Loading...
19 Highland Ave - Staff Report Exh.15Additionally, as a neighborly gesture, the applicant has offered to pay for new trees and landscape efforts on the Roberts property to provide further privacy and alleviate concerns about disturbance to the natural site . A new landscape plan has been developed in response to neighbors' concerns about tree removal and replacement, as well as privacy along the private access road I easement and the area near the proposed driveway turnaround . The proposed landscape plan replaces in entirety the proposed trees to be removed, with native species suited to the site conditions. See attached new plan for planting plan along driveway, private road , fire turnaround , and yard areas. The landscape plan has been des igned to accommodate the standards listed in the Hillside Design Guidel ines VII, Section A, , #1-7 with plant selections that are native , fire safe, conserve water, protect existing native plant species , and the turf area is located immediately adjacent to the home . No fences are proposed , and walkways and driveways are kept to a minimum . • See attachment #3 I Monarch Consulting Arborist Report dated May 10, 2016 • See attachment #4 I Landscape Plan by Ecotone • See attachment #5 I revised G-5 sheet with updated trees shown per new arborist report Grading, fire turnaround, driveway, retaining walls The topographic study from the 2010 planning commission approved project was used for this site. Some additional surveying needed specifically for this project was completed . Elevations were based on the Town of Los Gatos control monument LG38, elevation 556 .86 ', NGVD 29 . It took place around the immediate footprint of the home and west down the site encompassing driveway and fire turnaround areas . The applicant is unaware of any illegal grading that has taken place in past years. Regardless, the proposal responds to existing site conditions and constraints . With exception to some trees that have fallen by natural causes, the site essentially remains the same as when the site was purchased and an application was made . The proposed home has the same orientation and has a nearly identical footprint I building envelope (35' x 1 07') as the building site location that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2010 . Grading has been reduced on the proposed plan in comparison to the 2010 approved plans, AND retaining wall heights have been reduced on the proposed plan in comparison to the 2010 approved plans (to comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines, unlike the previous submittal). • Previous I Proposed Grading o Cut = 342 I 272 o Fill= 3851351 o Import= 40 I 0 o Export = 0 I 0 • Previous I Proposed Retain ing Wall Heights o Max previously approved : 6'-6 " I max proposed 4'-0 " The fire turnaround is located at the flattest area I access to the site per the County of Santa Clara guidelines, and has been minimized to the best extent possible. Th is area also helps to alleviate guest parking on the private road area , easing traffic concerns of the neighbors . The driveway has been designed to follow the contours of the site to minimize grading and need for reta ining walls, per the Hillside Design Guidelines VI Section C, #1 , 4, and 5. Per Hillside Design Guidelines VI, Section C: retaining walls have been minimized, and blend in more with the natural 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 March 31, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (HTH # 1333-02) Dear Mr. Pearson: Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared an updated biological resources report for the site located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California. This report updates the previous biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997) prepared for the site with respect to existing biological conditions and evaluation of the current potential biological and regulatory constraints to the proposed development of the site in the context of applicable laws and regulations. Project Description and Location The 1.0-acre (ac) proposed Project site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1). The Project site is bounded by Highland Avenue to the south and residential development to the north, west, and east. The proposed Project entails the construction of a house and associated driveway. The following conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed Project to minimize potential effects on biological resources:  Erosion control systems will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season.  Erosion control measures will conform to the Association of Bay Area Governments standards or Town of Los Gatos standards.  In the event of rain, all grading work will cease immediately and the site will be sealed in accordance with the approved erosion control measures.  The contractor will be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control measures after rain storms.  All cut and fill slopes will be protected by seeding and covered with straw mulch following completion of construction.  Contractor will prevent any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of the paved road. Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 1 0 10.5 Miles Project Site Figure 1. Vicinity Map February 2016N:\Projects\1333-02\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) Napa Salinas Oakland San Jose StocktonMartinez Hollister Fairfield Santa Cruz San Rafael Redwood City San Francisco SANTA CLARA SOLANO ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARIN MONTEREY SONOMA SAN MATEO SANTA CRUZ SAN BENITO NAPA SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO MERCEDPACIFICOCEAN Detail California 0 20 Miles Project Vicinity 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Methods H. T. Harvey & Associates plant/wetland ecologist Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., and wildlife ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., characterized the existing biotic conditions on the Project site, including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. This assessment involved a review of relevant background information regarding biological resources in the vicinity of the Project site that might supersede or modify our previous assessment of constraints, as well as a site visit conducted on February 19, 2016. Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed, including information from the following sources:  California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2016)  Federally listed species information for the vicinity from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2016)  Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2016) was conducted for special-status plant and animal species occurring in the Los Gatos, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle within which the site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles (San Jose East, San Jose West, Cupertino, Castle Rock Ridge, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, and Santa Teresa Hills). In addition, for plants we reviewed the Online Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS 2016) for information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 that occur in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. Existing Biological Conditions General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Vegetation. Vegetation on the Project site has not changed substantially from the description provided in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). One biotic habitat type was identified on the Project site, coast live oak/California bay woodland. The overstory is dominated by native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and western chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Non-native bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) is also present in the overstory. The understory is dominated by non-native periwinkle (Vinca major). In addition, a drainage, best characterized as an ephemeral stream (defined as a waterway that conveys water surface runoff during and immediately after precipitation events in a typical year) crosses the site. At the time of the recent survey 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 (February 19, 2016), the on-site drainage supported