ft 90 \I 17'7,46�5 AC'RE 800-227-2600 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX web: www.rala.net / email: paul@a rala.net SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA APN-532-16-006 ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Issue Date 01-25-18 ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN Ll .3 Sheet of 1 , po 141thk NW/ T4 3 11101011 S2 3 47,780 SF 1.09 ACRE I ' I 1 I 5 \8 3 • siN N PLANT LIST: KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. SIZE REMARKS WUCOLS TREES T4 QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS CANYON LIVE OAK -- 24"BOX NATURAL LOW SHRUBS 52 CEANOTHUS x 'DARK STAR' DAIRK. STAR CALIFOWIA LILAC -- 5 GAL LOW SI MAI-1ONIA 'GOLDEN ABUNDANCE' GOLDEN ABUNDANCE MAHONIA --- 5 GAL LOW 59 JUN1CUS P. 'ELK BLUE' CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH --- 5 GAL LOW GROUND COVERS GI BACCHARIS 'TWIN PEAKS II' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH --- 1 GAL 60" 0.C. LOW G2 HYDROSEED- NATIVE SEED MIX EROSION CONTROL --- SEED LOW • / • • • • • • • • 80,381 SF • I Alt, • • N . I . '.1.''. ./..i..t..tt...tit./•/.7...... . ...t.. ..j.'...... . ,. . .. . t. . . . :.•/..t.i..t...........,•,/: . ..:..: .... ....... ... .1::.'../.'t•::. .. 't.'....'/'t.t."..'?... n.L:L/.t.,..,_....-----------' . -,\c___2\ 77 .. .. ,L .._.........,_. . 7 . . ...... . . , .. .._. _'L-1.:.,..).6. j.,....2.:5....t.........—....._.t.t. .... t . 1 . : . .• . . . . . ' . ........ j.1 .....:' . .... . . ..N:. .. .1./:'—.L..:. .. .7.7.. 7,.'.—.2'''',I. t.. ... . 7,... ... .. .,.....r . i....n...... .7-7:.. .. .i 1 .. .',1 .: ... ' .\. . ... .. : .... ... .1.,,... ./,' . •' .(- . ... .... fl.,... .n. ... ... ... 4. •• ..... .;,:•• i.,.......//. .,••••••:• I.?. .• .• :7.1:/r.•::•:•./.•:/./:::.•':::.:n. •: ..." ..1..... . /........ ' . .. r/ • ROUP • --- • • • • • • 1 N PLANT NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES FROM THE PLANTING PLAN. QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE LEGEND ARE FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. 2. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS AND THE PLANTING PLAN 3. PLANT GROUNDCOVER IN SHRUB AREAS AS NOTED, USE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 4. SEE DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. THERE WILL BE NO MATERIALS OR PLANT MATERIALS SUBSTITUTIONS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER OR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. ALL SLOPES PLANTED WITH LAWN NOT TO EXCEED A 3:1 SLOPE. ALL SLOPES PLANTED WITH GROUND COVER NOT TO EXCEED A 2:1 SLOPE. 7. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL BUILDINGS (2% MIN.) 8. IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS PLAN AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS TO BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 9. ENTIRE SITE IS TO BE ROUGH GRADED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR TO WITHIN Yo FOOT OF FINISH GRADE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO FINE GRADE ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. 10. ALL SITE UTILITIES ARE TO BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PLANS AND UTILITIES TNE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, OR OTHER FEATURES TO REMAIN, AND CAUSED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. 11. THE WORK IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MY RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH WORK BY OTHERS. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS. 12. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS FOR OVERALL SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE. 13. SOD LAWN SHALL BE DWARF FESCUE BLEND. 14. PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR TRENCHING, CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1.800.227.2600 PLANT SYMBOLS / INDICATES PLANT KEY INDICATES PLANT QUANTITY 30 60 90 800-227-2600 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA AP N-532-16-006 ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Scale 1"=30' Issue Date 01-25-18 ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L1.4 Sheet Of PLANT LIST: KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. SIZE REMARKS WUCOLS TREES T1 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T2 CERCIS OCCIDENTAL 15 WESTERN REDBUD --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T3 FLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE --- 24"BOX STANDARD LOW T4 QUERCUS GHRYSOLEPIS CANYON LIVE OAK -- 24"3OX NATURAL LOW SHRUBS 51 4-4ETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON --- 5 GAL LOW S2 CEANOTI-IUS x 'DARK STAR' DARK STAR CALIFORNIA LILAC -- 5 GAL LOW S3 CISTUS LADANIFER CRIMSON -SPOT ROCKROSE -- 5 GAL LOW S4 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'HOWARD MCMINN' MCMINN MAZANITA --- 5 GAL LOW 55 MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAHONIA -- 1 GAL 24" O.G. LOW 56 RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY --- 5 GAL LOW SS MAHONIA 'GOLDEN ABUNDANCE' GOLDEN ABUNDANCE MAHONIA --- 5 GAL LOW 58 DODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSH --- 5 GAL LOW SS JUNCUS P. 