Twin Oaks Dr-Surrey Farms- Staff Report and Exhibits 4-15PREPARED 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
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 02/28/2018 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 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
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 2 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
Surrounding Area:
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).
Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning
North Residential/School Hillside Residential HR-1
South Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 and HR-2 ½
East Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
West Residential Single-Family Residential R-1:10 and R-1:12
PAGE 3 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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.
PAGE 4 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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
PAGE 5 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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.
PAGE 6 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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
½.
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
PAGE 7 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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
PAGE 8 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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.
PAGE 9 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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.
PAGE 10 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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
PAGE 11 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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);
PAGE 12 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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)
PAGE 13 OF 13 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD.docx 2/23/2018 9:31 AM
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
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CERRO VISTA DRTWIN OAKS DRK
E
N
N
ED
Y
R
D BROOKE ACRES DRKAREN CTAdjacent to 170 Twin Oaks Drive
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1
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
2
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
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
ii August 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 iii
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
iv August 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 1
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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
2 August 2017
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. 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;
D. 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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 3
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:
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
4 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 5
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
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
6 August 2017
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. 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 work is delayed more than two weeks from the date of the
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 7
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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
8 August 2017
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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 9
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. lf 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. lf 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. lf 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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
10 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 11
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. 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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
12 August 2017
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;
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 13
• 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:
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
14 August 2017
• 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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 15
• 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 III.B2, B3, and B4 of the Guidelines, p. 3.9
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
16 August 2017
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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 17
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
18 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 19
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
20 August 2017
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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 21
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.
Finding
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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
22 August 2017
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).
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 23
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
24 August 2017
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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 25
• 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
Project Activity
Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Project Constructiona
– 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 PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; exhaust PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns.
a 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: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix H)
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
26 August 2017
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.
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 27
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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
28 August 2017
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.”
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 29
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
30 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 31
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
32 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 33
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
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
34 August 2017
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
Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR CEQA Findings of Fact
August 2017 35
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. 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.
G. 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.
CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I Surrey Farm Estates EIR
36 August 2017
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.
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 8
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, CALIFORN IA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:33p.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; Mami Moseley, Associate Planner; Robert Schultz, Town
Attorney
ITEMl APPOINTING CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
C hair Marico Sayoc continued this matter to next year since the appointments to the Committee
will mo st likely change at the end of the year.
ITEM2 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 Environm ental Imp act Report (EIR) for the Town on the
application, and the possible intensification of the appl ic ation on that E IR.
The a pplicant's representative, Roger Griffin, provided a briefbackground on the application
Committee Comments/Discussion :
The Committee members discussed the status of the EIR for the application.
The Committee members discussed the po ssibility of continuing th e item until the E IR ts
available.
EXHIBIT 9
General Plan Committee Minutes
October 22, 2014
Page 2 of2
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.
ITEM3 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.
ITEM4 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:
N :\DEY\GPC\20 14minutes\GPC I 0-22-14 .doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
S U MMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON OCTOBER 28, 2015, HELD IN THE
TOWN COUN CIL CHAMBERS , CIVIC CENTER , 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS ,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30p.m . by Mayor Marcia Jensen .
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Marico 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.
ITEM2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 22, 2014
The committee moved to approve the minutes from October 22 , 2014.
Motion passed 5-0-3.
ITEM3 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 ofTown 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 of2
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.
ITEM4 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:
N:\DEV\GPC \GPC Minutes\20 15 Minutes\GPC I 0-2 8-15 .doc
Sun-ey Farm Estates, LLC
Letter of Justification
Surrey Frum Estates PD Subdivision
L ett e r of J ustification fo r
S urre F arm Es tates Subdivi s ion (PD) P ro (!_Os al
170 Twin Oaks Drive & Cerro Vista Court
This letter is intended to provide supplemental and background information on the proposed Surrey
Farm Estates PD subdivision. Our propo sed development plan is the final phase of the existing
Surrey Farm Subdivision that abuts Kennedy Road. The proposed development con sists of 10 single-
family lots plus one 3.6 acre Open Space lot on a 17.55 acre vacant site. The proposed single-fami ly
lots range in size from 0 .92 acre to 2.22 acres. fndividually designed homes will be submitted at a
later date for Architectural and Site process ing at a future date. All on-site roadway s are to be private
and along with lhe Open Space will be maintained by the new Home Owners Association.
I. EXISTING S ITE CONDJT IO NS
This I 7+ acre site is relatively tlat at the lower elevations and becomes steeper on the east side of
the central swa le that diagonally cros ses the site and leve ls out approximately 2/3 of the way
across the site. This site conta ins 485 protected trees.
•One animal cotTal in deteriorated condition near the entrance from Twin Oaks Dr.
•Ross Creek crosses lhe property near the Twin Oaks entry and is contained i n a pipe
Access to this site is from Twin Oaks Dr. and a future acce ss from Cerro Vista Ct. An emergency
access is shown abutting the current dead end of Brooke Acres Dr.
11 . P ROJ ECT PROCESSING, ENTITLEM ENT AND A PPRO VALS
A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
This I 7+ acre site is within the Town Limits of Los Gatos as is all of the surrounding properties.
The Town of Los Gatos General Plan currentl y designates the subject site as ·'Agriculture··. We
are requesting a General Plan Amendment to .. Hillside Residential" (0 to I unit per ac re). The
proposed density of 0.57 lots per acre would conform .
Thi s site is an Infill Project as it is surrounded on the south and west by Low Density Residential
(0 -5 units per acre). contiguous area s to the north, east and southeast are Hillside Residential
(0 -I 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 spec ified in the 1961 General Plan.
Pa ge I of 5 L1r of Ju st -Rc v-2.20 .18 doc\ EXHIBIT 11
The requested rezoning is to HR-I :PD that is consistent with the exis tin g surrounding lower
density ho me sites. HR-1 is consisten t with Po li cy LU -1.5 of the Gen eral Plan, which states that
''f nfill projects sha ll be designated in co nt ext with the neighborhood and s urro unding zoning
wit h respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structtrres, and should blend rather
than compete with estab li shed ch aracter of the area." Rezoning this property wo uld be
considered consi ste nt w ith th e Town·s General Plan .
B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
This s it e proposal was presented to th e Town's CDAC on September 8, 201 0 . Co mm ents from
the Committee have been incorporated with consideration to the environmenta l aspects of the
site.
C . lNIT TAL ST UDY AN D DRA FT ENV IR ONMENTAL I MP AC T REPORT
The Town initiated the pre paration of an Initial Study and M itigated Negative Declaration
(MND) that was finalized in August of 2015 and circ ulated for public comment. A Partia l
Recirculated Draft E IR was completed in May of 20 17 and was r eci rcu lated for additional pub lic
comment. The lniti al Study and the Partia l Recircu lated Draft EI R bo th identifi ed potentially
s ignifi cant effect s on the e nv ironm ent. However , the Two-Access Alternative would re s ult in
fewer impacts overall than the origina l proposed project. T he Studies recommended mitigation
measures reduce the potenti ally signi ficant impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Following approval from Town Planning Co mmi ssion and Town Council of thi s 10 Jot
subdivision a Final Map will be submitted for approval and recordation to create I 0 home sites,
one common lot and 2 roadway lots. Each home site will be processed later through separate
Architectural and s ite De velopment Permit applications.
Ill. PROPOSED SITE DESIG N
T he ori g in a l prop osed l 0 home s ite s ub division utilizes the existing site access from Twin Oaks
Dr. In add ition to the 10 home sit es there is one 3+ ac re open space parcel. In keeping with Town
Policy for PD zoning, all roadways are private and along with the trail extension and the open
s pace v.~11 be maintained by the] 0 future homeowners.
A. ORlGINAL PROPOSED S ITE PLAN
In addition to t he single primary access this projec t provides for an emergency access to and
from Brooke Acres Dr. The o ri g inal proposed (one access) s it e plan roadway swings to the n orth
with 6 home sites and then crosses t h e upper portion of the existing riparian area to access four
upp er home s ites.
The upper portion of the roadway follow s a lo ng an existing roadway cut that crosses the upper
portion of the r iparian area and proceeds along t he lower ed ge of the open s pace.
Page 2 M 5 Ltr nf Just·Re,-2 W 18 .doc>.
B. TWO ACCESS ALTERNATIVE
Durin g t he preparation of the Initial Study, a title search re vealed an offer of ingress and egress
from Cerro Vista Ct. to the proposed s ubdivision. This easement for roadway purposes and the
installation and maintenance of utilities was recorded on April 4, 1973. This access was
pre sen t ed lo the Los Gatos Town Counc il and was reserved for a future date by Council action.
A Two-Access A lternate site was prepared that provides access from Tw in Oaks Dr. for six
hom e s it es and access from Cerro Vista fo r four home sit es. Thi s Al ternate Plan removes the
cros s ing of the rip a rian area a nd still provides for th e t rai l extensi on as we ll as an enlarged 4 acre
open space lo t. Thi s site has been determined by the Draft ETR to be the Environmentall y
Superi or A ltern ative.
C. GRADING
L O RIGI NAL PROP OSE D SITE PLAN
Th e si ngle access s ite has fill up to 13 feet whe re it crosses the rip arian area. Internal street
intersections require fi ve foot to seven foot of cut or fill to accommodate engineering stan dards
for roadway s lop es. The driveway for lot number 7 propo ses a seven foo t cut with a five foot
wa ll on th e high side. T hi s driveway is outsid e of th e LRDA but follows alo ng an ex isting cut
roadbed.
2. TWO ACCESS AL T ERAN TIVE SITE PLAN
Gradin g quantities for the Two-Access Al ternate site is reduced for the construction of th e two
access roadways. The maj orit y of the grad ing involves cuts and fills five feet to sev en feet with
strate gicall y placed five fool retainin g waJ ls along the roadway edge where needed. The roadway
ali gnm ent is proposed to minimize the disturbed area and preserve trees on the site. Much of the
roadways utilize an ex isti ng roadbed cut into the hillside.
The two-access site e limin ates the fill required to cross the riparian a rea. thereby significantly
reduce s si te gradin g. Cut & fill total for the one access site is 18 ,050 CY and for the two accesses
si te is I 2,000 CY. This decreases the gra ding by one third (33%) from the sing le access s ite an d
preserves an existi ng watercourse to it s natural end ing .
No pad grading is proposed for the building sites: each site can be designed to minimize gro und
disturbance and com ply w ith gradin g crit eria estab li shed with in th e H ill side Develop me nt
Standards and Guidelines of this PD Zoning. After the two pri vate drives are constructed and
separate A&S approvals, each home site will be graded to constru ct indiv idu al dr iveways and
fini shed grad es around each home.