flowing water from recent rains (approximately 1-inch of rain received on February 19, 2016); water in the drainage was approximately 18 inches across, on average, and was an estimated 4-6 inches deep. Flows within this drainage appear to be flashy and are likely to disappear into the relatively permeable Los Gatos and Mayhem soils that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall event. Wildlife. The coast live oak/California bay woodland produces mast crops that are an important food source for many birds as well as mammals, including the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), California quail (Callipepla californica), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). The oaks also provide breeding habitat for a variety of bird species, including the bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), while the understory provides habitat for the Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Mature trees also provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); however, no large stick nests were observed during the reconnaissance survey of the site. Common amphibians and reptiles in this habitat include the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Special-status Plant and Animal Species As described in Methods above, information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur on the Project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special- status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on the site. Figures 2 and 3 are maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general vicinity of the Project site, defined for the purposes of this report as the area within a 5-mile (mi) radius. These generalized maps are valuable on a historic basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions. While these records are not definitive, they show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously. Photo 1: Coast live oak/California bay woodland most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant robust spineflowerrobust spineflower San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita robust spineflowerrobust spineflowerarcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow hairless popcornflowerhairless popcornflower woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Dudley's lousewortDudley's lousewort San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia round-leaved filareeround-leaved filaree Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads white-flowered rein orchidwhite-flowered rein orchid smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistlemost beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya big-scale balsamrootbig-scale balsamroot Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleHall's bush-mallowHall's bush-mallow smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Bonny Doon manzanitaBonny Doon manzanita white-rayed pentachaetawhite-rayed pentachaeta most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 2. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Plants February 201619 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles LEGEND Project Site 5-mile Radius CNDDB Records Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Plants N:\Projects\1333-02\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 2 CNDDB Plant Records.mxd Crotch bumble beeCrotch bumble beewestern bumble beewestern bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee hoary bathoary bat black swiftblack swiftwestern bumble beewestern bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat Opler's longhorn mothOpler's longhorn mothCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Zayante band-winged grasshopperZayante band-winged grasshopper purple martinpurple martinsteelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterflyCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Hom's micro-blind harvestmanHom's micro-blind harvestman steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS pallid batpallid bat coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog An isopodAn isopod foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Opler's longhorn mothOpler's longhorn moth California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Yuma myotisYuma myotis Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS ospreyosprey California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander pallid batpallid bat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle burrowing owlburrowing owl burrowing owlburrowing owl California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderNorth Central Coast DrainageNorth Central Coast DrainageSacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTSCTSCTS CRLFCRLF North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast DrainageNorth Central Coast DrainageSacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU golden eaglegolden eagle coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Animals February 201619 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles LEGEND Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Project Site Animals 5-mile Radius CNDDB Records N:\Projects\1333-02\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 3 CNDDB Animal Records.mxdGeneral Area Aquatic 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Special-status Plants A list of special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in the Los Gatos vicinity was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2016) and CNDDB records (CNDDB 20165) and reviewed for their potential to occur on the Project site. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with these species, all but three were determined to be absent from the Project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the Project site; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated. The three species which were analyzed further for their potential to occur on the Project site are discussed in more detail below. Maple-leaved Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malachroides). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR: 1B. Habitat for the maple-leaved checkerbloom includes broadleaved upland forests, coastal prairie, and north coast coniferous forest. The species often occurs within disturbed portions of these habitats. The blooming period for this perennial herb occurs from May through August. Aside from a historical occurrence within the Calaveras Reservoir quadrangle, no documented populations of maple-leaved checkerbloom are known from the vicinity of the Project. Although potential habitat for this species occurs within the Project site, the presence of dense mats of periwinkle preclude growth of the species. Therefore, maple-leaved checkerbloom was determined to be absent from the site. Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR 1B. Western leatherwood occurs within a wide range of habitats including: broad leaved upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. The blooming period of this deciduous shrub is from January through April. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, western leatherwood was not observed among the shrub component of the Project site. While out of the blooming period, this shrub is presently recognizable and if it occurred on site should have been detected. Therefore, this species was determined to be absent from the Project site. Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CRPR List: 1B. Santa Cruz manzanita is found in open areas within broadleaved upland forests and redwood forests below 2,300 feet. This species is endemic to the Santa Cruz mountains. The blooming period of this evergreen shrub is from November through April. This species is not known from the Los Gatos 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle in which the Project site occurs or the nine surrounding quadrangles. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, while out of the blooming period, this shrub would have been detected during the reconnaissance survey if it occurred on site. Therefore, Santa Cruz manzanita was determined to be absent from the project site. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Special-status Animals Based on our review of current CNDDB (2016) records (Figure 4) and other data sources, as well as our extensive experience with other projects in the Los Gatos area, we know that several special-status animal species are known to occur in the Project region. However, all of these species were determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or evidence that the species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others):  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of concern, and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened. The nearest known occurrence of the California red-legged frog is located over 4.5 mi from the Project site and the nearest known occurrence of the California tiger salamander is located approximately 3.9 mi from the Project site. Further, all potentially suitable aquatic breeding habitat for these species is separated from the Project site by extensive residential development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, neither of these species is expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern. Further, the Project site is separated from the nearest suitable aquatic habitat by extensive development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site and vicinity lack appropriate open habitat that could be used by foraging, nesting, or wintering burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern, and no burrows were present on the Project site. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend’s big-eared bat normally roosts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the top corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this species is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend’s big-eared bats. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  A focused survey for nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, failed to detect any nests of this species on the Project site. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Although the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) were previously identified as California species of special concern that might occur on the Project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997), both species have subsequently been removed from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) list of California species of special concern. Sensitive and Regulated Habitats The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFW sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Waters of the U.S./State. The ephemeral drainage that crosses the property meets the regulatory definition of an “other waters,” which is a category of waters of the U.S., and activities conducted within this feature are likely regulated by the USACE. Additionally, the drainage is considered a “waters of the State” which is regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. These conclusions are consistent with those described in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). CDFW Sensitive Habitats. To identify other potentially occurring natural communities of special concern, a CNDDB (2016) search within the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain or surround the Project site was performed. The CNDDB identified one sensitive habitats as occurring in the Project region: serpentine bunchgrass. However, no serpentine habitat is present on the Project site. Thus, none of the sensitive habitats tracked by CNDDB occur on the Project site. Biotic Impacts and Mitigation Overview The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: E. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” F. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” G. “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act” H. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” I. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” J. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Following is a brief summary of potential Project impacts on biological resources. No Impact Impacts on Special-status Plants and Animals. As described above, suitable habitat is not present on the Project site for any special-status plant or animal species. Therefore, there would be no impact on special-status plants or animals due to the proposed Project. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid the ephemeral drainage on the site and would not result in the direct disturbance or loss of wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies, such as the USACE, San Francisco RWQCB, and CDFW. In addition, with implementation of the conservation measures incorporated into the Project, no indirect impacts on jurisdictional habitats would occur. Further, given that the drainage on the Project site is seasonal and does not support wetland plants nor true riparian trees/shrubs; and that no special-status species are expected to make use of this habitat on the project site, it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize significant impacts on biological resources. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. The currently proposed Project would impact up to 1.0 ac of upland coast live oak/California bay woodland. The understory of this habitat type is dominated by non-native periwinkle, and the animal species that occur on the site are common species. Coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated plant and wildlife species are common and widespread in the San Francisco Bay area. Because the site supports only a very small proportion of the regional populations of common plant and wildlife species, the proposed Project would have very limited impacts on the regional abundance of these species. As a result, Project impacts on upland habitats and associated common plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would be considered less than significant under CEQA. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. The Project would result in the removal of several trees during construction. The Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, section 29.10.0950 to 29.10.0990) protects all trees having a trunk that measures 35 inches or more in circumference (12 inches in diameter) and all trees of the following species which have an 8-inch or greater diameter (25-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). In addition, the ordinance protects trees which have a 12-inch circumference (4 inches or greater in diameter) that are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property. The ordinance protects both native and non-native species. Heritage trees, defined as a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, are also protected. A tree removal permit or other Town approval is required from the Town of Los Gatos for the removal or pruning of ordinance-sized trees. The removal of ordinance or heritage trees, without mitigation, would conflict with the City’s ordinance protecting trees and would thus be considered a significant impact under Appendix G, Item I, as described above. Implementation of the following measures will reduce impacts on ordinance-sized trees to a less-than- significant level by bringing the Project into compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 1a: Conduct a Preconstruction Tree Survey. A tree survey will be conducted prior to prior to any site grading or construction work in order determine whether any trees planned to be severely trimmed or removed are Ordinance trees as defined by the City of Los Gatos. Mitigation Measure 1b: Obtain Tree Removal Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will seek a Tree Removal Permit from the Town for any Ordinance trees that would be removed or severely trimmed. The approval authority may impose replacement standards for each tree to be removed or trimmed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds Construction disturbance during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest on the Project site due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project on these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact to their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code: Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Literature Cited [CNDDB] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed through October 2015. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ advanced.html. Accessed through October 2015. Google Inc. 2016. Google Earth [Software]. Available from www.google.com/earth. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. No 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, California Biotic Constraints Analysis. Prepared for Angelo Orphan. May 5, 2016 Alex H. Jewell, AICP, LEED AP Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Biological Evaluation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2035-01). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town’s request, we have prepared this peer review of H. T. Harvey’s Biological Constraints Analysis (1997) and Biological Evaluation (2016) for the approximately one-acre 19 Highland Avenue project site. The one-acre site is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd. interchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. As we understand it from the site plans provided, the project includes the construction of an approximately 5000 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, and associated driveway and landscaping. Background Review Prior to a site visit to evaluate existing site conditions, LOA completed an appropriate background review. In addition to a review of the biological constraints analysis and biological evaluation reports prepared by H.T. Harvey, sources of information relevant to the proposed project, the project site, and the site’s vicinity were reviewed, including the prior biological peer review report completed by Mike Wood of Wood Biological Consulting (2008), the 19 Highland Avenue Mitigated Negative Declaration (Town of Los Gatos 2010), the project site plans (Peoples Associates 2015), aerial photographs of the project site, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Maps (accessed April 19, 2016 on-line at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 (CDFW 2016). Existing Site Conditions On 20 April 2016, LOA ecologist Pamela Peterson conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit with the property owner, Ed Pearson, to evaluate existing conditions of the site. During the site visit, habitats present on the site were verified, including potentially suitable habitat for any special status plant or animal species that are known to occur, or once to have occurred, regionally. The site visit also evaluated the extent of potentially jurisdictional habitats present and proposed setbacks from the on-site creek. LOA did not conduct focused or protocol-level surveys for rare species or a formal wetland delineation. The project site is a long, irregularly-shaped one-acre property bordered to the south by Highland Avenue (which apparently is an easement on the property) and by existing single family homes estate lots on all other sides. On the south side and up the slope from Highland Avenue there also is an existing home. The proposed location of the home occurs on a north-facing slope between Highland Avenue and the on-site creek channel. Bank slopes along the side of Highland Avenue on the site are relatively steep, but then slopes become more gradual down to the on-site creek. Slopes on the north side of the on-site drainage then rise fairly steeply again. Elevations of the site vary from a low of 60 feet near the drainage channel to approximately 100 feet in the northwest portion of the site. Woodland dominated by California bay (Umbellularia californica) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the predominant habitat on the site. This woodland has a moderately open canopy in the area of the proposed home on the south side of the drainage and a relatively dense canopy on the remaining northwestern portion of the site. Other tree and shrub species observed on the site included non-native, invasive species such as blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and French broom (Genista monspessulana), and native species such as blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The herbaceous understory was dominated by periwinkle (Vinca major) a non-native ornamental groundcover. Other herbaceous species observed in the understory included primarily non-native annual forbs and grasses, including Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). An unnamed ephemeral tributary of Los Gatos creek traverses the site, flowing onto the site along the eastern boundary and meandering across the site in a westerly direction to the western boundary. During the April 2016 site visit, although there had been no rainfall in the site’s vicinity for at least a week, water was observed flowing in the low flow channel of the creek approximately two feet wide and between 2 and 4 inches in depth. Evidence of an Ordinary High Water (OHW) channel was present within the creek, varying in width from three to four feet. The width of the creek from top of bank to top of bank varied between six to more than ten feet. The creek banks were generally barren of vegetation with no wetland or riparian vegetation observed to be associated with it. This ephemeral drainage would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to the extent of the OHW mark on opposing banks, and the bed and bank of this feature would also be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing site conditions as observed by LOA during the April 2016 site visit are consistent with the existing site conditions found by H.T. Harvey biologists during their February 2016 site visit. Peer Review of Impacts and Mitigations H.T. Harvey categorized biological resources into three categories: No Impact, Less-than- significant Impact, and Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Additionally, they have a section Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site. We have organized our review to be consistent with these sections of their report. No Impact Impacts on Special Status Plants. H. T. Harvey concluded that special status plants are absent from the site and therefore that the project will have no impact on special status plants. We concur with H.T. Harvey’s conclusion. The dominance of the herbaceous understory by non- native grasses and forbs, including fairly dense mats of periwinkle would preclude special status plants from occurring on the site, and special status woody shrub species such as arcuate mallow and western leatherwood would have been identifiable if present on the site even outside of their blooming season and they were not observed. Impacts on Special Status Animals. H.T. Harvey concluded that the site does not provide habitat for special status animals that may occur in the project region and therefore that the project will not impact any special status animal species. We concur with H. T. Harvey’s conclusions. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. H.T. Harvey concluded that while the on-site creek would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW, the project as proposed will have no direct impact on the creek and, therefore, the project will have no impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state. We concur that there will be no direct impact (i.e., filling) to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state as a result of the project, and, as such it does not appear that Section 401 or 404 permits will be required from the RWQCB or USACE, respectively, or a Section 1600 permit from CDFW. Additionally, H.T. Harvey states that “..it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize significant impacts on biological resources.” While we concur that there will be no direct impact to areas of the creek considered jurisdictional by the resource agencies, H.T. Harvey’s report lacks a more detailed discussion of creek setbacks. For instance, H.T. Harvey doesn’t cite the project plans that they evaluated (i.e., the preparer and date), although we assume they were the same site plans that we evaluated, and they do not discuss what the actual setback widths are that are reflected in the plans they evaluated and why those setbacks are adequate in their opinion. Based on our site visit and the locations of flags and story poles showing the outline of project footprints, and based on our review of the project plans (Peoples Associates dated November 30, 2015), setbacks from the proposed home to the top of the creek bank appear to be, at minimum, 12 feet from the top of the creek bank in the eastern portion of the site where a small oxbow occurs (the setback