'ELK BLUE' CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH --- 5 GAL LOW SI0 PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA I-IOLLYLEAF CHERRY --- 15 GAL LOW GROUND COVERS GI BACCHARIS 'TWIN PEAKS II' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH --- I GAL 60" O.G. LOW G2 HYDROSEED- NATIVE SEED MIX EROSION CONTROL --- SEED LOW G3 ALVIA BEE'S BLISS CREEPING SAGE --- 1 GAL 36" O.G. LOW G4 CEANOTHUS G. H. 'YANKEE POINT' CARMEL CREEPER --- 1 GAL 36" O.C. LOW G5 COPROSMA X KIRKII N.CN. --- 1 GAL 36" O.C. LOW 0 0 0 DA COG 00' /40Ce Oqi-76,-----riniiiret-iiii I� • x • ` �` _�__1\ ��,�, iT.&_41111.ltlToLrT�,T• • lIL!25o ,��A7%O• aIIJ�,�iS�'af 000 AAR eihpa Ortlo fis 000 ijo 6666 © I! 0 0 DODGE ihMfl MONTOY II /I / I / I x • _ 410_ er�•.nv•u �•i 011417•• a7, 410 4s epp, NIT \Is// I I__ 1 MELEYCO -x FOR R1 : 1 YCE ATCHLINE x -KIN 1:10 HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO REMAIN IN PLACE 11) 34 / • / • • 1 \ % difil► / .ear �i®lo'+err l�l�ai �i .`.:•0.Ak 40 la,�I IQ�' I • 110-111PPA, 0.:Ait pit • 1 ®� 1 •\ • • 1.41 I I /�, — I: / / / / ) I / / / HOPPNERI / / / / I / I 47,781 SF i.09ACRE I 1 1 / I 1 / I 1 I I I i o I I /-% �(j/ ! v`n /f/ /// /V/I / 4--// / / / / 1 / \ i / I \1//( j y I r.M RE 1 1\ 1 1/1 I 1 I I \� ) \ )‘\ I\\ 1 \\\ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ I RIPARIAN'REA \ \t f 1. EXITINF TREE l \\\ \ �[- 10' BUFFER SETVC \\ \ t \ \ \ \i 'r \ \ \ x— /0 VISTA Cfl2 • r �1 � t \ • • *'L ' \ ---- > � r' •• 1 s • - a.8581 ACRES N `\ / \ ill: 1 4:•N •• 1 =i " HR- ® e / • _ROUF • r �► ' \ (....1, • I /' `\ • /" % \ /! _ • I .�� : /// 508 �� / 'ii 0,46 \\\ \ : \\ ;\\ 1\ I I f I AcAlif I`0.4•` I,1 \ 0 \ \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ 17461 SF \ 4.07\ACRES ! EDETRfAtI�ESTRJAIV \ \ .: \ \ \ \ 1 1 { { l\RAIL,\TYR. \ :: \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ is { 1 wc' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ://,‘ { I j \ t \. \ \ \ 1 \ \ k \ { 1 1 \ \ \ \ i \ \ \ \ 1s \ w tr \ • `\II 1\ A\ \�\V\\\ v • r,) \ \ 0-, \ \ \; • i Y --- 1--.\ \ • ` ' -\\` �' \ \ \ \ \ 40 \ \ \ \ r_ \ _' \ \ \ \ \ \ 0\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ I\\ • / • • • \�\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ ,\\ :\ \\ \ t\1 \ \\ \\ \\ `\\ // • / t\ \\. \\ \\ ` • \. \\• >►, i- \`tea \\ \\ \\• \ \ \ \ • 1 i I 1 \- \ i\_ is �rJ. 1 • , /` •V" _ Av / L�i 1 • • I /• \ \ to „4/i -\\ \ CI, \/' _• I > • `• ' \\ . \ • • \ \ \ If \ 1 A \ \ \ \ \• \ \ � 1 1 I • \\ 1 I 1 / 1 • / 1 / \ / `• \ / .-- • • \;� I-/ �\ \ . \ \ \� 1 • 1 I\\ I \ \ / ` x x N. \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ �� `\ \ \\ I \\ \\ \\ � • 1 \ -.455 __ I \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ N. \\ \\ \\\ •i \ ---- \4g5 ----BERT LOTTl / \ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\ // �\ ,� / I \ \\ \ \ \\ \\\ \\ \\ ..... ..... \\ \\\ N. / \ \ \ \ N. -----_ ---- -- \ \ / ---_505 -� 1 \N \ N. �� .N. \ \ 0 • 50 100 150 Scale 1" = 50 ft \ • 800-227-2600 \ 439 • — y/ / 1 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX web: www.rala.net / email: paul@a rala.net SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA APN-532-16-006 ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Project No. --.-- Scale 1 "=50' Issue Date 01-25-18 ALTERNATE OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L1.5 Sheet Of :10 DOW Q D4 • p2 02 02 02 ation method dr'p drip — -, \ �/ / • x / \ / / / _ — — —// \ \ / / / / — / \ 1 \ r \ \ / Y 5 ff c ency ETAF P 0.24 1.111 0.247 Q.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 2 5266 13,119 \ • 6 806 71 6,226 1,300 3,239 2,043 5,294 2,863 1,264 987 IWuu MD u�i I II u �� IIIIIp� IV��UI I,I�� 1ID 5u II , U I Ip� U I� I55 e u 0.II it I il uu PLANT ARE GR�UP I T� HAVE II MAT CHIN III II. , III WATER REP It MENTS AND IIi i I III IP Ili , 1II 165 610 34,584 86,158 54,352 140,805 76,149 33.632 26,263 / ..... .............a..... \ / — , / • 410 / / \ • n / • /-- / • • I/ \ / HVR-1 x- Inv 0 / 50 100 • \ • / • 150 • • / / • 800-227-2600 1 REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX web: www.rala.net / email: paul@a rala.net SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA APN-532-16-006 ISSUE DATE Aplant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re— quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Project No. --.