PageJ of 5 I.Ir of Just-Rev-2 20 18 .docx
D. BU ILDfNG 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 Hill side Development Standards.
Each of th ese propo sed home sites are located within the LRDA. Sheets A-1 and A -I A clearly
illustrate their inclus ion in th e LRDA.
Each custom home s ite is envisioned to follow a high standard of design and architecture to
properly fit each site. Eac h home site wi ll submit at a later date a separate A&S applica6on for
each sit e.
TV. TREE IMP ACTS
This site has 485 existing protected trees. 30 protected trees are to be transplanted and 70
protected trees removed. 83 % of the protected trees will be maintained in their natural position
and 5% wi ll be transpla nted. Result is that 88% of the existing pro tected tree s will be preserved
on this s ite.
We have worked closely wit the Town's Ar borist to preserve trees on the site and wjth the
a lt ernate Site we have rea ligned the lowe r roadway to completely avoid both the riparian habitat
and the focus lone oak in the habitat. Furth er we are proposing to place large and significant
rocks near the drip line of this focus oak to discourage future distu rbanc e of the trees natural
hab it at.
V . VISABILJTY
Exhibit A-2 illustrate s the proposed site from the viewing platforms. These illustrations clearly
show that thi s sit e is not visible from the se locations.
VI . UTILIT IES
Preliminary designs have been comp leted and coordinated with the Town 's Engineering Department
Staff for water supply, sanita 1y sewer, and storm drainage for t he proposed project.
A. DOMESTIC WATER
For th e Alternate Site. existing water service lines in Twin Oaks wiU be extended to the lower six
hom e s ite s . For the upper four home sites existing water lines w ill be extended from Cerro Vista
Dr.
San Jose Water Company will p rov id e water service to thi s project. See attac hed will se rve letter.
B. SAN IT ARY SEWER
Puge 4 of 5 Ltr of Ju st-Rcv -2,20.18 .doc '<
Sanitary sewer service will be provided by West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD). All service
will via an on-si te grav i ty system . The lower six lots will utilize and ex isting SS a long the west
property line. The upper four lots w ill be served via an existin g PUE to Cerro Vista Ct.
WVSD will prov id e 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 Stonn
wa ter Handbook prepared by the SCVURP PP and the Bay Area Hydro logy Model (BAHM).
Storm water Detention Modeling was prepared for this site by Balance Hydrolog ies, Inc. with a
su mmary report of June 21, 20 I 3. Two storm water 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 concems about these basins stabi li ty and to fully conta in short-term retention
of the water during an earthquake event. Balance Hydrologica l worked with GeoFo rensics to
eval uate thi s stability and issued a letter on July 29. 2014 that ad dress' the issue. Their conclusion is
.. Based up on th e proposed design, it is ou r o pinion that the dam slo pe s wi ll not be subject to fai lure
during a majo r earthquake as a result of slope stability. nor due to overtopping due to seethe. Hence
th e presence of these retention berms do no t pose a threat to the downslope properties".
As an added safety measrn·e, we are proposing to place a small concrete swa le that would direct any
water that mjght flow from the berm to the exist ing storm drainage channel adjacent to the northwest
corner of the site.
VIII . DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
The Original Proposed Site and the Alternate Sit e have l 0 indiv idual home sites on 17.55 ac res. The
proposed rezoning is to HR-1-PD . Thi s proposed density of 0.57 lots per acre is we ll wi thin the 0 -1
lot per acre allowed in the requested zoning.
IX . PD ZONING ST AND ARDS
The Alternate Site is intending to meet the governing standard s for Hi llside Development by
significantly reduces the required grad in g with the following exceptjons:
l . Grading cut and fill 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.
2. Grading at the intersection of Street A and the Emergency Access may extend up to five feet
in depth.
3. Grading for the tum-a-round of Street B may extend up to five 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 fee t in depth and follow an existing
cut road bed.
Pa ge .5 o f 5 L1r of Ju ~t-Re) -2 .20 18 .dnc~
X. COMMUN ITY BENE FIT
l n 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 safoty protections. Surrey Farm Estates has
agreed to provi d e space fo r a new pwnping station on this s it e with access from Ce rro Vista Dr. ft is
impo1tant to state that this pump station is needed now and is not required because ofthis p roposed
development.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROVI DED B Y THIS PROPOSED PROJ ECT
• New site for SJWC Pump Site
• Emergency access to existing d ead end of Brooke Acres Dr.
•Dedicated Open Space of 4 acres in Alt. site & 3.6 acres in Proposed site
• Extend existjng 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.
0
Paragon Des ign Group, In .
669.8 8 8.3707
Pag.: 6 of 5 Llr of Jus t-Rev-2 .20 .18 docx
EXHIBIT 12
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā<?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
855*;&5167&7*636&736
&52.36*0*; 3:23+36&73631182.7; 0&22.2,*4&571*27&.2 75**736&736
*'35&-00.6
'246@A2?21<;@B9A6;4?/<?6@A :2?60.;(<062AF<3<;@B9A6;4?/<?6@A@<.?12?A63621#.@A2??/<?6@A, ;A2?;.A6<;.9(<062AF<3?/<?60B9AB?22?A63621&?<32@@6<;.9 <?A60B9AB?6@A
:2?60.;(<062AF3<? <?A60B9AB?.9(062;02 ¤Deborah Ellis, 2014. This report may be reproduced in whole or in part by only the client and the client’s authorized representatives and only for use with thesubject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduction. EXHIBIT 13
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
! &B?=<@2<3A56@'2=<?A ! % "
)./92 <:=92A2)?22)./92 )./92
)?22@A<&?2@2?C2 )./92)?22@A<'2:<C2 )./92)?22@A<)?.;@=9.;A )./92)?22@A5.A.?22/.A./92
)./92*;B@21$B:/2?@
$"6@A<3&?2C6<B@'2=<?A@3<?A56@&?<720A/F 996@
&9.;@ 5.C2?2C62D213?<:=?<720A.?/<?6@A#605.292;05
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ( ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
%-81+3Ā4+7Ā6.Ā:0-Ā91:-ĀTGQFĀPMKCĀMDĀQFCĀLRK@COCBĀQOCCPĀQF?QĀ?OCĀBGPARPPCBĀGLĀQFGPĀOCNMOQ$ĀĀ
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ) ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
! -&9*5*9.*:*)7-*+3003:.2,)3(81*2766.2(*1;0&675*4357327-.6453/*(7:-.(-:&6)&7*)&; x$' *)*&( )/(&'&) #%) % #605.292;05%0A</2?
E029@=?2.1@522A x
&$'(")&% *- %"% # ))%*(/& #%
% -& ))%*(/& #%
+(( /($)** )&)*&)
#" &(%" #605.292;05%0A</2?
x(&'&) + ",")"&% (522A &.?.4<;2@64; ?<B= B4B@A
'2C6@6<; x(.:2.@./<C2 #* (%* + ",")"&%(522A x(.:2.@./<C2D6A5"<A5<B@2?29<0.A21=.?A6.9=9.; '2026C21$<C2:/2?
x(.:2.@./<C2.@@<06.A21=9.;@522A@ x
","##%)3<?A52=?<720A/F # ;46;22?@B4B@A
@522A@ ;.116A6<; C6@6A21A52@6A2.4.6;<;$<C2:/2?
A<?2C62DA52A?22@A5.A.?2<30<;02?;?29.A6C2A<A52AD<16332?2;A2;A?F@052:2@A5.A.?2=?<=<@21&9.; D6A5.@6;4922;A?F<33)D6;%.8@?6C2<?&9.; .1<B/922;A?FD6A5<;22;A?F<3)D6;%.8@?6C2.;1.;<A52?<332??<+6@A.<B?A )52A?220<;16A6<;?.A6;4@.;116@=<@6A6<;@6;A56@?2=<?A.?2Aaken from Michael Bench’s October 20, 2014 report. For trees not listed in that report that I added, I referred to Michael Bench’s January 8, 2013 tree spreadsheet which includes all evaluated trees o;A52=?<720A@6A2 ! )52=B?=<@2<3A56@?2=<?A6@A<0<;@<961.A2.99<3:F=?2C6<B@?2=<?A@.;1.9@<=?2C6<B@?2=<?A@.;1A?22@=?2.1@522A@/F#605.292;05 56@A<?F<3:F?2=<?A@3<?A56@=?<720A0.;/23<B;1<;=.42
;A56@0B??2;A?2=<?A 5.C2<?4.;6G21.;1:.12@<:205.;42@A<Michael Bench’s 9.A2@A E029@=?2.1@522A1.A21%0A</2?
5.C2.9@<:.12@<:20<??20A6<;@A<:F9.@A?2=<?A1.A21$<C2:/2?
)52)?22)./92@6;A56@?2=<?A.?296@A21<;A52;2EA=.42 5.C2.9@<@2;AF<B.0<=F<3:F E029@=?2.1@522A1.A21$<C2:/2?