may originally have been greater in this location, but due to a tree falling into the creek this past winter and blocking flows, some erosion has occurred here, which appears to have brought the southern bank of the oxbow slightly closer to the proposed home site. Sheet G4 of the site plans indicate that the minimum setback in this location is 16 feet to the home itself, although stairs to a deck in this location occur closer and it is possible that in the field, the flags that were observed were for the outline of the stairs that were within 12 feet of the creek. The setback between the driveway and the creek bank appears to be less than 10 feet in a couple areas (Sheet G4 indicates that the setback is as narrow as 2 to 7 feet in these locations). Aside from these areas; however, overall, the setback along the vast majority of the reach of creek on the site is wider, and the average setback is likely more in the realm of between 20 to 25 feet or possibly greater. Typically, we would recommend a greater setback from a creek channel than 16 feet but overall, the few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10 feet for the driveway are not significant in our opinion, given that the vast majority of the remaining setback is at least 20 feet, which we believe is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. This is a highly constrained building site as a result of being bound by Highland Avenue to the south and the meandering creek channel to the north, and it appears that the Applicant has attempted to design the home to conform as best as possible to these constrained conditions. From a biological standpoint, the riparian influence of the creek appears to be restricted to the wetted portion of the channel. Because of underground culverting downstream and the lack of associated riparian or wetland vegetation, the creek itself provides foraging, shelter, and movement habitat for native species that is not greater in value than that of adjacent upland woodland habitats. The creek will continue to provide a seasonal source of drinking water for native species even after the project is built, and the few common species that may move through the site within the creek currently will also likely continue to do so after the project has been constructed. Further, potential water quality issues with regard to run off from new impervious surfaces have been addressed through the incorporation of five bioswales (Sheet G3 and G6) into the design, four of which occur between the proposed home and the creek, and the driveway has been designed utilizing permeable pavers. Additionally, any potential water quality issues during project construction are addressed through compliance with erosion control measures as detailed in the NPDES notes on Sheet G1 and erosion control methods detailed on Sheet G6. However, while we concur with H.T. Harvey’s conclusions regarding the adequacy of the setbacks, we would recommend that they revise their report to include a citation of the plans that they reviewed and a greater discussion as to what the actual setbacks are and why they are adequate in their opinion. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison. Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project would impact up to one acre of coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated common plant and animals and that this small loss of habitat would be a less-than-significant impact of the project. Because development will only occur on the southern portion of the parcel, the actual loss of woodland habitat on the site would be limited to approximately 0.6 acre or less, while woodland occurring in the northwestern portion of the site on the other side of the on-site drainage would be preserved. We concur that the loss of approximately 0.6 acres of woodland habitats on the site would be a less-than-significant impact of the project given the amount of similar habitat that occurs in the region. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project may have a significant impact on trees that are protected under the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, Section 29.10.0950 – 29.10.0990). According to the site plans (Sheet G5), approximately 14 trees will be removed as a result of the project. As we were not provided with a copy of the arborist report, it is unknown how many of these trees would be protected by the Town’s ordinance. Mitigations for loss of protected trees included: 1. Conducting a pre-construction tree survey, and 2. Applying for a permit and complying with permit requirements, which may require the planting of replacement trees. It should be noted that based on our site visit, opportunities for planting of replacement trees may be limited on the site (as areas of the site outside of the proposed project footprints are already wooded), so, it is possible that depending on the number of protected trees that will ultimately be removed and the replacement ratios that the Town may require, the project proponent may not be able to accommodate all replacement plantings on the project site. Therefore, additional measures for compensation for a loss of ordinance size trees may be required, such as in-lieu fees. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site H.T. Harvey has concluded that impacts to birds that may nest on the site during project construction are less than significant under CEQA, however, they have provided a regulatory overview for nesting birds and they provide measures to ensure that the project complies with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). These measures include avoidance (i.e., construction during the non-breeding season), pre- construction/pre-disturbance surveys if construction will occur during the breeding season, and measures to inhibit nesting, including removal of nest substrates during the non-breeding season. Although to some extent this is a simple matter of difference of opinion, impacts to nesting birds may also be considered under the category of Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation. However, as long as H.T. Harvey has provided measures to ensure compliance with MBTA and CFGC, and as long as these measures are incorporated into the project’s Conditions of Approval, then we consider this a moot point. However, for Measure 2, we would recommend that H.T. Harvey include that the pre-construction/pre-disturbance survey area include surveys of nesting substrates within a 300 feet radius of project footprints, as possible/accessible, since they indicate that buffers up to 300 feet may be necessary depending on the nesting bird species. LOA Summary and Recommendations In general, LOA concurs with H.T. Harvey’s assessment of the existing conditions of the site as well as their evaluation of potential impacts and the mitigations that they have provided to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA. Therefore, our recommendations are fairly minor and include the following: 1. That H.T. Harvey modify their 2016 letter report to discuss the actual setbacks as indicated on the Peoples Associates November 2015 site plans between the top of the bank of the creek and the home and driveway areas, and provide a more detailed analysis as to why these setbacks are adequate. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek bank that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison, and less than 10 feet and greater than 10 feet for the driveway setback. 2. Revise Measure 2 for nesting birds to state that all trees and other potential nest substrates within a 300 foot radius of the project be surveyed to the extent possible/accessible, and that the Town ensures that all three measures for nesting birds become part of the project’s Conditions of Approval. That completes our peer review. We appreciate you considering Live Oak to provide ecological services for you on this project. If you wish to discuss any of our findings, conclusions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884 or Rick Hopkins at 408-281- 5885. Sincerely, Pamela Peterson Senior Project Manager .. Tree Inventory, Assessment, And Protection 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared for: P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 9 5018 831 . 331. 