-- Scale 1 "=50' Issue Date 01-25-18 LANDSCAPE HYDROZONE PLAN L2.0 Scale 1 " = 50 ft Sheet of pu IIIwIIIu �NNNI I� I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II � h � Iil III �Illl�ulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Illllluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll luullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII I IIIII I I III I lu luau eet I II I iu. ChoiceEvapotlanspiratioEvapotranspiration (ETo) MAWAeguag Landscape Areas lh II AWA = (ETo)"X. 0'62 0.:4 'X.LA I HI it plupilglglllllu landscape area' ET gu ar Lan cape eas R- ydro-zone x =To) x (0.62) x (ET �Itll I Iltldd I plant.water use.. a E (� tot, average RRIGA (1.4 total .irrigatien.rnethod . drip drip drip 0..................... drip 35S07 1 13,361 & f Average ETAFfor r soap 0.45 or below for n -r si nti I areas .Irrlgatip,n.efflc,ienuy 1, ga ops per aal ons oer E QE( PE/IE).. , ?47 ..... EXISI _ STO!I [ L CUL' I 11 Ul\ (UN[ I x GRILLING OVEI h\ TKI^\' PRO! I Y v`__% HILLS' IS S�rIUU�' DODG E IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I�II HYDRO -ZONE LEGEND PLANTS ARE GROUP TO HAVE MATCHING WATE RE UIRE MICRO -CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS III II 111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 I I MEDIUM WATER REQUIREME 9, 6644:4 \ ETWU. 76;491 ITKIN LLBROOK SC x . I HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO REMAIN IN PLACE 54 , • /,\I ; -- 1/ .' / • S6 • • / / LOW WATER REQUIREMENT (DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING N.:- I` -- ,---- / 1 1 OOL II II ION /- -----_ •I • \ I I 1 \1 • \ I / I / I / I / / 1 HOVPPNE9 / / / / I I I � I I I 47,785 SF .09 ACRE I I I I / / I / / /I / / / / 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 9-)Y / v / / , t'1 // I 1 / / \ / \\ �"/ /` / / A 1 / / ' // 1 , i // ( ;L I /1 J /J / 110 // / I 1y\ / F / / I , dz A ES/ .� <s& ` \ .1\\ l' II \ 1vv\ \ II \ \ \v ,II 1 «\\ 9 \ I { - \/� RI�ARFAN�REA 55,660 SR / 1.28 ACRES' ', // A8�-------- { -----' / r • 1 / • \ • \ 1 \ \ • \ \ • \ • L \\ I \ { I I 1 ` / �-- ----- ------�/N \ / / I I \\ II \\\\ 11 // 1 I 11 11 /�/ \��_ \\ 48 I \11 1\HR-1 III 111 11 11 I �I `\\490 - ISARE / \ 1 1 t I 1 1 1 \\\ \\\ 1\ \\ 1\ 1 \\ \`r` \ \ \ \ I \\ t \ \ \ 1 tr \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • • • • 1 \\ • / -RRO VISTA CO' i { / G1 '//i T2',I / T1 1 {/' \ / // ,`--/K/J �`2'/ ^//`_�` 1 J O/ // 1 `\ \. r <0 / 1 \\ fs4 7 h CO ,/� 50a/ { .I 1 \ 1 \, 1. I \. \ \ \ \ 1 I' 1 { { , I /- . \ -_ ' ;/ ,/ 'f /``\ • ?0 p \ \ Q\. - , 11 /L / / \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ ‘K,116 set \ \ IN\ 17 i\\\ \\ \ \ \I\IIi\,.., i 1 14.0\7\ACR—E\s' \ ' ' A C • • N \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 + \_1:_-- \ \ \ t • /.-.1 \ \\'. \ \`./ \ \�an, i / �., ``\ 1\ • \\ \\ . • \I t ,� • \• s \ \ \ • \ \`_ i \ L/ Q\• \ \ \ \ \\ , \\ i •\ / `.. \ 1 .. /',..---.. \\\\ \\ \\\\ \ \ 19 1 I \ / • • 1 . ',////. / �� // 4.4 ''v� •538 r • 1 •\• • /'G5 5 i / \ , \ , . HR 1`. T&R REALTY • ¢ROUP \\ • ) ,/. �_..1j / 1 • / / / / t./ I t- • z b2J_ 1 x / -510 •,4g5 • • • • • BERTOLOTTI • • • • • N. NN NN .......• ,cz;s00411.4k.--- —........ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • N. • 50 n HR- REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 477 SOUTH TAAFFE STREET SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 408.481-9020 / 408.481-9022 FAX web: www.rala.net / email: paul@rala.net SURREY FARM ESTATES TWIN OAKS DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ISSUE DATE A plant screening additions ALT A AND ALT B REV 4-28-14 07-24-14 site adjustments site adjustments 07-14-2015 01-25-18 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof furnished by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture are and shall remain its property. They are to be used only with respect to this Project and are not to be used on any other project. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory re- quirements or for purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, common law copyright or other reserved rights. Approved Drawn pjr ds Reviewed pjr Project No. Scale 1"=50' Issue Date 01 -25-18 ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE HYDROZONE PLAN L2.1 Scale 1" = 50 ft Sheet of S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP1.DWG VASONA LAKE COUNTY PARK LEGEND S GgOS ALMADEN RD 5 V0 S500 HILL RD PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT SETBACK EXISTING PROPOSED SHEET INDEX (E) (P) SHEET NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SHEET TITLE SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY GRADING ❑ DRAINAGE PLAN STREET 'A' PLAN I I PROFILE STREET'B' PLAN CI PROFILE PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILS :1NOTES ALTERNATE SITE PLAN ALTERNATE SITE PLAN DETAIL LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 21.53 N29°11'49"E L2 93.26 N17°04'10"E L3 56.06 N53°34'10"E L4 7.83 S03°56'05"E L5 52.98 N53°00'00"W CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DEGREE C1 36.31 57.00 36°30'00" C2 41.65 21.40 111 °30'30" C3 40.84 250.00 9°21'37" 1 S80°25'52"E 235.64' LOT A N80° 5'.2"W 85,2j' 15' LANDS OF J L DODGE MD MUD MED 3' 110' SCVWD FLOOD EASEMENT (E) 15' STORMDRAIN,►. EASEMENT (E) FFREY UST 4Sr LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO BE COMPLETED TO PROVIDE 15' SETBACK TRACT 1699 LNDS OF MONTOY LANDS OF WITKIN TRACT 5686 LANDS OF MELEYCO LAND OF FORDYCE LANDS OF WITKIN ♦ doer.