D56050<;A.6;@A52@.:2A./92@
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ*ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
x &'0*3140*7* 5** &'0*96@A21<;9F6:=.0A21A?22@A<A.96;4 A?22@6;09B16;4A?22@A5.A.?2.17.02;AA<=?<=<@216:=?<C2:2;A@/BA5.C22@A6:.A219<D6:=.0A@ )?22@.?20<9<?0<121.@A<A526?6@=<@6A6<;( ) (, $&, (%)'#%* *# &(%+) +$ ( *# 6@.0.A24<?F0<;A.6;6;4A?22@A5.A5.C2.>B2@A6<;./926:=.0A.;116@=<@6A6<; '2.1./<BAA52@2A?22@6;<?12?A<12A2?:6;25<DA52F@5<B91/25.;1921 *;B@21;B:/2?6@.0.A24<?FA5.A0<;A.6;@;<A?22@/BA0<;A.6;@;B:/2?@A5.AD2?2;<AB@21D6A56;A52?.;42<3;B:/2?@A5.AD2?2B@21 x &'0*)?22@A<&?2@2?C2A?22@x &'0*)?22@A<'2:<C2 A?22@x &'0*)?22@A<)?.;@=9.;A A?22@x &'0* )?22@A5.A.?22/.A./92A?22@x &'0*
*;B@21$B:/2?@ ! % " -5**75**60.67*):.7-&2*67.1&7*)(326758(7.32.14&(73+“ *9*5*”have been changed from “Preserve” to “Remove”63A52FD2?2previously listed as “Preserve”. We can try to save these trees during 0<;@A?B0A6<;/BA3<? '=B?=<@2@ .:96@A6;4A52:.@=?</./92?2:<C.9@ )52@2.?2A?22@ (7” coast live oak)
(10” valley <.8
(5”0<.@A96C2<.8.;1
(12” coast live oak). These A?22@.994?<DA<42A52?6;.@:.994?<C2;2.?A52;.AB?.91?.6;.42.?2.A5.AA522E6@A6;416?A?<.10?<@@2@.;1A52;2D?<.1D.FD699.9@<0?<@@ )52@2A?22@.?29./29216;A52=5<A<.A?645A ', ( "Ā+**"ĀĀ+*+"Ā+*, Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ+ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
hree trees were changed to the designation “Debatable”/F:2, after review of the plans and Michael Bench’s spreadsheets.)52@2.?2A?22@., 28” valley oak@5<D;A</2?2:<C21<;A52=9.;@/BAA52)<D; ;46;22?1<2@;<AA56;8A56@A?22;221@A</2?2:<C21 )56@6@.;602A?22<;A52@612@9<=2<3A52;.AB?.91?.6;.42.?2.@<6A@22:@6:=<?A.;A3<?A522;C6?<;:2;A6;A56@9<0.A6<; )52tree was listed as “Preserve” in Michael Bench’s October 20, 2014 spreadsheet./ , 24” coast live oak (.:2.@./<C2 0
, 15” coast live oak;<A@5<D;<;.;F<3A520<;@A?B0A6<;=9.;@/BAC6@6/92<;A52.2?6.9:.=@<3A52@6A2 )56@A?22D699/2C2?F09<@2A<.5<B@2<;9<A )525<B@2@5<B91/2:<C213.?A52?3?<:A52A?22<?A52A?22@5<B91/2A?.;@=9.;A21 )56@6@.C2?F;602A?22.;1D2@5<B91822=6A '-.:Ā706:60Ā Ā?LBĀ !"ĀMLĀQFCĀOGEFQĀPGBCĀMDĀQFCĀBGOQĀOM?BĀHRPQĀ?PĀGQĀFC?BPĀRNĀQFCĀFGJJĀ?DQCOĀAOMPPGLEĀQFCĀBO?GL?EC$ĀĀ) 1/0:Ā706:60Ā
Ā?AOMPPĀDOMKĀ
"ĀFC?BGLEĀQMT?OBĀQFCĀBO?GL?ECĀ?OC?$Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ, ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
(7” coast live oak) is not missing on the plans. It is not located near –
;2.?2??<+6@A.<B?A) '!&*& #&- ;@A2.16A6@9<0.A21;2.?
.;1.0?<@@A52?<.1D.F3?<:
) '!&*&&%' 4COOMĀ> GPQ?Ā5OGSCĀ?LBĀ4MROQĀGLĀQFCĀ@?AIEOMRLBĀTGQFĀ
"Ā?LBĀ ! $ĀĀĀ
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ-ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Ā'+8/-Ā;+33-<Ā6+2Ā $ ĀGPĀPFMTLĀGQĀQFCĀNFMQMĀ?QĀJCDQ"ĀQ?ICLĀ?JKMPQĀ?QĀQFCĀQMNĀMDĀ4COOMĀ> GPQ?Ā5OGSC"ĀHRPQĀ@CJMTĀQFCĀ4COOMĀ> GPQ?ĀARJ#BC#P?A$ĀĀ2LĀ?OOMTĀNMGLQPĀQMĀS?JJCVĀM?IĀ160 (11”)Ā@CFGLBĀ', '$ĀĀĀ8LĀQFCĀOGEFQĀNFMQM"ĀTFGAFĀGPĀ?ĀAJMPC#RNĀMDĀQFCĀ?COG?JĀK?NĀQFCĀ?AACPPĀOM?BĀGPĀNOMNMPCBĀQMĀN?PPĀ@CQTCCLĀM?I3', 'Ā?LBĀ). ) $ĀĀ=FCĀPK?JJCOĀM?IPĀ@CQTCCLĀ ', &"Ā', ) "Ā, *"Ā?LBĀ, +!Ā?OCĀNOMNMPCBĀQMĀ@CĀQO?LPNJ?LQCB$ĀĀ
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ. ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
&%*"%+ *!(&+ !' Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 001 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 002 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 003 Valley oak Quercus lobata 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 004 Coast live oak 9Good 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 005 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 5Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 006 Coast live oak 13 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 007 Incense cedar 4Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact 008 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 009 Coast live oak 7Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 010 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 011 Coast live oak 7Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 012 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 013 California black walnut Juglans hindsii 19 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 014 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 5Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 015 English walnut Juglans regia 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 016 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 017 Valley oak 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 018 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ/ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 019 Coast live oak 8Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 024 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 025 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 026 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 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 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 030 Valley oak 19 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain 034 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Storm Drain Construction 035 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Storm Drain Construction 048 Valley oak 8Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 062 Coast live oak 18/15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 063 Coast live oak 15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 064 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Retention Pond Construction 065 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 090 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 109 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 110 Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 6Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 123 Coast live oak 12 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 124 Coast live oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 125 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 126 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 134 Valley oak 39 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 135 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'&ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 136 Valley oak 7Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 137 Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 138 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 139 Coast live oak 8Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 149 Aleppo pine 9Excellent 12/20/10 Remove Grading for Retention Pond 152 Aleppo pine 8Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 153 Aleppo pine 9Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 154 Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 155 Aleppo pine 9Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 160 Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Preserve 161 Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 Preserve 162 Coast live oak 7Good 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 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 164 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve 165 Coast live oak 5Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve 277 Unused Number 299 European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 301 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 302 Valley oak 28 Good 10/20/14 Debatable Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. 303 Coast live oak 24 Good 10/20/14 Debatable Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. 330 Coast live oak 5Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 331 Unused Number 333 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 336 Valley oak 23 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ''ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 337 Valley oak 25 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 338 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 342 Valley oak 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 345 Coast live oak 8Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 346 Valley oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 349 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 350 Coast live oak 6Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 351 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 357 Incense cedar 9Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 358 Incense cedar 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 359 Incense cedar 5Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 360 Incense cedar 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 361 Incense cedar 7Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 362 Incense cedar 6Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 363 Aleppo pine 13 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 364 Incense cedar 7Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 365 Incense cedar 9Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 366 Incense cedar 9Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 367 Incense cedar 5Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 368 Incense cedar 6Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 369 Incense cedar 6Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 370 Incense cedar 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact 371 Valley oak 5Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact 372 Coast live oak 5/3 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 373 Unused Number *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'( ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 374 Unused Number 382 Valley oak 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 383 Valley oak 49 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Minor Root Damage house construction 403 Valley oak 38 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 449 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 451 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 452 Aleppo pine 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 454 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 455 Incense cedar 8Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 459 Incense cedar 5Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 460 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 461 Aleppo pine 10 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 462 Incense cedar 7Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 502 Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 507 Incense cedar 5Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 510 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 512 Aleppo pine 15 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 515 Incense cedar 6Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 516 Incense cedar 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 520 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 521 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 522 Aleppo pine 9Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 525 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 526 Incense cedar 7Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 527 Incense cedar 5Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ') ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 529 Aleppo pine 9Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 530 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 531 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 532 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 534 Aleppo pine 16 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 544 Valley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 545 Coast live oak 5Good 1/08/13 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 546 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and 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 6Dead 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 572 Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa 7Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 573 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 574 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 575 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 576 Coast live oak 6Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 577 Cypress Cupressus species 5/4/4 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction 578 Coast live oak 5Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Grading for Retention Pond 586 Valley oak 6Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 590 Monterey pine 40 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact 591 Valley oak 33 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact 592 Coast live oak 32 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Moderate 593 Coast live oak 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'*ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 594 Incense cedar 5Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 595 European Olive 8/8/5 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JCĀ'$Ā'*'ĀQOCCP$Ā "
&%*"%+ &%*! % .*' Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Last Date Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 007 Incense cedar 4Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction- Low Impact 011 Coast live oak 7Good/Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 124 Coast live oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 134 Valley oak 39 Good 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 137 Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 138 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 139 Coast live oak 8Fair 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact 152 Aleppo pine 8Good 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 153 Aleppo pine 9Good 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 155 Aleppo pine 9Good 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 161 Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 163 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 164 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 165 Coast live oak 5Excellent 12/20/10 364 Incense cedar 7Poor 10/20/14 Roadway Construction *+,3-Ā Ā&6473-:-Ā*8--Ā*+,3-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'+ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Last Date Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 365 Incense cedar 9Excellent 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 366 Incense cedar 9Good 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 367 Incense cedar 5Poor 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 368 Incense cedar 6Good 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 370 Incense cedar 10 Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction- Low Impact 371 Valley oak 5Good 10/20/14 Roadway Construction- Low Impact 372 Coast live oak 5/3 Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 383 Valley oak 49 Good 10/20/14 Minor Root Damage house construction 561 Valley oak 18 Good 10/20/14 Road Construction - Moderate Impact 572 Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa 7Excellent 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 575 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8Good 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 576 Coast live oak 6Good/Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 577 Cypress Cupressus species 5/4/4 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Roadway Construction 590 Monterey pine 40 Fair 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact 591 Valley oak 33 Fair 10/20/14 Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact 592 Coast live oak 32 Good 10/20/14 Grading for Pond- Moderate 593 Coast live oak 10 Fair 10/20/14 Grading for Pond- Minor / Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe 595 European Olive 8/8/5 Good 10/20/14 Sanitary Sewer Construction 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JC$ĀĀ) ) Ā=OCCP$Ā*+,3-Ā! Ā*8--9Ā:6Ā(8-9-8;-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ', ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
"
&%*"%+ *!(&+ !' Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 004 Coast live oak 9Good 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 005 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 5Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 013 California black walnut Juglans hindsii 19 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 014 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 5Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 015 English walnut Juglans regia 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 016 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 018 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 019 Coast live oak 8Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 024 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 027 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 029 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 030 Valley oak 19 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain 035 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Storm Drain Construction 048 Valley oak 8Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 062 Coast live oak 18/15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 063 Coast live oak 15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 065 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction 109 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 110 Wild plum Prunus cerasifera 6Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 123 Coast live oak 12 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'-ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 125 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 126 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 149 Aleppo pine 9Excellent 12/20/10 Remove Grading for Retention Pond 154 Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 162 Coast live oak 7Good 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. 299 European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 330 Coast live oak 5Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 336 Valley oak 23 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 337 Valley oak 25 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 342 Valley oak 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 345 Coast live oak 8Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 346 Valley oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 359 Incense cedar 5Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 360 Incense cedar 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 361 Incense cedar 7Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 362 Incense cedar 6Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 363 Aleppo pine 13 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 382 Valley oak 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 403 Valley oak 38 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 449 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 451 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 452 Aleppo pine 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 454 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 455 Incense cedar 8Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading *+,3-Ā"Ā*8--9Ā:6Ā) -46;-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'. ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 459 Incense cedar 5Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 460 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 461 Aleppo pine 10 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 462 Incense cedar 7Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 502 Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 507 Incense cedar 5Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 510 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Driveway Construction 512 Aleppo pine 15 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 515 Incense cedar 6Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 516 Incense cedar 6Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 520 Aleppo pine 9Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 521 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 522 Aleppo pine 9Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 525 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 526 Incense cedar 7Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 527 Incense cedar 5Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 529 Aleppo pine 9Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 530 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading 531 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 532 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 534 Aleppo pine 16 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading 544 Valley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 545 Coast live oak 5Good 1/08/13 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction 546 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Remove Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining Wall Construction *+,3-Ā"Ā*8--9Ā:6Ā) -46;-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ'/ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts 571 Wild plum 6Dead 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction 586 Valley oak 6Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 594 Incense cedar 5Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JC$ĀĀ-'ĀQOCCP$Ā
&%*"%+ &%*! % .*' Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 001 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 002 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 003 Valley oak Quercus lobata 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 006 Coast live oak 13 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 008 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 009 Coast live oak 7Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 010 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 012 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 017 Valley oak 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 025 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway / Storm Drain Construction 026 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 028 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction *+,3-Ā"Ā*8--9Ā:6Ā) -46;-Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ( &ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 034 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Storm Drain Construction 064 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Retention Pond Construction 090 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 135 Coast live oak 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 136 Valley oak 7Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 160 Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Near hammerhead 301 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 333 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 338 Coast live oak 6Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 349 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 350 Coast live oak 6Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 351 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 357 Incense cedar 9Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 358 Incense cedar 8Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 369 Incense cedar 6Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction 573 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 574 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction 578 Coast live oak 5Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Grading for Retention Pond 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JC$ĀĀ) &Ā=OCCP$Ā*+,3-Ā#Ā*8--9Ā:6Ā*8+5973+5:Ā AMLQGLRCBĀDOMKĀQFCĀNOCSGMRPĀN?EC!Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ( 'ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates DBH Condition Last Date Reviewed Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts Tree Name 302 Valley oak 28 Good 10/20/14 Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. 303 Coast live oak 24 Good 10/20/14 Grading (but Town engineer thinks doesn't have to be removed. 549 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/2010 Appears too close to house, not on construction plans. Move house or transplant 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JC$ĀĀ) Ā=OCCP$Ā
!! ! Field Data Sheet Surrey Farm Estates Tree Name 277 Unused Number 331 Unused Number 373 Unused Number 374 Unused Number 6LBĀMDĀ=?@JC$ĀĀ*Ā=OCCP$Ā
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ( ( ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
$ " ! % #.?05
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@)D6;%.8@?6C2"<@ .A<@
(2=A2:/2?