8982 Ed Pearson May 10,2016 Prepared By: Consulting Arborists LLC ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 /SA -Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B © Copyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2016 19 Highland Attachment # 3 19 Highland Avenue Arbori st A ssessment May 10,2016 Table of Contents Sum mary ............................................................................................................... 1 I ntroduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the assignment ......................................................................................... 1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................ 2 Observations ......................................................................................................... 2 D iscu ssion ............................................................................................................. 3 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 4 Influence Level ........................................................................................................ 5 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 7 Critical Root Zone ................................................................................................... 8 Bridging with Mulch ................................................................................................ 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 1 0 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 11 Protection during demolition/grading .................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ............................................................................................... 11 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 12 B ibl iography ........................................................................................................ 1 2 Gl ossary o f Te rm s .............................................................................................. 13 Ap pe n dix A: Site Map ......................................................................................... 14 A ppendix B: Tree I nvent ory, A ssessment a nd Dispositi o n T ables ................ 15 B1 : Inventory and Assessment Table .................................................................... 15 B2 : Disposition Table ............................................................................................ 19 Appendix C : Phot ogr aphs ................................................................................. 23 A ppendi x 0 : Tree Protect ion Guid e lines .......................................................... 28 Section 29.10 .1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Additional tree protection measures : .................................................................... 29 Monarch Consulting A rborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Fe lton, CA 95 018 831 .33 1.8982-ri ck @monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 .· 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessme nt May 10, 2016 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1: English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Li m iting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ............................................................................. 33 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Summary The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (35 percent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the majority of trees with 74 specimens total. Most of the trees (80) are in fair condition while five are poor, five are in good shape, and one is unstable. Fourteen (14) trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4 located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction . Introduction Background Ed Pearson asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations. Assignment 1. Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings . 2. Provide tree protection specifications and influence ratings for trees that will be affected by the project. Limits of the assignment 1. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the site and trees during my inspections onApril22 and 26, 2016. No tree risk assessments were performed. No tree appraisals were performed. 2. The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: Site Plan G2 provided by Peoples Associates dated November 30,2015. No grading, drainage, utility, or landscape plans were reviewed. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 1 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by Ed Pearson and his agents as a reference for existing tree and site conditions. Observations The site is located along Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property has a seasonal creek running through it and hills on both the east and west sides. There is a level area at the bottom of the drainage and currently there are story poles to indicate the proposed location of the site improvements. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks , valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The plans indicate a driveway extending from the northern part of Highland Avenue and the structure set bak farther to the south. within the plan area there are thirty trees and fourteen within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Fourteen (14) trees are within the footprint of the proposed improvements . • Sixteen (16) trees are in close proximity to the proposed improvements. • Sixty-one (61) trees are not near any proposed improvements. • Four (4) trees assessed are on the adjacent site to the south. • Valley oak #30 is fifteen feet from the proposed structure. • Coast live oak #56 is in irreversible decline/unstable and has signs and symptoms consistent with ambrosia beetle (Monarthrum scutellare ) attacks on its trunk. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 2 of 33 ' 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Discussion Tree Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees protected by th e Town of Los Gatos located on the site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees with a trunk diameters greater than (4) four inches at (54) fifty-four inches above grade on vacant or underdeveloped lots (Appendix A and B). Aluminum tree tags have been affixed to all trees listed in the inventory except for those on the eastern hillside which are arbitrarily numbered form south to north for the purposes of this report. The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (35 percent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the majority of trees with 74 specimens total. Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California buckeye (Aesculus californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervire ns) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Plum (Prunus sp .) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 0 Chart 1 : Species Distribution • Quanti ty 10 20 30 40 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 50 3 of 33 19 Hig hland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Cond ition Rating A tree 's condition i s a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects: Roots , trunk, scaffold branches, twigs , and foliage. The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • E xceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • Good = No apparent problems, good structure and health , good lon g evity for the site. • Fair = Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems, irreversible decline , failing structure, or dead. Most of the trees are in fair condition which is typical of an unmaintained woodland. Six trees are in poor condition and five are in good shape. Trees in poor condition include bay tree 46 has some decay at the base, blue gum 44 bas codominant stems and a defective stem about 40 feet above grade. Coast live oak 56 has ambrosia beetle attacks on its trunk is half dead and unstable. Coast liv e oak 66 has been repeatedly bit by vehicles and bas trunk damage. Good Fair Poor Unstable 0 Chart 2: Condition Rating • Quantity 20 40 60 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarc harbori st.com 80 4 of 3 3 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10 , 2016 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree , and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating: • Low =The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Fourteen trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4 located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) ofthe trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. The charts below indicate the quantity of trees for each construction impact category (Chart 3). 