\ / �ti5 I/ z / / / ° / /�7i// // /I' / /--• �- / / /4 /ems / 46' P LIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT, ERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT G /INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (P) ` '\ E PRIVATE STORM i DRAIN EASEMENT (P) I I r /— EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE \ \\ 10' PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASMENT (E) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ===- 75'� 26' 75' i L 1 10' PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT (E) EXISTING WETLAND AREA TO REMAIN EXCLUSION FENCE ♦ LANDS OF HILLBROOK SCHOOLS 304' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN —I 10' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (P) EASEMENT (P) PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 25' / / / / I / // I I I 11 25I I I � NI 46' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY I EASEMENT, / I I EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (P) / 1 / I / 30 1 I \II 1 1 i\ \ \ 3 ±41,810 SF I(±0.96 AC) PRIVATE /�\ ±42,648 SF (±0.98 AC) J TRACT 5579 LANDS OF DUGGINS 15' I 2 25' I L L� 110' PUBLIC SA ITARY 'ISEWER EASMENT (E) PROPOSED 15' WIDEI I PEDESTRIAN/ EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ' EASEMENT (TYP) / 2 ±42,776 SF J/ I (±0.98 AC)l / / / / / 45. 11.1 Ce Mill / / 1 R20' cl' PUBLIC SERVILE UTILITY EASEMENT EMERGENCY VEHICLE 4 ±40,912 SF (±0.94 AC) R36' • \ LOT Al V ±51,798 SF #(I R29' (±1.18 AC)/ \ R29' ti/ 10' BUFFER FROM TREE / CANOPY (TYP) I � \ \ \ • I I \ \ w I \\ ,\ 1 %\• \ • \ / \ 10' PR \TILIT / POTENTIAL DRIVEWAY TYP) ♦ EASEMENT TRACT 7613 LANDS OF HOEPPNER 20' • OUTLINE OF • POTENTIAL \ • ±57,968 SF CL 10' PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 5 ±44,698 SF / NOTES: FUTURE HOUSE SITES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE PcS REVIEW PROCESS AT A LATER DATE. ER-RO VISTA —CT. EXISTING PUBLIC R/W (±1.02 AC) PROPOSED 15' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/ / EQUESTRIAN TRAIL/ EASEMENT (TYP 44' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT, EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT )1NGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (P) / LEAST RESTRICTIVE / DEVELOPMENT AREA • • , l/ I II I II • \\)\/ /I i I ir I • N \\T"- A. I, / /PROPOSED 5' WIDE 39' R19' A pt, / / ,/ 6 icr'' / / 3°' 1 Liz i 8 ±52,598 SF (±1.21 AC) PROPOSED 5' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/ (TYP) TRACT 5579 LANDS OF SAYRE \ \\ ', 1 ---,,_ 7. ___ --..j.;./)\/ \ t [‘ \ \ —NJ LEAST RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA (LRDA) LINE (TYP) A PEDESTRIAN/ El [UESTRIAN TRAIL (TYP) 15' TRAIL EASEMENT ,, UTILITY • (E)TRACT 7613 — LOT B ±157,611 SF (±3.62 AC) COMMON AREA 195' - if 622' 354' 6 (±2.0 AC) • 7 / (±2.37 AC) • TRACT 5579 LANDS OF BERTOLOTTI N, • / 0 25 50 100 1 INCH = 50 FEET CN 01 CD 1111 20' PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 TRACT 7613 LANDS OF TFR MANAGEMENT GROUP INC. 1 • TRACT 7613 LANDS OF WU LANDS OF BREWICK Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com a. 0 SURREY FARM ESTATES 0 A A PR ELIMINARY A ON OT FOR STRUCTION NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP1.DWG DESIGNED BY: DW DRAWN BY: ML CHECKED BY: SK DATE: AUGUST 29, 2016 SCALE: 1" = 50' HMH SITE PLAN Cl PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 10:17 AM S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP2.DWG LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT SETBACK STORM DRAIN PIPE STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING) CATCH BASIN CURB INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE CATCH BASIN (EXISTING) CURB INLET (EXISTING) STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING) TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO BE TRANSPLANTED SITE AVERAGE SLOPE S = 0.00229 ❑ I ❑ L A WHERE, ■ • A X / = CONTOUR INTERVAL IN FEET (FT) L = COMBINED LENGTH OF CONTOUR LINES A = AREA IN ACRES (17.55 AC) S = 23.92 EARTHWORK: -CUT (CY) : 11,000 FILL (CY) : 7,050 NET (CY) : 3,950 (CUT) LONGMEADOW DRIVE MEDIAN ISLAND W/ MOUNTABLE CURB EX TREE TO REMAIN EX TREE AB° TO REMOVE (TYP) 1373 '(311 137 r '315 v . 358 oy �w7 �Fra�rr.- gre 1331 3' MAX WALL EX TREE TO BE TRANSPLANTED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO BE COMPLETED TO PROVIDE 15' SETBACK EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE LANDS OF J FFREY L DODGE RUST TRACT 1699 L NDS OF MONTOY Z I IX EXISTING ROCK WALL TO REMAIN 177 \-53 --` VIA Cf) 10' PUE R/W R/W 2:1 SLOPE LANDS OF WITKIN • 131 • 2' BENCH 24' 2.0% STD PLAN D 210 CURB GUTTER 2:1 SLOPE STD PLAN 211 CURB TYPICAL STREET 'A' SECTION EXISTING WETLAND AREA TO REMAIN 18' WIDE EARTHEN CHANNEL (OVERFLOW) PROPERTY LINE TRACT 568 411 LANDS OF ME 4 LAND 4 414.0 OF FORDYCE 415.0 413.7 416. LANDS OF WIT141) NOT TO SCALE JACK AND BORE 27" SD WITH 30" MINIMUM DEPTH BELOW WETLAND AREA EXCLUSION FENCE 1591 • 1533 94 1.95 ol 769 /1:65171153,_c/59/71'5:87611.676601.6:67: -C.°A7(1:7 5 / / ±42,648 SF (±0.98 AC) 13,5.5 TRACT 5579 LANDS OF DUGGINS 135 7353 / ±41,810 SF GRADING (T 2 5' MAX WALL 1342111 LANDS OF HILL 1591 460.0 10' PUE 2' BENCH 2:1 SLOPE R/W R/W 22' 1' 2.0% STD PLAN 210 CURB D GUTTER TYPICAL STREET 'B' SECTION TRACT 7 POTENTIONAL DRIVEWAY 480 OUTLINE OF POTENTIONAL HOUSE PAD • (TYP) APPROXIMATE RIPARIAN LIMIT (TYP) 41IL i ,— -2Q6=.70.... \ .; t •,s5HEADWALL 13 EPP ER CL 10' PEDESTRIAN EDUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 (±1.0 AC) LEAST RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA (LRDA) WALL FOR DRIVEWAY (TYP) 1167 1269 1263 _:____,..