?/<?6@A'2C62D<3A52:<@A0B??2;A@2A<3=9.;@3<?(B??2F .?: @A.A2@
)D6;%.8@?6C2 !B;2
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@–'2C62D<3=9.;@2A1.A21#.F
.;1
?29.A6C2A<2E6@A6;4A?22@A</2?2:<C21.;1@.C21 !.;B.?F
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@&?<=<@21(B/16C6@6<; 2/?B.?F
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@&?<=<@21(B/16C6@6<; #.F
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@&?<=<@21(B/16C6@6<; *=1.A2<;@A.AB@?29.A6C2A<2E6@A6;4A?226@@B2@ $<C2:/2?
(B??2F .?: @A.A2@0<:=.?6;416332?2;02@6;&9.; &?<=<@21(B/16C6@6<;&.;1&9.; 9A2?;.A6C2(B/16C6@6<;& " "# 202:/2?
; C.9B.A6<;<3)?22@.AA52(B??2F .?: @A.A2@
!.;B.?F
)?22(=?2.1@522A3<?)D6;%.8@?6C2 E029@=?2.1@522A %0A</2?
:=.0A@A<)?22@/F&?<=<@21&9.;@ .;1 E029@=?2.1@522A %0A</2?
<:=.?6@<;/2AD22;.(6;492002@@ ;A?F'<.1&9.; .;1.)D<002@@ ;A?F'<.1&9.; (B??2F .?: @A.A2@"<@ .A<@.963<?;6.
-: 9Ā3MUĀ) -'*"Ā< ?O?QME?"Ā42Ā/+&-&$ĀĀĀĀ*&. #-( +#') +-$ĀĀĀĀBCA?F1 N?A@CJJ$LCQ$ĀĀĀĀFQQN0%%TTT$BCA?F$AMK$Ā2O@MOGPQĀ; CNMOQĀDMOĀ< ROOCVĀ7?OKĀ6PQ?QCP$ĀĀ5CACK@COĀ( "Ā( &'*$ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ Ā Ā Ā ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ: ?ECĀ( ) ĀMDĀ( ) ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀDeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
02?A63FA5.AA526;3<?:.A6<;0<;A.6;216;A56@?2=<?A6@0<??20AA<A52/2@A<3:F8;<D92142.;1A5.AA56@?2=<?AD.@=?2=.?216;4<<13.6A5 )5.;8F<B3<?A52<==<?AB;6AFA<=?<C612@2?C602.4.6; &92.@20.99:263F<B5.C2>B2@A6<;@<?63 0.;/2<33B?A52?.@@6@A.;02 (6;02?29F2/<?.5 996@#( <;@B9A6;4?/<?6@A <?A60B9AB?6@A2?A63621&?<32@@6<;.9 <?A60B9AB?6@A
('246@A2?21<;@B9A6;4?/<?6@A ( <.?12?A63621#.@A2??/<?6@A, 2(03685*(B??2F .?: @A.A2@)?22)./92(=?2.1@522A@ E029(=?2.1@522A@ 996@202:/2?
21 Ā/?DĀ&) $'Ā34A4B?: 4Ā0. Ā+( #) #!ĀĀĀĀ' #* ) %( $&( ) !ĀĀĀĀ7864; - @4658<<!>8B!ĀĀĀĀ; BB@,""CCC!7864; !6?= !Ā
ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ24: 8Ā Ā?9Ā
Ā
Ā
'HERUDK(OOLV06
&RQVXOWLQJ$UERULVW +RUWLFXOWXULVW
'84/ 59+2+?
%5=45, 59 ':59533;4/:?"2'44/4-+6'8:3+4:
'/4$:8++:
59 ':59
!5<+3(+8
+'8 '84/
'9+*;654:.+ *+,/4/:+:8++8+35<'29'92/9:+*/43?!5<+3(+8
8(58/9:#+658:,58:./9
6850+):3?)'2);2':/549,58:.+4;3(+85,8+62')+3+4::8++98+7;/8+*'8+2/9:+*/4:.+%'(2+(+25=
'4*)54:/4;+*54:.+4+>:6'-+
$/4)+'8(58/9: /).'+2+4).*/*45:/4)2;*+)'456?*/3+49/54
3+'9;8+3+4:9/4./9:8++:'(2+9,58:./96850+): .'<+35*/,/+*:.+%5=4 ’9:8++8+62')+3+4:
8+7;/8+3+4:9('9+*;654:8;41*/'3+:+8'9+>62'/4+*/4:.+%'(2+
&DQRS\
GLPHQVLRQ
7UHHWDJ¶VRI
WUHHVWREH
UHPRYHG
1XPEHURI
WUHHV
WREH
UHPRYHG
%R[VL]HRI
UHSODFHPHQW
WUHHUHTXLUHG
1XPEHURI
UHSODFHPHQW
WUHHVUHTXLUHG
1RWHV
&DWHJRU\
WR IHHW
´WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
[´ER[
25
[´
[´
25
[´
LVGHDGVRLW
LVQRWFRXQWHG
WRZDUG
UHSODFHPHQWWUHHV
&DWHJRU\
WR
IHHW
!´
WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
[´ER[
25
[´
[´
25
[´
LVGHDGVRLW
LVQRWFRXQWHG
WRZDUG
UHSODFHPHQWWUHHV
&DWHJRU\
WR
IHHW
!´
WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
[´
25
[´
[´
25
[´
21 Ā/?DĀ&) $'Ā34A4B?: 4Ā0. Ā+( #) #!ĀĀĀĀ' #* ) %( $&( ) !ĀĀĀĀ7864; - @4658<<!>8B!ĀĀĀĀ; BB@,""CCC!7864; !6?= !Ā
ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ24: 8Ā
Ā?9Ā
Ā
Ā
'HERUDK(OOLV06
&RQVXOWLQJ$UERULVW +RUWLFXOWXULVW
&DQRS\
GLPHQVLRQ
7UHHWDJ¶VRI
WUHHVWREH
UHPRYHG
1XPEHURI
WUHHV
WREH
UHPRYHG
%R[VL]HRI
UHSODFHPHQW
WUHHUHTXLUHG
1XPEHURI
UHSODFHPHQW
WUHHVUHTXLUHG
1RWHV
&DWHJRU\
WR
IHHW
!´
WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
[´
25
[´[´
[´
25
[´[´
WR
IHHW
!´
WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
[´´DQG
´
25
7REH
GHWHUPLQHGE\
'LUHFWRU
[´
[´
[´
25WREH
GHWHUPLQHGE\
'LUHFWRU
IHHW
!´WUXQN
GLDPHWHU
7REH
GHWHUPLQHGE\
'LUHFWRU
7REHGHWHUPLQHG
E\'LUHFWRU
+6+4*/4-;654.5==./).'6685<+*(5>9/@+:8++9:.+'662/)'4:).559+9:5;9+
,58+').)':+-58?5,8+35<+*:8++
x”
x”
x”
$/4)+8+2?
+(58'.22/9 $
549;2:/4-8(58/9: 58:/);2:;8/9:
+8:/,/+*"85,+99/54'2 58:/);2:;8/9:
$#+-/9:+8+*549;2:/4-8(58/9:
$
5'8*+8:/,/+* '9:+88(58/9:&
• -;, :. i· : 1,' ~ ,,,.,..,., ,.,, •• •), ~ :l'\ J ~1 : 1 •. ;i,; i,;: ;t11 •l I i...:1 ~· ~,,.:. ~ !"l11' i ~ .... , ' , ·•r r •
' • • '" I -I • '" • I •• •• '·• f '"' ·" .H 'i Sonco ~~ Water DlSmdA~
June 30, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Armer
Town of Los Gatos
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Fil e: 9925 u
East Ross Creek
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 ktumer@vallevwater.org.
Please reference District File No. 9925 on any future correspondence regarding this project.
Sincerely,
04>r; l2_
Kathrin A . Turner
Assistant Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc : U. Chatwani, C. Haggerty. K. Turner, File
Our mission is lo provide Sili<:on Volley safe, deoo ~r for :i healthy life, envircnmeot, and eoonomy. EXHIBIT 14
Page 1 of 45
ORDINANCE
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
Draft Ordinance: subject to
modification by Town Council
based on
deliberations and direction
Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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. lf 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. lf on the other hand, nighttime emergence surveys determine that the
Page 7 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. lf 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 (8-½ 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 less 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 38 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 39 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 (NOI) 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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
CERROCTVISTA
VI
S
T
A
DR
CE
R
R
O
MARCHMONT
D
R
KE
N
N
E
D
YSHADYROSA
L
I
E
SHADY
BLUEBERRY HILL DROLDE
DR CTMARCHMONTLA CROIX CTVIEW LN
WO
O
D
E
D
HILL TOPDRKE
N
N
E
D
Y
R
D
BROOKACRESDRCTK
N
O
L
L
S
D
R
DR ANN ARBORKARENCLOVERWYTWINOAKSDRWOLLIN WY
CERROVISTABONNIECTCTTOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No.
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
Zone Change
Prezoning
From: RC To: HR-1:PD
PD-10-006 A.P.N. #532-16-006
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council
Clerk Administrator:
Date:
Mayor:
Date:
Ord:
Twin Oaks Drive
§
EXHIBIT A
Project Info
Owner: SURREY FARM ESTATES, LLC
Address:TWIN OAKS DR. LOS GATOS CA
Owner Address:851 MCGLINCY LANE
CAMPBELL CA 95008
APN: 532-16-006
Existing Zoning: RC
Proposed Zoning:HR-1:PD
General Plan:Agg
Existing Lot Area: 17.553 AC.
Average Slope:23.92%
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
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Los Gatos, California
DESIGNER
Paragon Design Group, Inc.
Rodger W. Griffin, FAIBD
409 Alberto Way, Suite #1
Los Gatos, CA. 95032
408.358.3707
VICINITY MAP
CS
CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPING
REED ASSOCIATES.
Paul Reed
477 S. Taffe Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA. 94086
408.481.9020
SITE LOCATION
465 .95
96
440 .27
104
640
635
510
505
500
495
490
485
425 495490500505480
485420410
490
485
480
475
470
465
460
45
5
450
52
0
51
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
495
415
4654604554504454404304254204354904854805055004954754705105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
4
5
635
630
625
620
615
610
605
600
59
5
59
0
585
580
57
5
57
0
56
5
56
0
470465465470475425 5
5
5
550
54
5
54
0
53
5
53
0
52
5
460450455460425425430435440445420
42
5 575570565560555550545540525530535520515510470430435440445450455460465415400420425510
505
500
515
500495490470465460455455
450
445
440
435 520515510525560
555
MONTOYA
DUGGINS
BERTOLOTTI
BREWICK
GROUP
T&R REALTY
HOEPPNER
HILLBROOK SCHOOLS
MELEYCO
FORDYCE
DODGE
144,544 SF
3.32 ACRES
42,648 SF
0.98 ACRE
52,598 SF
1.21 ACRES
42,776 SF
0.98 ACRE
57,968 SF
1.33 ACRES
41,810 SF
0.96 ACRE
40,912 SF
0.94 ACRE
44,698 SF
1.03 ACRE
41,270 SF
0.95 ACRES
87,022 SF
2.00 ACRES
116,327 SF
2.67 ACRES
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7
10
2
DESIGN GROUP, INC.
URBAN DESIGN &PLANNING
409 Alberto Way, Suite 1
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Ph.408.358.3707
office@paragondgi.com
www.paragondgi.com
!
Surrey Farm Estates
Twin Oaks Drive. A.P.N. 532-16-006
Los Gatos , Ca.
Project # 2923
Revised Apr.11,2012
•C O V E R S H E E T •
SHEET INDEX
CS COVER SHEET
A-0 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A-1 PROPOSED SUB-DIVISION SITE PLAN
A-1A ALTERNATE SUB-DIVISION SITE PLAN
A-2 VIEWING PLATFORM, SITE PROFILES
A-3 SITE SECTIONS
A-3A ALTERNATE SITE SECTIONS
A-4 PROPOSED PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
A-4A ALTERNATE PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
A-5 TREE DISPOSITION TABLES PROPOSED SITE
A-5A TREE COMPARISON TABLE & LETTER
A-6 ALTERNATE PHOTO ILLUSTRATION,
LANDSCAPE
L1.0 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
L1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
L1.2 PROPOSED OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE
L1.3 ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
L1.4 ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
L1.5 ALTERNATE OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE
L2.0 HYDROZONE PLAN
L2.1 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
Civil Engineering
Utililty Design
Stormwater Compliance
1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200
San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION (PROPOSED SITE)
VINCINITY MAP NORTHNOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALENORTH ALTERNATE SITE
AREA USE TABLE:
LOT 1 0.98 AC. 42,648 S.F.5.58%
LOT 2 0.98 AC. 42,776 S.F.5.58%
LOT 3 0.96 AC. 41,810 S.F.5.45%
LOT 4 0.94 AC. 40,912 S.F.5.36%
LOT 5 1.15 AC. 50,016 S.F.6.55%
LOT 6 1.85 AC. 80,381 S.F. 10.53%
LOT 7 2.35 AC.102,524 S.F.13.35%
LOT 8 1.24 AC. 53,845 S.F.7.06%
LOT 9 1.30 AC 56,764 S.F.7.39%
LOT 10 1.26 AC. 54,886 S.F.7.15%
OPEN SPACE 3.60 AC.156,991 S.F.20.45%
PRIVATE STREET 0.933 AC. 44,055 S.F.5.55%
TOTAL AREA 17.553 AC.767,608 S.F.100%
PROPOSED SITE
AREA TABLE:
LOT 1 0.98 AC. 42,648 S.F.5.58%
LOT 2 0.98 AC. 42,776 S.F.5.58%
LOT 3 0.96 AC. 41,810 S.F.5.45%
LOT 4 0.94 AC. 40,912 S.F.5.36%
LOT 5 1.03 AC. 44,698 S.F.5.87%
LOT 6 2.00 AC. 87,022 S.F. 11.39%
LOT 7 2.37 AC.103,258 S.F.13.65%
LOT 8 1.21 AC. 52,598 S.F.6.89%
LOT 9 1.20 AC. 52,217 S.F.6.80%
LOT 10 1.08 AC. 47,017 S.F.6.13%
OPEN SPACE 3.62 AC.157,611 S.F.20.53%
PRIVATE STREET 1.183 AC.55,041 S.F.6.77%
TOTAL AREA 17.553 AC.767,608 S.F.100%
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 EXHIBIT B
510
505
500
495
490
485 4954905005055105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
4
5
640
635
635
630
625
620
615
610
60
5
60
0
59
5
59
0
585
580
57
5
57
0
56
5
5
6
0
5
5
5
55
0
5
4
5
5
4
0
5
3
5
5
3
0
5
2
5
5
2
0
5
1
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
49
5
490
485
480
47
5
470
465
460
45
5
450
575570565560555550545540525530535520515510505500495490485480475470465460455450445440435430425420415
410
415400420425430435440445450455460470465420 425430435440445450455460465
470475
480
485
470
465460
425
4
2
5425
425420E 2,000E 2,400E 2,800E 2,800E 3,200N 1 ,200
N 1 ,600
N 1 ,600
N 2 ,000
R-1:10 R-1:12 R-1:12
R-1:12
R-1:12
R-1:10
R-1:10 BROOKE ACRES DR.(E) 20'
• E X I S T I N G S I T E •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"A-0 NHILLBROOK SCHOOL
TREES & DRIP LINES
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TRTRTR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TRTR
TR
TR
532-12-008
532-12-007
532-12-003
532-12-002
532-12-005
532-18-039532-18-038532-18-034
537-30-018
537-30-013
537-30-017
537-30-010
532-15-028
532-11-011
(E) ROC
K WALL
10 .39 ACRES
HILLSIDENON HILLSIDE
SUB-AREA 2
7 .163 ACRESTWIN OAKS DRIVELONGMEADOW DRIVE
HR-1
HR-1
HR-1
HR-1
R-1:10
HR-1
HR-1
HR-1
TREES TO BE REMOVED BY ROADS (BETWEEN CURBS):
1, 13, 27, 29, 62, 63, 65, 109, 110, 332, 336,
342, 363, & 571
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)
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)
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.
TR
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
INDICATES LIMITS OF GRADING, BY GRADING PLAN
INDICATES LIMITS OF TREE CANOPYS, PER AERIAL SURVEY.
HR-1
HR-1 HR-2 1/2
R-1:10
R-1:10
R-1:10
EXISTING SCVWD
STORMDRAIN
CULVERT
STRUCTURE
(UNDER GROUND
UP TO HILL
BROOK SCHOOL)FLOW OFCREEK
IN
TH
IS
D
IRECT
ION
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
T188T187
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
T338T339
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
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
(N) RET.
WALL
• P R O P O S E D S U B D I V I S I O N PD •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"10 HOME SITES A-1
110' SCVWD EASTMENT
• P R O P O S E D S U B D I V I S I O N PD •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"
WITKIN
HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO
BE PRESERVED
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7
10
OPEN SPACE20'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'30'-0"
30'-0"20'20'20'-0"20'-0"30'-0"
30'-0"30'-0"2
0
'
2
5
'
20'-0"
25'-0"20'-0"20'-0"30'-0"25'-0"25
'30'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"25'-0"25'-0"30'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"30'-0"
30'-0
"20'-0"20'-0"25'-0"
25'-0"20'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"25'-0
"
10 HOME SITESTWIN OAKS DRIVER-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
R-1:10
A-1
3' NATURAL
STONE WALL
3' NATURAL
STONE WALL
C
C
D
D
F
F
E
E
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TRTRTR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR STREET "A"ST
R
E
E
T
"B
"
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 ALOT B
LRDA LINE TYP.
10'-0" (E)
P.U.E. EASEMENT
STREET "A"STREET "B"LOT A440 .27
104
640635
510
505
500
495
490
485
425 495490500505480
485420410
490
485
480
475
470
465
460
45
5
450
52
0
5
1
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
495
415
4654604554504454404304254204354904854805055004954754705105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
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
470475425 5
5
5
55
0
54
5
5
4
0
5
3
5
5
3
0
52
5
460450455460425425430435440445420
4
2
5 575570565560555550545540525530535520515510470430435440445450455460465415400420425510
505
500
515
500495490470465460455455
450
445
440
435 520515510525560
555
MONTOYA
DUGGINS
SAYRE
BERTOLOTTI
BREWICK
ZHILAI & ZHENG
GROUP
T&R REALTY
HOEPPNER
HILLBROOK SCHOOLS
MELEYCO
FORDYCE
DODGE
±157,611 SF
±3.62 ACRES
±42 ,648 SF
±0.98 ACRE
±52,598 SF
±1.21 ACRES
±42 ,776 SF
±0.98 ACRE
±44 .243 SF
(excluded riparian area)
±1.02 ACRES
±41,810 SF
±0.96 ACRE
±44 ,698 SF
±.02 ACRE
±41 ,270 SF
±0.95 ACRES
±87 ,022 SF
±2.00 ACRES
±103,258 SF
±2.37 ACRES
24'-0"22'
POND
LIMITS OF
GRADING
POTENTAIL
DRIVEWAY, TYP.