„.„ ,„4 1255 1250 NOT TO SCALE LIM T OF RADING (TYP) PROPOSED 5' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/ (TYP PROPOSED 5' WIDE PEDESTRIAN/ EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (TYP) APPROXIMATE RIPARIAN LIMIT (TYP) LEAS RES ARE LI RICTI E (T 2:1 SLOPE 1153 NOTES: FUTURE HOUSE SITES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE A S REVIEW PROCESS AT A LATER DATE. 1450 062 21510 (±2.0 AC) 093 7479 1473 1477 1394 7163 1 INCH = 50 FEET 1595 596 .1597 .1405 1407 1403 000 1411 1424 025 /1420 1405 1177 • 1333 144,1 1413 12051 1217 1427 .56 1253 440 110 1435 .035 1245 OOLS 7541 ±40,91 SF 10' BUFFER FROM TREE CANOPY (TYP) 8 2,59 SF 1.21 AC) LA LINE TYP) 1559 1296/ RE TRACT 13 LAN OF TFR GROUP INC-- TRACT 7613 LANDS OF WU LANDS OF Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408)487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com a. 0 ci SURREY FARM ESTATES A A PR ELIMINARY A ON OT FOR STRUCTION NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP2.DWG DESIGNED BY: DW DRAWN BY: ML CHECKED BY: SK DATE: AUGUST 29, 2016 SCALE: 1" = 50' HMH PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C2 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 10:19 AM LANDS OF WITKIN PROPOSED GRADE @ CL / 1.00%/ :\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP3.DWG 3.0 ;o "NI T583 T95 / 15g4 1582 194 196 110A 6T1r.30 �105 ®i 1 1103 �74 1102 T97 LIMIT OF GRADING (TYP) • • • • • • 1' INCH = 30 FEET /nn ----------------------- DS OF JEFFR BODGE TRUS HIGH VUIN I ELEV = 42b.L:i HIGH POINT STA = 2+18.13 PVI STA = 2+30.63 P\/I PI P\/ = d7F 17 A r1 — n nn PA.U. — -o.Vt K = 12.bU 100.00' VC 3' WALL MAX _ 111 LOT LI Y- TOBEC PROVIDE E ADJ:.)STMENT MPL'ETED TO 'SETBACK LOW POINT ELEV = 421.28 I Cl\A/ PCIINT STA = 1+4Q 17 n%n oTA — "1 C t'VI ELEV = 421.U/ A.D. = 6.00 K = 8.33 50.00' VC ,140 1579 145 135 420 *5° AT STREET PVI STA = 5+25 PVI I I E\/ - A23 nn H.U. — 8.22 K = 12.16 100.00' VC d I 1.382 —5'WALL n�1 I mrs11.,- r1 rl i — enn nn nivn rviry i CLEV— HIGH I'OIN 1 S IA = 7+68.U6 PVI STA = 7+46.90 PVI ELEV = 443.46 A n - _1 'Y K — 13.14 200.00' VC 10' BUFF: FROM TR CANOPY • • • • • • • • • • • • 5613 `• • 1552 EXISTING GRADE @ / 1 A A NO Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road San Jose, CA 95131 0 (408) 487-2200 HMHca.com S PRELIMINARY NOT FOR ON DATE PROJECT NO: STRUCTION DESCRIPTION 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP3.DWG DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: SCALE: © HMH DW ML SK AUGUST 29, 2016 H:1"=30' V:1"=6' STREET 'A' PLAN AND PROFILE C3 3 OF 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 10:20 AM HIGH POINT ELEV = 511.05 HIGH POINT STA = 7+08.46 PVI STA = 6+83.46 D\/I CI C\I — 518.55 A.U. = -LS.UU K = 10.00 250.00' VC EXISTING GRADE C/�IJ 1 IIVV VR/4.LJC 4' WALL 1-)VI t.; I A = 9+U3.2U PVI E:LEV = 496.08 A.D. = 6.00 K=6.67 8500SDP3.DWG w a I- z w 2 a 0 J w w 0 w CO J 0 w O a. r Vl[1T1k I,' hn A nr , (l L/�IV 1 IIVV VI\ItL.JL `4 \ \\ \\\\ `; , \)�\\\\\\\� vvvyw PROPOSED GRADE @ -\\ / / 470 I 1 1 • •• PROPOSED GRADE @ 1CI !VN \ir` rv.vv V H=30FEET TRH' OF HOEPPNER PVI STA = 1+37 PVI ELEV = 440.50 A fl = itch ch I/ - A nr_ L\ 440 Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road San Jose, CA 95131 z J a 1-1 z w a 0 J W W W 1-1 N d (408) 487-2200 HMHca.com SURREY FARM ESTATES PRELIMINARY NOT FOR ON NO DATE PROJECT NO: STRUCTION DESCRIPTION 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP3.DWG DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: SCALE: © HMH DW ML SK AUGUST 29, 2016 H:1"=30' V:1"=6' STREET 'B' PLAN AND PROFILE C4 4 OF 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 10:21 AM LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING) SANITARY SEWER PIPE (EXISTING) WATER MAIN (EXISTING) CATCH BASIN CURB INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CATCH BASIN (EXISTING) CURB INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (EXISTING) FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT (EXISTIN-1-"G)- T361 T 76 0 0 CL CL 0 co 0 co w d H z w 2 a 0 J w w 0 w J CL co co 0) 1- U w O Ct CL 1577 1 INCH = 40 FEET 110CVWD FLOOD EASEMENT \7" 5, MED EXISTING ROCK WALL 15' STORMDRAIN EASEMENT (E) EXISTING SCVWD STORMDRAIN CULVERT STRUCTURE LANDS OF J L DODGE T FFREY UST TRACT 1699 LANDS OF MONTOYA 0 z O cc C7 w 0 z EXISTING WETLAND TO REMAIN EX 27"SD 10' 'UBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT (E) TRACT 5686 LANDS OF MEL IYCO 18' WIDE EARTHEN CHANNEL (OVERFLOW) HOLD 5' MIN. OFF PROPERTY LINE LANDS OF FORDYCE LANDS OF WITKIN LANDS OF WITKIN -r 10' SANITARY I \ — SEWER \ EASMENT (E) I T89 186 T87I Tsa 13. \ \ T® T50 \ T81l�T82 \ �O N _ 1 • TRACT 5579 LANDS OF DUG INS 1321 1588 T129 �j13 ®' T128 T124 • II T587 1421 IT123Ij124 5 119LL i1116 4 T el 1 T115 .T129 IT11� T11 / JACK AND BORE 27" SD WITH 30" MINIMUM DEPTH BELOW WETLAND AREA EXCLUSION FENCE T 91 • 46' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILIT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCES i, INGRESS/EGRESS E I111 EASEMENT T1 07 10' ANITARY EWER E SMENT (E) 1106 T583 LANDS OF HILLROO SCHOSLS Y EASEMENT, PRIVATE STORM / \\ `\ /DRAIN EASEMENT (P�\� 49 S EASEMENT (P) �� I 1 ' ®i, 'mot 10' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT_F 5 y4 T57T6� 174 T102 T99 T97 153 fi58 egmMaNi T352- LT3•3 f `T355'! 