0 100 200 300 400 500 FT
18' WIDE EARTHEN
CHANNEL (OVERFLOW)
SEE CIVIL PLANS
5' AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 5' WIDE
PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN
TRAIL, TYP. (15' EASEMENT)
R-1:10
R-1:10
R 40'-0"
R 30'-0"
R 25'-0"
OUTLINE OF
POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD
OUTLINE OF
POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD
TYP.
OUTLINE OF
POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD
TYP.
20'-0"
EXISTING SCVWD
STORMDRAIN
CULVERT STRUCTURE
(UNDER GROUND
OVER WITKIN
PROPERTY TO
HILLBROOK SCHOOL)FLOW OF
EAST
ROSS
CREEK
IN
TH
IS
D
IRECT
ION
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.
EXISTING R.O.W.
EASEMENTEXISTING R.O.W.
EASEMENT
21'-0" WIDE ROADCONNECTING TO SHANNON RD.NORTH537-30-010
10' PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN
TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613
HOEPPNER CERRO VISTA COURT
21'21'
(E) HYDRANT
PROPOSED HYDRANT
PROPOSED
HYDRANT
(E) HYDRANT
PROPOSED
HYDRANT
LONGMEADOW DRIVE
R-1:12
(E) HYDRANT
CERRO VISTA COURT
C
E
R
R
O
V
ISTA
WAY
21'
HR-1
±40 ,912 SF
±0.94 ACRE
24'-
0
"
10' PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWER
EASMENT (E)
38'
HR-1
POND
R-1:10
PROPOSED 5' WIDE
PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN
TRAIL, TYP.
10' BUFFER
FROM TREE
CONOPY, TYP.
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
T188T187
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
T338T339
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
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
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
T165
HISTORIC ROCKWALL TO
REMAIN IN PLACE
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7 NORTH10
OPEN SPACE
25'-0"25'20'20'30'-0"2
0
'
2
5
'20'-0"20'-0"25
'30'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"25'-0"25'-0"20'-0"20'-0"30'-0
"20'-0"20'-0"25'-0"
25'-0"20'-0"20'-0"25'
-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 ALOT B
LRDA LINE TYP.
10' PEDESTRIAN/EQUESTRIAN
TRAIL EASEMENT (E) TRACT 7613
10'-0" (E)
P.U.E. EASEMENT
STREET "A"STREET "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
21'21'
38'
(E) HYDRANT
PROPOSED HYDRANT
PROPOSED
HYDRANT
24'-0"
C
E
R
R
O
V
ISTA
WAY
(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"DRIVE WAY30'-0"EMERGENCY ACCESSEXISTING 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.24'-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
T344TWIN OAKS DRIVER-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 STREET "A"465 .95
96
440 .27
104
640635
510
505
500
495
490
485
425 495490500505480
485420410
490
485
480
475
470
465
460
45
5
450
52
0
5
1
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
495
415
4654604554504454404304254204354904854805055004954754705105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
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
470475425 5
5
5
55
0
54
5
5
4
0
5
3
5
5
3
0
52
5
460450455460425425430435440445420
4
2
5 575570565560555550545540525530535520515510470430435440445450455460465415400420425510
505
500
515
500495490470465460455455
450
445
440
435 520515510525560
555
(N) RET.
WALL
x xxEXISTING 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)FLOW OF
EAST
ROSS
CREEK
IN
TH
IS
D
IRECT
ION
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
S= (0.023) (5) (44997)
17.553 =29.82
A-1TWIN OAKS DRIVEHR-1 HR-1R-1:10
R-1:10
R-1:10
BLOSSOM HILL RD.
KENNEDY RD.
SHANNON RD.LOS GATOS BLVDSANTA CRUZ AVENUELOS GATOS-SARATOGA RD.
SITE
LOCATION
B
A
A
SITE LOCATION MAP
565
400400
LOS GATOS CREEK
& LOS GATOS-SARATOGA RD.
HIGH ELEVATION PAD
565
370 400
CORNER OF LOS GATOS BLVD
& BLOSSOM HILL RD.
HIGH ELEVATION PAD
645
826
946
PL PL
400'
200'
600'
800'
1,000'
400'
200'
600'
800'
1,000'
HWY 17
600
800
PL PL
400
400
• S I T E P R O F I L E S •
PROFILE A-A
PROFILE B-B
B
• V I E W I N G P L A T F O R M •
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RIDGELINE
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RIDGELINE
LOS GATOS
BLVD
A-2
SCALE 1" = 500'-0"
360NORTH SANTA CRUZ AVE.
BLOSSOM HILL
SCHOOL
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
P/LVERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
SECTION C - C
420
450
480
510
540
570
600
SECTION D - D
450
480
510
P/L• P R O P O S E D S I T E S E C T I O N S •
SCALE. 1"=30'-0"
STREET “B”
CERRO VISTA RD.
STREET “A” CUL DE SAC
(E) BIOSWALE
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 7
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 3
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5
FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT
SEE PARTIAL SITE SECTION E-E
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 9
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 8
(E) TREES TO REMAINPL
PL
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
PL
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
SITE SECTION C-C
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
SITE SECTION SECTION D-D
SHADED AREA INDICATES
FILL, TYP.25'25'25'25'A-3
PL
OUTLINE OF EXISTING
HOME
LOCATED AT NEIGHBOR SITE
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10
25'STREET B
PRIVATE
GRADING FOR
FUTURE DRIVEWAY
LOT 7
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10
FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT
SEE SECTION C-C
26'-8"28'-7"24'-8"32'-3"24'-2"CERRO VISTA
PARTIAL SECTION F - F450
480
510
540
570
PL
PL
25'-0"LOT 6LOT 7
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION F-F29'-7"PL PL PL
PARTIAL SECTION E - E
450
480
510
540
420
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION E-E
LOT 5 LOT 6
STREET
B
25'-0"CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
PAD 490
F.F. 492.16 PAD 495
F.F. 497.16
(E) GRADE
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
GARAGE
F.F. 500.00PAD 505.00
F.F. 507.16
PAD 499.00
PAD 572.84
F.F. 575
F.F. 570
PAD 567.84
PAD 505
F.F. 507.16
PAD 495
PAD 490
F.F. 597.16
F.F. 592.16
PAD 450
PAD 455
F.F. 457.16
F.F. 452.16
PAD 523
F.F. 525.16
F.F. 450 F.F. 445
PAD 447.84
PAD 442.84
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
0 150 FT
PAD 509.00
F.F. 511.16
33'-5"CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 6
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
P/LVERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
SECTION C - C
420
450
480
510
540
570
600
SECTION D - D
450
480
510
P/L• A L T E R N A T E S I T E S E C T I O N S •
SCALE. 1"=30'-0"
CERRO VISTA RD.
STREET “A” CUL DE SAC
(E) BIOSWALE
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 7
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 3
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5
FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT
SEE PARTIAL SITE SECTION E-E
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 9
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 8
(E) TREES TO REMAINPL
PL
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
PL
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
(E) TREES TO REMAIN
SITE SECTION C-C
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
SITE SECTION SECTION D-D
SHADED AREA INDICATES
FILL, TYP.25'25'25'25'A-3A
PL
OUTLINE OF EXISTING
HOME
LOCATED AT NEIGHBOR SITE
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10
25'COMMON
DRIVEWAY FOR
LOTS 7 & 10
GRADING FOR
FUTURE DRIVEWAY
LOT 7
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 10
FOR MORE DETAIL OF THIS LOT
SEE SECTION C-C
26'-8"28'-7"24'-8"32'-3"24'-2"CERRO VISTA
PARTIAL SECTION F - F450
480
510
540
570
PL
PL
25'-0"LOT 6LOT 7
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION F-F29'-7"PL PL PL
PARTIAL SECTION E - E
450
480
510
540
420
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet
PARTIAL SITE SECTION SECTION E-E
LOT 5 LOT 6
STREET
B
25'-0"CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 5
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
PAD 490
F.F. 492.16 PAD 495
F.F. 497.16
(E) GRADE
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
GARAGE
F.F. 500.00PAD 505.00
F.F. 507.16
PAD 499.00
PAD 572.84
F.F. 575
F.F. 570
PAD 567.84
PAD 505
F.F. 507.16
PAD 495
PAD 490
F.F. 597.16
F.F. 592.16
PAD 450
PAD 455
F.F. 457.16
F.F. 452.16
PAD 523
F.F. 525.16
F.F. 450 F.F. 445
PAD 447.84
PAD 442.84
ACTUAL LOCATION OF
STORY POLE ON SITE
0 150 FT
PAD 509.00
F.F. 511.16
33'-5"CONCEPTUAL HOUSE &
HOUSE PADS @ LOT 6 STREET BPL PL LOT 5
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
• P R O P O S E D P H O T O I L L U S T R A T I O N •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"10 HOME SITES A-4 NORTHSTREET "A"STREET "B"465 .95
96
440 .27
104
640635
510
505
500
495
490
485
425 495490500505480
485420410
490
485
480
475
470
465
460
45
5
450
52
0
5
1
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
495
415
4654604554504454404304254204354904854805055004954754705105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
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
470475425 5
5
5
55
0
54
5
5
4
0
5
3
5
5
3
0
52
5
460450455460425425430435440445420
4
2
5 575570565560555550545540525530535520515510470430435440445450455460465415400420425510
505
500
515
500495490470465460455455
450
445
440
435 520515510525560
555
MONTOYA
DUGGINS
BERTOLOTTI
BREWICK
GROUP
T&R REALTY
HOEPPNER
HILLBROOK SCHOOLS
MELEYCO
FORDYCE
DODGE
STREET "A"
POND
POND
OPEN SPACE
LOT B
0 125 FT
(N) RET.