1345 1339 ,-640 , • 124 f 9 � r 46' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT, EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMEENt ❑ T%�INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT (P) PRIVATE STORM DRAIN — EASEMENT (P) PROPOSED HEAD WALL (TYP) APPROXIMATE \RIPARIAN LIMIT (TYP) \\ \ 10' PRIVATE SERVICE \i� UTILITY EASEMENT (P) 20' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (P) T555 I T56� +T565 I T343 • I 1.342 11332 T 1,330 {3'3 T329 T323/ 1315 T SI 3' 1321 i T322 T32 1324 568; T3 0 T3271 ..T2a 1326. 1 1313�1 1314 12 13 1'T309 T325 T 16 31 T306 T305 19 T347308 1 17 I 8I I T298 1297 LAND'. OF S I \ N. \ 58 \ 1550 ‘ T7 \T559\ \ � \ 1 T55655\ 11 \ \ \ T555 T55\ \ T554 \ \ 549 T550 T552 PROPOSED 36" 346 ,,t 46 PIPE CULVERT ,ZTA4 T293 • 41 48 T5 \ PROPOSED HEAD S541 WALL (TYP)'42 1274 • T273 1272 • 127( TRAC 7613 LA DS OF HOEP"NER CL 10' PEDESTRIAN/ El IUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613 T303 r \ \&6 T304 \ T54\ T261 \ \ 1302 T262 PRIVATE SERVICE ��cu - I \\UTILITY EASEMENT (P) TT225154T253. \ 1.2 69T2671252 \\` ` \\ \\ \ \ \ \1249 \Ts248 T255 T2e 253 -T 5 1250 \T250 SD( . (E)TRACT 7613 T245 T24 T245 i 1242 T 1243 ' T603.., 1159 01151 1155 1457 44' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT, MERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (P) �1454 ♦T507 • // 4• 1-506 T509 T505 T503 `%r,0 T508 ! 1504 T514 T511 �iY. G4516 T515 �T'i0� j/ %/T513 / /♦ T510 518T T519 /�♦�52 w/ T`2'�3 15%2�/i ,520 : \/)` 521 /\% L 524 T5• ;5�6 ;5/s•2,71./ jT5h♦♦ T528 `�.. 0 T I T53I� I�• 531 T533 T535 ♦ )%T534 T536 I \/ T492 0 T495 Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com SURREY FARM ESTATES z O u_ oict 0 O 1— O u) PRELIMINARY NOT FOR ON DATE STRUCTION DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP4.DWG DESIGNED BY: DW DRAWN BY: EB CHECKED BY: SK DATE: AUGUST 29, 2016 SCALE: 1" = 40' © HMH PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C5 5 OF 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 1:18 PM S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP5.DWG EXISTING WETLAND EXCLUSION TO REMAIN / FENCE 27 "SD TREATMENT OUTLET STRUCTURE ! I 1 I I/ i FLOW CONTROL OUTLET STRUCTURE 18' WIDE EARTHEN CHANNEL (OVERFLOW) HOLD 5' MIN. OrFN\ PROPERTY LINE f OVERFLOW RISER ENLARGEMENT A 1"=20' 'MOM MED STORM DRAIN \ DIVERSION MANHOLE \ (HIGH FLOW BYPASS) FLOW CONTROL,/ OUTLET STRUCTUI TREATMENT OUTLET STRUCTURE OVERFLOW RISER ENLARGEMENT B 1"=20' I / I,/ / \ \ I \ \ \ I \\ \\ \\ \\ I \ \ '\ \\ \\ 5' M NM - yl i� V\ r STORM DRAIN PUMP STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE (HIGH FLOW BYPASS) 0 �i LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT STORM DRAIN PIPE STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING) CATCH BASIN CURB INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE STORM DRAIN PUMP OVERFLOW RISER TREATMENT OUTLET STRUCTURE FLOW CONTROL OUTLET STRUCTURE ■ • • SEE ENLARGEMENT A I r II J J SEE ENLARGEMENT B i • • CATCH BASIN (EXISTING) CURB INLET (EXISTING) STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING) WATER DUALITY / FLOW CONTROL BASIN (SEE SIDING CALCULATIONS, CROSS SECTION DETAILS, SHEET C5) BIORETENTION AREA (SEE SIDING CALCULATIONS, CROSS SECTION DETAILS, SHEET C5) DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY (TYP.) IbLP— i A O rA� L I II J N, \_\\\\\\\\,\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ 0 25 50 100 1 INCH = 50 FEET Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com A A A NO PR a. 0 SURREY FARM ESTATES 0 ELIMINARY ON DATE OT FOR DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP5.DWG DESIGNED BY: DW DRAWN BY: ML CHECKED BY: SK DATE: AUGUST 29, 2016 HMH PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL & HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT PLAN C6 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 1:23 PM Water Quality / Flow Control Basin Sizing Calculations Bioretention Area Sizing Hydromodification Management (Flow Control) Requirements Summary (per initial 4/18/12 BAHM Model runs) S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP5.DWG The sizing calculations below are based on the volume hydraulic design method contained in Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit (the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80% or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, [1993], using local rainfall data). They are intended to establish the minimum required water quality treatment volumes for the two proposed drainage areas. Drainage Area A (.66 ac) Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Determine drainage area for the BMP Total Drainage Area to BMP = 25,798 ft2 Determine percent imperviousness of the drainage area = 90% Determine Mean Annual Precipitation = 22 in. Identify rain gage closest to the site San Jose Airport MAP9a9e = 13.9 in. Determine rain gage correction factor = 22 in. / 13.9 in. = 1.58 Identify representative soil