WALL
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7
10
2
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
640635
510
505
500
495
490
485
425 495490500505480
485420410
490
485
480
475
470
465
460
45
5
450
52
0
5
1
5
51
0
50
5
50
0
495
415
4654604554504454404304254204354904854805055004954754705105155205255305355405455505555605655705755805855905956006056106156206256306356406
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
470475425 5
5
5
55
0
54
5
5
4
0
5
3
5
5
3
0
52
5
460450455460425425430435440445420
4
2
5 575570565560555550545540525530535520515510470430435440445450455460465415400420425510
505
500
515
500495490470465460455455
450
445
440
435 520515510525560
555
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7
10
OPEN SPACE
0 125 FT
A-1
STREET "A"
LOT BSTREET "B"MONTOYA
POND
A-4A
4 5
6
8
1
9
3
7
10
2
• A L T E R N A T E P R O P O S E D P H O T O I L L U S T R A T I O N •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"10 HOME SITES NORTH(N) RET.
WALL
(E) HYDRANT
RET. WALLSTREET "A"x xx 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
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
561 Valley oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
562 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
563 Coast live oak 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 Preserve
566 Valley oak 19 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
567 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
568 Wild plum 12/6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
569 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
570 Blue oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
571 Wild plum 6 Dead 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
572 Monterey cypress
Cupressus macrocarpa
7 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
573 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
574 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
575 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
576 Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
577 Cypress
Cupressus species
5/4/4 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
578 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
579 Coast live oak 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
580 Coast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
581 Coast live oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
582 Valley oak 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
583 Valley oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
584 Coast live oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
585 Valley oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
586 Valley oak 6 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
587 Coast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
588 Coast live oak 8/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
589 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
590 Monterey pine 40 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
591 Valley oak 33 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
592 Coast live oak 32 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond / Storm Drain Construction
593 Coast live oak 10 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Storm Drain Construction
594 Incense cedar 5 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
595 European olive 8/8/5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
596 Coast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
597 Coast live oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
598 Coast live oak 30 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
599 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
600 Blue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
601 Blue oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
602 Blue oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
603 Valley oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
561 Valley oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
562 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
563 Coast live oak 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 Preserve
566 Valley oak 19 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
567 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
568 Wild plum 12/6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
569 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
570 Blue oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
571 Wild plum 6 Dead 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
572 Monterey cypress
Cupressus macrocarpa
7 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
573 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
574 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
575 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
576 Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
577 Cypress
Cupressus species
5/4/4 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
578 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
579 Coast live oak 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
580 Coast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
581 Coast live oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
582 Valley oak 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
583 Valley oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
584 Coast live oak 4 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
585 Valley oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
586 Valley oak 6 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
587 Coast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
588 Coast live oak 8/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
589 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
590 Monterey pine 40 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
591 Valley oak 33 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
592 Coast live oak 32 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond / Storm Drain Construction
593 Coast live oak 10 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Storm Drain Construction
594 Incense cedar 5 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
595 European olive 8/8/5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
596 Coast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
597 Coast live oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
598 Coast live oak 30 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
599 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
600 Blue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
601 Blue oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
602 Blue oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
603 Valley oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks DriveAPN 532-16-006 Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Construction Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/11/12 Remove Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/11/12 Transplant
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
20 Coast live oak 22 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
21 Coast live oak 20 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
22 California buckeye
Aesculus californica
8/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
23 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
31 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
32 European olive
Olea europea
5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
33 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Storm Drain Construction
36 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
37 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
38 Coast live oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
39 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
40 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
41 Valley oak 11 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
42 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
43 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
279 Valley oak 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
280 Coast live oak 29 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
281 Valley oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
282 Blue oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
283 Blue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
284 Blue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
285 Coast live oak 23 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
286 Blue oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
287 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
288 Blue oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
289 Blue oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
290 Blue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
291 Blue oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
292 Valley oak 22 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
293 Coast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
294 Valley oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
295 Valley oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
296 Poison Oak
Toxiodendron diversiloba
8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
297 Coast live oak 21/10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
298 Valley oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
299 European olive 6/5/5/5/4 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
300 Valley oak 40 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
301 Coast live oak 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
302 Valley oak 28 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
303 Coast live oak 24 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
304 Valley oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
305 Valley oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
306 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
307 Valley oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
308 Valley oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
309 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
310 Valley oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
311 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
312 Valley oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
313 Valley oak 6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
314 Coast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
315 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
316 Blue oak 4 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
317 Coast live oak 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
318 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
319 Coast live oak 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
320 European olive 5/5/3 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
321 European olive 6/5/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
322 Valley oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
323 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
324 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
325 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
326 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
327 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
328 Coast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
329 Valley oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
330 Coast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
331 Unused Number
332 Valley oak 10 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
333 Coast live oak 11 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
334 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
335 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
336 Valley oak 23 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
337 Valley oak 25 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
338 Coast live oak 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
339 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
340 Coast live oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
341 Valley oak 25 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
342 Valley oak 13 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
343 Valley oak 24 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
344 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
345 Coast live oak 8 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
346 Valley oak 14 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant
347 Coast live oak 16 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
348 Valley oak 11 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
349 Coast live oak 10 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
350 Coast live oak 6 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
351 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
352 Valley oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
353 Valley oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
354 Crabapple
Malus species
6/6/5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
355 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
356 Valley oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
357 Incense cedar 9 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
358 Incense cedar 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
359 Incense cedar 5 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
360 Incense cedar 6 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
361 Incense cedar 7 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
362 Incense cedar 6 Ext Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
363 Aleppo pine 13 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
364 Incense cedar 7 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
365 Incense cedar 9 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
366 Incense cedar 9 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
367 Incense cedar 5 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
368 Incense cedar 6 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
369 Incense cedar 6 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant
370 Incense cedar 10 Fair 8/20/12 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
371 Valley oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
372 Coast live oak 5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
232 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
233 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
234 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
235 Blue oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
236 Blue oak 34 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
237 Blue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
238 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
239 Blue oak 27 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
240 Valley oak 15 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
241 Coast live oak 22 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
242 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
243 Valley oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
244 Coast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
245 Coast live oak 17 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
246 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
247 Blue oak 12 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
248 Valley oak 11/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
249 Coast live oak 19/18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
250 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
251 Blue oak 9/9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
252 Blue oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
253 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
254 Coast live oak 12/11 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
255 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
256 Coast live oak 29 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
257 Blue oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
258 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
259 Coast live oak 10/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
260 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
261 Coast live oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
262 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
263 Coast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
264 Coast live oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
265 Coast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
266 Valley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
267 Coast live oak 9/9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
268 Coast live oak 33 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
269 Coast live oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
270 Coast live oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
271 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
272 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
273 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
274 Coast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
275 Coast live oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
276 Coast live oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
277 Unused Number
278 Coast live oak 28 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
185 Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
186 Valley oak 25 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
187 European olive 16/15/15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
188 Valley oak 27 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
189 European olive 6/5/3 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
190 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
191 European olive 12/10/6/6 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
192 European olive 19/12/5 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
193 European olive 8/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
194 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
195 Valley oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
196 Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
197 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
198 Valley oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
199 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
200 Valley oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
201 Valley oak 8 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
202 Valley oak 12 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
203 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
204 Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
205 Valley oak 21 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
206 California bay laurel
Umbellularia californica
13 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
207 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
208 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
209 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
210 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
211 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
212 Coast live oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
213 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
214 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
215 Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
216 Blue oak
Quercus douglasii
7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
217 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
218 European olive 18/10/8/8 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
219 Valley oak 8 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
220 European olive 13 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
221 Valley oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
222 Valley oak 12 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
223 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
224 Coast live oak 32/21/10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
225 Valley oak 12 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
226 Valley oak 9 Dead 12/20/10 Preserve
227 Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
228 Aleppo pine 10 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
229 Blue oak 38 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
230 Valley oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
231 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
138 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
139 Coast live oak 8 Fair 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
140 Coast live oak 18 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
141 European olive 21 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
142 Wild plum 5 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
143 Wild plum 6 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
144 European olive 11/5/5 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
145 Aleppo pine 12 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
146 Aleppo pine 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
147 Aleppo pine 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
148 Aleppo pine 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
149 Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
150 Aleppo pine 10 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
151 Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
152 Aleppo pine 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
153 Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
154 Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
155 Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
156 Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
157 Incense cedar 7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
158 Aleppo pine 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
159 Aleppo pine 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
160 Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant
161 Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
162 Coast live oak 7 Good 1/08/13 Preserve
163 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
164 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
165 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
166 Valley oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
167 Coast live oak 30 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
168 Valley oak 40 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
169 Valley oak 30 Exellent 12/20/10 Preserve
170 European olive 10/6/5/4/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
171 European olive 11/9/8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
172 Valley oak 10 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
173 Valley oak 45 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
174 European olive 17/6/6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
175 Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
176 Valley oak 16 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
177 Valley oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
178 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
179 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
180 Valley oak 27 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
181 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
182 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
183 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
184 Valley oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
91 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
92 Valley oak 7 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
93 Aleppo pine 13 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
94 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
95 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
96 Coast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
97 Coast live oak 5 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
98 Valley oak 25 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
99 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
100 Coast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
101 Coast live oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
102 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
103 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
104 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
105 Valley oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
106 Coast live oak 22 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
107 Valley oak 6 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
108 Coast live oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
109 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
110 Wild plum
Prunus cerasifera
6 Ext Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
111 Coast live oak 29 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
112 Blue oak
Quercus douglasii
14 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
113 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
114 Valley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
115 Valley oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
116 Coast live oak 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
117 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
118 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
119 Valley oak 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
120 Coast live oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
121 Valley oak 20 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
122 Coast live oak 14/10/10/7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
123 Coast live oak 12 Dead 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
124 Coast live oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
125 Coast live oak 10 Good 1/08/13 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
126 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
127 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
128 Coast live oak 19 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