type for drainage area = Loam (B) Determine average slope for the drainage area = 15% Step 8 Determine unit basin storage from sizing curves (% imperviousness vs. type — San Jose Airport Rain Gage, 15% slope) = .53 in. Step 9 Size the BMP. BMP volume = rain gage correction factor x unit basin storage volume x drainage area = 1.58 x .53 in. x 25,798 ft2x (1 ft/12 in.) Minimum required water quality storage volume (VWa) = 1,800 ft3 Drainage Area B (76,196 sf.) Step 1 Determine drainage area for the BMP Total Drainage Area to BMP = 76,196 ft2 Step 2 Determine percent imperviousness of the drainage area = 90% Step 3 Determine Mean Annual Precipitation = 22 in. Step 4 identify rain gage closest to the site San Jose Airport MAPgage = 13.9 in. Step 5 Determine rain gage correction factor = 22 in. / 13.9 in. = 1.58 Step 6 Identify representative soil type for drainage area = Loam (B) Step 7 Determine average slope for the drainage area = 15% Step 8 Determine unit basin storage from sizing curves (% imperviousness vs. type — San Jose Airport Rain Gage, 15% slope) = .53 in. Step 9 Size the BMP. BMP volume = rain gage correction factor x unit basin storage volume x drainage area = 1.58 x .53 in. x 76,196 ft2x (1 ft/12 in.) Minimum required water quality storage volume (VWa) = 5,317 ft3 soil soil The following calculations are intended to establish the minimum surface area required for the proposed bioretention areas, which will provide treatment for the water quality volumes determined by the Water Quality / Flow Control Basin Sizing Calculations, above. Drainage Area A Assumptions: VWa = 1,800 ft3 Drain Time = 48 hrs Minimum Infiltration Rate for Bioretention Area = 5" / hr (.42 ft/hr) Maximum Flow Rate for Water Quality / Flow Control Basin Outlet: VWa / Drain Time = 1,800 ft3 / 48 hrs = 38 ft3 / hr = 38 ft3 / 3,600 sec = 0.01 cfs Minimum Size Bioretention Area: Storage Basin Outlet Flow Rate / Min. Bioretention Area Infiltration Rate 38 ft3/hr / .42 ft/hr = 90 ft2 Drainage Area B Assumptions: VWa = 5,317 ft3 Drain Time = 48 hrs Minimum Infiltration Rate for Bioretention Area = 5" / hr (.42 ft/hr) Maximum Flow Rate for Water Quality / Flow Control Basin Outlet: VWo / Drain Time = 5,317 ft3 / 48 hrs = 111 ft3/hr = 111 ft3 / 3,600 sec = 0.031 cfs Minimum Size Bioretention Area: Storage Basin Outlet Flow Rate / Min. Bioretention Area Infiltration Rate 111 ft3/hr / .42 ft/hr = 264 ft2 EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT (TYP) OVERFLOW PIPE 420 n. 0/Away& or SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT (TYP) OVERFLOW PIPE SUBDRAIN Approx. 5,192 ft3 (0.12 ac-ft) Square -shaped trapezoidal pond, 3' deep Approx. 13,913 ft3 (0.31 ac-ft) Triangular -shaped trapezoidal pond, 3' deep L FLOW CONTROL OUTLET STRUCTURE ri J PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL IW,.l1l,I. i.l.1 W. LL e. J lel,..11111..11Lu l.ul/1t.,.IlLu i... .. I '. 'I Al. iee:.A116.'l. 1111, +J.lLu l.aYl/11.,.�lLL i.c,11W.:' ..l.Li.i,a111!L ALL JILL 1.a.1;Iill..1ill. ,.aunt,.. III III III III WAT E R The Hydromodification Management standard will be met by sizing the Water Quality / Flow Control Basins to contain the following volumes of runoff, as computed by the Bay Area Hydrology Model on 4/18/12. (See 4/18/12 BAHM files) Drainage Area A Storage Req'd: Facility Design: Drainage Area B Storage Req'd: Facility Design: TREATMENT OUTLET STRUCTURE lul .A L/. L/ Li/ I,. Li I.;A! L4 .1,1`i.ul ...LJl1►li III III III III III PUMP TREATMENT OUTLET STRUCTURE III III III III III III III III III III III III—r11 III III III III III III III III—r11 III III III III III UALITY / FLOW CONTROL BASIN A NOT TO SCALE FLOW CONTROL OUTLET STRUCTURE 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111—r11 1111 111 111 111 111 I 111 111 11 OUTFALL TO BIORETENTION AREA WATER PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL UALITY / FLOW CONTROL BASIN B NOT TO SCALE i11=1 H 1=77 111 111I- 1-1 HUT' 1 1-1 1-1Ti-1 r F- -r1 1- -1-MO�It'1- Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com SURREY FARM ESTATES A A PRELIMINARY A NOT FOR ICON STRUCTION NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 4185.00 CAD DWG FILE: 418500SDP5.DWG DESIGNED BY: DW DRAWN BY: ML CHECKED BY: SK DATE: AUGUST 29, 2016 SCALE: 1" = 50' HMH PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILS & NOTES C7 7 OF 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 1:23 PM LANDS OF JEFFREYL DODGE TRUST LANDS OF WITKINLANDS OF WITKIN LANDS OF FORDYCE LANDS OF MELEYCO TRACT 5686 T R A C T 7 6 1 3 TRACT 1699TRACT 5579 T R A C T 5 5 7 9 T R A C T 5 5 7 9 T R A C T 7 6 1 3 T R A C T 7 6 1 3 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 9 4 L O T B C O M M O N A R E A 1 0 TWIN OAKS DRIVE BROOKE ACRES DR. C E R R O V I S T A E X I S T I N G P U B L I C R / W D R . LOT A 5 ' W A L L 5 ' W A L L L I M I T O F G R A D I N G ( T Y P ) 1 1 6 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L L I M I T O F G R A D I N G ( T Y P ) 5 ' W A L L L I M I T O F G R A D I N G ( T Y P ) 1.0 % 2.0%3.0%5.0%9.2% 1 0 . 0 % 1 8 . 