129 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
130 Coast live oak 20 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
131 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
132 Valley oak 21 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
133 Valley oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
134 Valley oak 39 Good 8/20/12 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
135 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
136 Valley oak 7 Excellent 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
137 Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor 1/08/13 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
44 Coast live oak 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
45 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
46 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
47 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
48 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
49 Valley oak 23 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant
50 Aleppo pine 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
51 Valley oak 11 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
52 Coast live oak 21 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
53 Valley oak 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
54 Coast live oak 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
55 Coast live oak 5 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
56 Coast live oak 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
57 Coast live oak 15 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
58 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
59 Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
60 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
61 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
62 Coast live oak 18/15 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
63 Coast live oak 15 Good 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
64 Coast live oak 8 Good 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
65 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Retention Pond Construction
66 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
67 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
68 Valley oak 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
69 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
70 Aleppo pine 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
71 Aleppo pine 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
72 Aleppo pine 13 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
73 Coast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
74 Coast live oak 8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
75 Coast live oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
76 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
77 Valley oak 25 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
78 Valley oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
79 California sycamore
Platanus racemosa
41 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
80 California sycamore 36 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
81 California sycamore 37 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
82 California sycamore 42 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
83 Aleppo pine 7 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
84 Elderberry
Sambucus caerulea
9/8/7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
85 Coast live oak 46 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
86 Aleppo pine 16 Dead 12/20/10 Preserve
87 Aleppo pine 15 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
88 Coast live oak 7 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
89 Elderberry 12 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
90 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
514 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
515 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
516 Incense cedar 6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
517 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
518 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
519 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
520 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
521 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
522 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
523 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
524 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
525 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
526 Incense cedar 7 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
527 Incense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
528 Incense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
529 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
530 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
531 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
532 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
533 Incense cedar 6 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
534 Aleppo pine 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
535 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
536 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
537 Aleppo pine 16 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
538 Wild plum 9/6 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
539 Wild plum 9 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
540 Coast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
541 Coast live oak 15/7 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
542 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
543 Coast live oak 11 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
544 Valley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Preserve
545 Coast live oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve
546 Coast live oak 12 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Roadway Construction-Low Impact
547 Coast live oak 13 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
548 Coast live oak 27 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
549 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
550 Blue oak 18 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
551 Coast live oak 16 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
552 Coast live oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
553 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
554 Coast live oak 15 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
555 Coast live oak 27 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
556 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
557 Coast live oak 6 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
558 Coast live oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
559 Coast live oak 17 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
560 Blue oak 10 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
467 Blue oak 36 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
468 Valley oak 16 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
469 Blue oak 28 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
470 Blue oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
471 Valley oak 8 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
472 Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
473 Blue oak 14 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
474 Blue oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
475 Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
476 Blue oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
477 Blue oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
478 Blue oak 31 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
479 Blue oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
480 Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
481 Blue oak 20 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
482 Blue oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
483 Blue oak 24 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
484 Valley oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
485 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
486 Valley oak 20 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
487 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
488 Valley oak 26 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
489 Valley oak 14 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
490 Blue oak 23 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
491 Valley oak 21 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
492 Valley oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
493 Valley oak 28 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
494 Valley oak 21 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
495 Valley oak 19 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
496 Aleppo pine 11 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
497 Aleppo pine 12 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
498 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
499 Blue oak 18 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
500 Blue oak 19 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
501 Blue oak 7 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
502 Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
503 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
504 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
505 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
506 Incense cedar 5 Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
507 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
508 Incense cedar 5 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
509 Incense cedar 8 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
510 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
511 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
512 Aleppo pine 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
513 Aleppo pine 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
420 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
421 Valley oak 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 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
433 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
434 Valley oak 12 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 Preserve
442 Blue oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
443 Blue oak 25 Good 12/20/10 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 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
461 Aleppo pine 10 Poor 12/20/10 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
Surrey Farm Estates Twin Oaks Drive
APN 532-16-006
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist January 8, 2013
373 Unused Number
374 Unused Number
375 Valley oak 5/4 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
376 Coast live oak 7 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
377 Coast live oak 18/9 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
378 Coast live oak 10/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
379 Coast live oak 11/8 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
380 Coast live oak 9 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
381 Coast live oak 12 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
382 Valley oak 6 Poor 8/20/12 Remove Roadway Construction
383 Valley oak 49 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
384 Coast live oak 43 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
385 Valley oak 36 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
386 Valley oak 23 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
387 Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
388 European olive 12/8 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
389 Coast live oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
390 Valley oak 26 Good 12/20/10 Preserve
391 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
392 Hybrid oak
Quercus species
26 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
393 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
394 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
395 Valley oak 18 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
396 Valley oak 24 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
397 Valley oak 22 Good/Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
398 Valley oak 17 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
399 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
400 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
401 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
402 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
403 Valley oak 38 Good 8/20/12 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
404 Valley oak 22 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
405 Valley oak 21 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
406 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
407 Valley oak 20 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
408 Valley oak 27 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
409 Valley oak 12 Fair/Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
410 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
411 Valley oak 23 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
412 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
413 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
414 Valley oak 12 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
415 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
416 Valley oak 16 Ext Poor 12/20/10 Preserve
417 Valley oak 13 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
418 Valley oak 15 Fair 12/20/10 Preserve
419 Coast live oak 30/18 Excellent 12/20/10 Preserve
• T R E E D I S P O T I T I O N T A B L E S •A-5BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST
Transplant
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
• T R E E COMPARISON T A B L E & LETTER •A-5A2 SITE OPTIONS
BY PROJECT ARBORIST MIKE BENCH, APPROVED BY TOWN ARBORIST
Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees
By Proposed
Plans A-1 and A-1A
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michail Bench
Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014
592 Coast live oak 32 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Moderate
593 Coast live oak 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Grading for Pond- Minor /
Storm Drain Impact - Moderate Possibly Severe
594 Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
595 European Olive 8/8/5 Goog 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction
Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees
By Proposed
Plans A-1 and A-1A
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michail Bench
Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014
373 Unused Number
374 Unused Number
382 Valley oak 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
383 Valley oak 49 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Minor Root Damage - Alternate Access
403 Valley oak 38 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
449 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
451 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
452 Aleppo pine 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
454 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
455 Incense cedar 8 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
459 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
460 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
461 Aleppo pine 10 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
462 Incense cedar 7 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
502 Aleppo pine 8/7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
507 Incense cedar 5 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
510 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading / Drivevay Construction
512 Aleppo pine 15 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
515 Incense cedar 6 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
516 Incense cedar 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
520 Aleppo pine 9 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
521 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
522 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
525 Aleppo pine 10 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
526 Incense cedar 7 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
527 Incense cedar 5 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
529 Aleppo pine 9 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
530 Aleppo pine 11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Grading
531 Aleppo pine 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
532 Aleppo pine 11 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
534 Aleppo pine 16 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Grading
544 Valley oak 10 Excellent 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining
Wall Construction
545 Coast live oak 5 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining
Wall Construction
546 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining
Wall Construction
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
Cupressus macrocarpa
7 Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
573 Valley oak 14 Good 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction
574 Incense cedar 10 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Roadway Construction
575 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
8 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
576 Coast live oak 6 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
577 Cypress
Cupressus species
5/4/4 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
578 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 10/11/12 Transplant Grading for Retention Pond
586 Valley oak 6 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
590 Monterey pine 40 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
591 Valley oak 33 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction-Low Impact
Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees
By Proposed
Plans A-1 and A-1A
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michail Bench
Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014
137 Coast live oak 5/5/3 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
138 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
139 Coast live oak 8 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
149 Aleppo pine 9 Excellent 12/20/10 Remove Grading for Retention Pond
152 Aleppo pine 8 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction
153 Aleppo pine 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction
154 Aleppo pine 16 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
155 Aleppo pine 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction
160 Valley oak 11 Fair 10/11/12 Transplant Alternate Access Construction
161 Valley oak 56 Good 12/20/10 Preserve Moderate Root Damage - Alternate Access
162 Coast live oak 7 Good 1/08/13 Preserve Severely Damaged by Grading and Retaining
Wall Construction
163 Valley oak 10 Fair 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction
164 Valley oak 11 Fair 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction
165 Coast live oak 5 Excellent 12/20/10 Transplant Alternate Access Construction
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 28 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading
303 Coast live oak 24 Good 10/20/14 Remove Grading
330 Coast live oak 5 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
331 Unused Number
333 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
336 Valley oak 23 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
337 Valley oak 25 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
338 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
342 Valley oak 13 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
345 Coast live oak 8 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
346 Valley oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
349 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
350 Coast live oak 6 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
351 Coast live oak 10 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
357 Incense cedar 9 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
358 Incense cedar 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
359 Incense cedar 5 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
360 Incense cedar 6 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
361 Incense cedar 7 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
362 Incense cedar 6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
363 Aleppo pine 13 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
364 Incense cedar 7 Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
365 Incense cedar 9 Excellent 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
366 Incense cedar 9 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
367 Incense cedar 5 Poor 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
368 Incense cedar 6 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
369 Incense cedar 6 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
370 Incense cedar 10 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
371 Valley oak 5 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
372 Coast live oak 5/3 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
Surrey Farm Estates Impacts to Trees
By Proposed
Plans A-1 and A-1A
Los Gatos, California
Prepared by Michail Bench
Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014
Field Data Sheet
Surrey Farm Estates Last Date
Tree Name DBH Condition Reviewed Disposition Reason(s) for Disposition Impacts
1 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11 Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
2 Coast live oak 6 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
3 Valley oak
Quercus lobata
15 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
4 Coast live oak 9 Good 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction
5 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
5 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
6 Coast live oak 13 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
7 Incense cedar 4 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction- Low Impact
8 Coast live oak 9/7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
9 Coast live oak 7 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
10 Coast live oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
11 Coast live oak 7 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Roadway Construction
12 Coast live oak 11 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
13 California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
19 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
14 Aleppo pine
Pinus halapensis
5 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
15 English walnut
Juglans regia
11 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
16 Aleppo pine 12 Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
17 Valley oak 17 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
18 Coast live oak 20/16 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
19 Coast live oak 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
24 Coast live oak 21 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
25 Coast live oak 11 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway / Storm Drain Construction
26 Coast live oak 10 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
27 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
28 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
29 Coast live oak 14 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
30 Valley oak 19 Fair 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction/Storm Drain
34 Coast live oak 12 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Storm Drain Construction
35 Valley oak 17 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Storm Drain Construction
48 Valley oak 8 Fair/Poor 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction
62 Coast live oak 18/15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
63 Coast live oak 15 Good 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
64 Coast live oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Retention Pond Construction
65 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Retention Pond Construction
90 Coast live oak 12 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
109 Coast live oak 15 Excellent 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
110 Wild plum
Prunus cerasifera
6 Ext Poor 10/20/14 Remove Roadway Construction
123 Coast live oak 12 Dead 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
124 Coast live oak 14 Fair 10/20/14 Preserve Sanitary Sewer Construction
125 Coast live oak 10 Good 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
126 Coast live oak 16 Good/Fair 10/20/14 Remove Sanitary Sewer Construction
134 Valley oak 39 Good 10/20/14 Preserve Retention Pond Construction- Low Impact
135 Coast live oak 8 Good 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
136 Valley oak 7 Excellent 10/20/14 Transplant Roadway Construction
Surrey Farm Estates
Los Gatos, CA
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 3
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
Surrey Farm Estates
Los Gatos, CA
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 2
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.
Surrey Farm Estates
Los Gatos, CA
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist October 20, 2014 1
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
(831) 594-5151
7327 Langley Canyon Road
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-1AD – 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.
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
• A L T E R N A T E P R O P O S E D P H O T O I L L U S T R A T I O N •
SCALE. 1"=50'-0"10 HOME SITES, WITH LANDSCAPE PLANTING A-6
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