0 % 3 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % ST R E E T B PRI V A T E S T R E E T A P R I V A T E 4 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 6.0% 2.0% P R O P O S E D 5 ' W I D E P E D E S T R I A N / E Q U E S T R I A N T R A I L ( T Y P ) C L 1 0 ' P E D E S T R I A N E Q U E S T R I A N T R A I L E A S E M E N T ( E ) T R A C T 7 6 1 3 P R O P O S E D 5 ' W I D E P E D E S T R I A N / E Q U E S T R I A N T R A I L ( T Y P ) 4.0 % E X I S T I N G T R E E S T O B E R E M O V E D T O A C O M M O D A T E C E R R A V I S T A C O N N E C T I O N E X I S T I N G R O A D E A S E M E N T P R O J E C T B O U N D A R Y E X I S T I N G R W C L 1 0 ' P E D E S T R I A N E Q U E S T R I A N T R A I L E A S E M E N T ( E ) T R A C T 7 6 1 3 E X I S T I N G R O A D E A S E M E N T 1.3 % 1 4 8 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L 1 2 4 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L E X I S T I N G 1 0 ' P U E C E R R O V I S T A C T R= 3 0 ' R = 5 2 ' R = 6 0 ' R = 8 2 ' 14.8% 1 4 . 8 % 4.0% L O T C 1.0% O U T L I N E O F P O T E N T I A L H O U S E P A D ( T Y P ) P O T E N T I A L D R I V E W A Y ( T Y P ) 1 5 ' PROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT BOUNDARY LEGENDEASEMENT A L T E R N A T E S I T E P L A N M L 1 " = 5 0 ' 1 I N C H = 5 0 F E E T 1 0 0 5 0 2 5 0 D R A W N B Y : P R O J E C T N O : C A D D W G F I L E : C H E C K E D B Y : D E S I G N E D B Y : D A T E : S C A L E : H M H C D A T E D E S C R I P T I O N N O P.D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS SURREY FARM ESTATES LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP6.DWG 4 1 8 5 0 0 S D P 6 . D W G C 8 4 1 8 5 . 0 0 D W S K A U G U S T 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 O F 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 1:58 PM L a n d U s e E n t i t l e m e n t s L a n d P l a n n i n g L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g U t i l i t y D e s i g n L a n d S u r v e y i n g S t o r m w a t e r C o m p l i a n c e 1 5 7 0 O a k l a n d R o a d ( 4 0 8 ) 4 8 7 - 2 2 0 0 S a n J o s e , C A 9 5 1 3 1 H M H c a . c o m STORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN PIPECATCH BASINCURB INLETCATCH BASIN (EXISTING)CURB INLET (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN MANHOLESTORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE 8 EARTHWORK:CUT (CY) : 9,400FILL (CY) : 2,600NET (CY) : 6,800 (CUT) N O T E S : F U T U R E H O U S E S I T E S A R E S H O W N F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y A N D W I L L B E S U B J E C T T O A S E P A R A T E A & S R E V I E W P R O C E S S A T A L A T E R D A T E . SETBACK TRACT 7613 T R A C T 7 6 1 3 5 6 7 10 C E R R O V I S T A E X I S T I N G P U B L I C R / W D R . 5 ' W A L L 5 ' W A L L L I M I T O F G R A D I N G ( T Y P ) 1 1 6 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L LIMIT OFGRADING (TYP) 1 0 . 0 % 1 8 . 0 % 3 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % ST R E E T B PRI V A T E PRO P O S E D 5 ' W I D E PED E S T R I A N / EQU E S T R I A N T R A I L (TYP ) CL 10' PEDESTRIANEQUESTRIAN TRAILEASEMENT (E)TRACT 7613 4.0 % E X I S T I N G T R E E S T O B E R E M O V E D T O A C O M M O D A T E C E R R A V I S T A C O N N E C T I O N E X I S T I N G R O A D E A S E M E N T P R O J E C T B O U N D A R Y E X I S T I N G R W C L 1 0 ' P E D E S T R I A N E Q U E S T R I A N T R A I L E A S E M E N T ( E ) T R A C T 7 6 1 3 E X I S T I N G R O A D E A S E M E N T 1.3 % 1 4 8 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L 1 2 4 ' ~ 5 ' W A L L E X I S T I N G 1 0 ' P U E C E R R O V I S T A C T R= 3 0 ' R = 5 2 ' R = 6 0 ' R = 8 2 ' 14.8% 1 4 . 8 % 4.0% L O T C PROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT BOUNDARY LEGENDEASEMENT A L T E R N A T E S I T E P L A N D E T A I L M L 1 " = 3 0 ' 1 I N C H = 3 0 F E E T 6 0 3 0 1 5 0 D R A W N B Y : P R O J E C T N O : C A D D W G F I L E : C H E C K E D B Y : D E S I G N E D B Y : D A T E : S C A L E : H M H C D A T E D E S C R I P T I O N N O P.D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS SURREY FARM ESTATES LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA S:\PROJECTS\418500\PL\SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT\418500SDP6.DWG 4 1 8 5 0 0 S D P 6 . D W G C 9 4 1 8 5 . 0 0 D W S K A U G U S T 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 O F 9 PLOTTED: 8/31/2016 1:58 PM L a n d U s e E n t i t l e m e n t s L a n d P l a n n i n g L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g U t i l i t y D e s i g n L a n d S u r v e y i n g S t o r m w a t e r C o m p l i a n c e 1 5 7 0 O a k l a n d R o a d ( 4 0 8 ) 4 8 7 - 2 2 0 0 S a n J o s e , C A 9 5 1 3 1 H M H c a . c o m CATCH BASINCURB INLETCATCH BASIN (EXISTING)CURB INLET (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN PIPESTORM DRAIN PIPE (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (EXISTING)STORM DRAIN DIVERSION MANHOLE 9 N O T E S : F U T U R E H O U S E S I T E S A R E S H O W N F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y A N D W I L L B E S U B J E C T T O A S E P A R A T E A & S R E V I E W P R O C E S S A T A L A T E R D A T E . SETBACK This Page Intentionally Left Blank