0 Chart 3: Impact Ratings • Quantity 14 28 42 56 70 Chart 4: Construction Impact Percentages e High e e Low High II· Moderate Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@mon a rcharbori st.com 5 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10,2016 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots , trunk, or scaffo ld branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibit ed to minimize potential injury to the tree . The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species to lerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances (Figure 1). Tree protection zones and type of tree protection will vary depending on what may be impacting the trees . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or band tools can be accomplished b y wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the b ark and vascular tissues underneath. Sturdy TPZ Fencing 6ft. h i gh Figure 1 : Tree protection distances Wra p trunks with straw wattle up to 6 feet Figure 2 : Trunk protection with straw wattle Monarch Consulting Arbori st s LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick @mon archarborist.com Straw Wattle 7 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Conclusion The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (35 percent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the majority of trees with 74 specimens total. Most of the trees (80) are in fair condition typical of trees growing within a stand in a woodland setting. Five trees are in poor condition, five are in good shape, and one unstable. Fourteen trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Because most of the trees will only be influenced on one side the CRZ will in effect be the TPZ for this project and particularly for valley oak #30. Valley oak #30 is approximately 15 feet from the proposed structure and to building the structure placing fence around this tree is not practical. For this tree I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping its trunk with wattle for protection. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 10 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May10,2016 Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits from the Town of Los Gatos prior to removing or significantly altering any tree. Remove Coast live oak #56 due to its current diseased condition. Refer to Appendix D of this document for general protection guidelines and specifications. Protection during demolition/grading 1. Wrap moderately influenced trees with straw wattle to help prevent mechanical damage to the trunks where fence is impractical. Trees 8, 11, 14, 18, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 41, 47, 56, 59, 63, and 65. Construction Phase 1. Remove all trees to be removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. 2. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civi l engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 3. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with th e correct materials, and at the proper distances. 4. Tree Pruning: If tree pruning for overhead clearance is required or necessary pruning specifications shall be in writing prior to any cutting. Cutting shall be performed by a qualified tree care professional or supervised by the project arborist. No limbs greater than four inches ( 4 ") in diameter shall be removed. 5. Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within five times the trunk diameter distances. 6. Valley Oak #30: Create a working platform with mulch and three quarter inch plywood around tree #30 to help reduce root zone impact. 7. Utility Trenching: Where possible trenches shall be dug under existing roots and utilities should be "snaked" under the roots. When large roots, greater than 4 inches in diameter, are encountered they shall be excavated by hand or with pneumatic excavating tools such as an Air Spade® or Hydrovac®. ~' 1 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 11 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 8. Root removal: Prior to removing roots greater than two inches (2") in diameter each tree shall be evaluated by the project arborist to help d etermine its likelihood of failure after root loss. If roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. No roots shaH be cut within six times the trunk diameter distance in feet on one side without arborist approval. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition and have the trees assessed for risk. 2. Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones. Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation . Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Glossary of Arboricultural Terms. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2011. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land developm ent. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tre e Risk Management . 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Glossary of Terms Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters ( 4 .5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for PlantAppniisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters ( 4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture. Drip Line: Imaginary line defmed by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials , and have an average weight of 35 pounds. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defmed area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is, and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. Trunk: Stem of a tree. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix B: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables 81: Inventory and Assessment Table Table 2: Tree Inventory and Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Number Trunk Condition Suitability for Influence Diameter Preservation Level I · Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) 1 14, 4, 2.5, ' Good 2.5 Good I Low I ----------------------------------------------:--·---· 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 2 9.5 ; Fair Fair i Low I : Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 14 l Fair 1 Bay laurel (Umbellularia 9 ,-------M I Fai-r -- 8 ' I Fair i Moderate -. ------~-- 1 Fair I High : californica) 1 1 ~-----------~1 ---+~---~-----~~------l----~' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 1 ~ 9 l Fair I Fair I Moderate i I ' Bay laur~l-( Umbel/ularia -:---13 ,---8 1 Fair __ _,!, Fair ----T~igh ___ i californica) l I ! I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 14 I 8.5 1 Fair ; Fair I I I 16 110, 10 ' ! Poor Bay laurel ( Umbellularia I :Poor californica) I I I ! ' I Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I 17 1 9 i Fair ! Fair californica) I i I I _ _j Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria I 18 ~Fair I Fair californica) I I I I I i 20 1 I l Poor Bay laurel ( Umbellularia 11 I Poor californica) I I i I I I I I 21 I 19 1 Fair I Poor Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I I i I I 18 1Fair J Fair Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia 22 1 californica) I I l j_ Valley oak (Quercus lobata) I 23 1 8 1 Poor I Poor i Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 25 ! 14 1 Fair I Fair I I I I ! Fair ' Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 27 122, 14 --t Fair Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria I 29 11' 6 ! Fair 1 Poor I 1 caltformca) I Valley oak (Quercus lobata) j 30 1 20, 16 : Fair __jl Fair 1--------------~----~----~-------- :Bay laurel (Umbellularia I 31 110, 7 1 Fair 1 Fair 1 californica) __________ j _____ l ____ _:_ ____ j _ .. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com I Moderate I i l High -, I I ' I High i I Moderate i j I Low I I High I -----, ; High I Moderate High I High I I Moderate I I I . ~M~d-;;;-j I Low I ! I ___j 15 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Bay laurel ( Umbe/lularia : californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Number Trunk Condition Suitability for Influence I 57 ' Diameter Preservation Level I 15 ·Fair Poo r Fai r 12 Fair Poor Low I .I I 1 Moderate ; H ig h --·----~-----;---------~----------·-, ------:--- . Bay laurel ( Umbe/lularia . californica) 61 ; 12 ' Poor Poor !H igh I I ~~~S_!~~e~a_k _( ?_uer:__u_s _a_g_rif<_olia) __ l __ _ 62 ! -·-__ 2_~_:5 _-~~ir . ________ '_Fair ______ J High _-____ _j , Valley oa k (Quercus lobata) 1 63 1 15.5 : Fair ! Fair :Moderate : ---~ ----------------,-·-----1 . Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 65 : 8 1 Fair i Poor J Moderate 1 icoa~t-~;e~-ak--{Q-u~r~~s-a-~~-it<-ol-ia)-~--66 : 12 .5 i Fair ---~~----rlc;~------l ~-Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) -~----~-~ F~~--: Fair I Low I 1 -------------l--------o I · I 1 _9oas t live oak {Qu_e_rc_u_s _ag_~_if<_ol_ia_) -:---1_0_2-;.l-12 1 Fair _j_ Fai r _ I Low ___ j I Coast live oak {Quercus agrifolia) 103 i 12 ~Fair i Fair I Low ! j Coast live oak {Quercus agrifolia) 104 1 4 1 Fair i Fair 1 Low I r-4:Fair I F. I I : Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 105 ! 1 a1r Low I I I I ~oast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I I I ~Fair I 106 ! 12 I Fair Low ! I I I I 107l I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! 8 J Fair I Fair Low r Bay laurel ( Umbellularia : 108 j 4 and 4 I I I 1 Fair Fai r Low I I F lifornica) i I I i 109 1 10 : Fair I t live o~k (Quercus agrifolia) I Fair Low I I 110 1 ---I I i Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I ~Fair I Fair Low I I I r-- I 111 1 8 1 Fair I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia I Fair Low ! californica) I I ~Fair I ___ ----~ ' I Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria 11; I I Fair Low I californica) I i I I ! Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I I I 113 1 12 1 Fair Fair Low ----! ! Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 114 i Fair I 12 j Fa1r I I I 115 i I F. i I Low Bay laurel ( Umbe/lularia I 5 : a1r i Fair I ca/ifornica) I I i i -jlow I I I ' 116 1 4 J Fair I ' i Fair Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria i I ' I I californica) i I i I ! i I I I I 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agnfolta) 117 ' I 4 1 Fa1r Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com - I l low ___ j 17 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Tree Species Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) : Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I Arborist Assessment Number 118 Trunk Diameter Condition 4 Fair 15 Fair May 10, 20 16 Suitability for Influence Preservation Level Fa ir _ ---~ Lo~---_ ; Fair ; Low ---______________ ,, _________ , ___ ----------------------··-----.--------' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbe/lularia ~ californic a) --------------------~ i Bay laurel ( Umbe/lularia ! californica) I ' 120 24 Fa ir Fa ir 1 Low 121 1 8 and 8 Fair 1 Fair J L ow , I -·------~-------1 --·---------------< 122 4 1 Fair 1 Fa ir I Low -·----------·-------·---,----,---------,__ ------- ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ; 123 i 8 ; Fa ir ' -·----------1 --------- 1 ' , Fair i L~-_ _! --·--------------,---------- : Coast live oak (Quercus agri folia) i 124 1 13 i Fa ir I Fair 1 Low ! ,---------------,------;·------~--------j---·-----,-------1 ! ~:h't~~~!;)(Umbe/1~/aria i · 125 j~ and 4 __ 1 F~i ~---_~ Fai ~-_____ ! Lo~----j : Bay laure l ( Umbe/lularia 126 18 and 5 1~ Fair 1 Fair 'j Low 1 ca/ifornica) I ! ~~~~-e oa~Quercus agrifolia) 127 1 8 1 Fair ___ :, Fa_ir___ 1 Low . ~oast-~~e oak (Quercus agrifolia) 128 1 20 t Fair i Fair J Low ----~ (Coast live oak (Quercus agri folia) 129 i 28 ; Fa ir I Fair I Low j 1 Black walnut (Jug/ans nigra) 130 I 8 \ Fair 1 Fair J Low I l Bay lau re l (Umbel/u/aria 131 i 6 i Fair I Fair I Low I ca/ifornica) I I I _______ j i ! I I i ---··--- I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) I 132 1 22 1 Fair j Low I Fair I I_ I 133 1 I I Low I Coast l ive oak (Quercus agrifolia) 8 i Fair Fair I Bay laurel (Umbe/lularia i 134 112 and 8 I Fair Fair I Low I I I californica) I I I I I i I I I 6 1 Fair J Low i P lum (Prunus sp.) I 135 1 Fair I i ! Fair J Low ! Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 136 1 30 I Fair Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 137 r 33 i Fair j Fair I Low I ___!. I I I ! Fair j Fair i -~ Bay laurel ( Umbellularia I 138 ,10 and 2 I Low I I I I ca/ifornica) I I -k;-I I I ! I ' ! Coast redwood (Sequoia ! 139 i 18 and 16 ! Fair ! Low ! sempervirens) ! I ! 14o I j ____ _j Madrone (Arbutus menziesn) ! 11 I Fair ! Fair j Low I I ---~ -------; I 141 1 40 I Fair I Fa ir ! Low _,_l ______ _j_ ____ . I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Fe lton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 18 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10,2016 82: Disposition Table Table 3: Disposition Table Tree Species Number Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Trunk Diameter 1 : 4 , 4 , 2 .5 , ' 2 .5 ' Influence Level 'Low Remove or Retain Retain -----------------------~~-------,·-·------· 2 1 9.5 1 Low 'Retain ·Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ··------·---------------- Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ~------ 1 Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) -----a_, _______ 14 I M~~:rate -I Retain/Protect 9 : 14 ! High --, R~~~~--- 1 r--·-----~------~ --- 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) , 11 : 9 Moderate Retain/Protect ·----------· --------'---·--·---------~-I . I I -----1 , Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 13 ! a i High i Remove ! :-~~-ast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) -----~---~~ a.5 i Moderate ___ :=R-e-ta-i-n/-P-ro_t_e-ct--t Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 1 16 ! 10, 10 ~-High J Remove Bay laurel (Umbell~~ari~~alifor~~'!}_ __ 1_ 17 ~---~-L~~g~----I Remove I ; Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ca/ifornica) 1a 1 a j Moderate 1 Retain/Protect I I Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) 20 ~------1~1-u;~----; Retain --~ I I ' 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) , 21 i 19 1 High ! Remove i Bay laurel (Umbel/ularia ca/ifornica) ·---j 221---1a l High·---r ~-v-e __ _ ! Valley o~k (Quercus Jobata) 23 1 a! Moderate I Retain/Protect r Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ~----;-sr-14 i High I Remove 1 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 21 1 22, 14 ___ I High I Remove __j ~Bay laurel ( U'!"bel/ularia californica) ... -~ 29 ! 11, 6 I Moderate _j Retain/Protect :.valley oak (QuefCUs lobata) i 30 i 20, 16 1 Moderate I Retain/Protect ! Bay laurel (Umbellu/aria californica) I 31 10, 7 I Lo~ I Retain ' I 32 i ' j Retain/Protect I Say laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) 15 I Moderate I Valley oak (Quercus lobata) I 33 1 I I Retain/~rotect __ 14 : Moderate I ··---I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 34 !16, 1 0,~ Moderate ! Retain/Protect 1 I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agnfo/Ja) ~ay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ca/ifornica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I I 35 ~---~-Low ! R t . ; e am ! I I 36 ! I 11 I Low i Reta1n -----~!__ ___ _ 39 1 ~-' 40 :.· 1 0.5 ' High ___ ___,_ ____ __:1 7! High '---1 • 20 i High I 1 Remove j ; Remove I ! Remove Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 9501a a31.331.a9a2-rick@monarcharborist.com I i I ~ __; 19 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Number I 41 ' Trunk Diameter Influence Level 20 ; Moderate Remove or Retain ' Retain/Protect Bay I au rei ( Umbel/ularia californica) I Bay I au re i ( Umbel/u/aria californica) I Valley oak (Quercus /obata) 42 1 0, 8.5 Low Retain -----------------·-----------------: 43 . 20, 11 Low 'Retain I i Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 44 I I 46 ! Low . Retain ! California buckeye (Aescu/us I 45 I 8 , 7 , 5 .5, Low Retain L ca/i~ornic~) ___ _ ____ . ---: I 4.5 ' 46 I 15,8 Low I ' -------------- :Retain · Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 1 B;;la~~ (U~beHularia -;;~fff~;;;k~) -------4~~------~~te---,-;etain/P~-t -- :{;ast live oak(Oue;cus-agrifolia) ----.-----4al 25 f Low --, Retai~- 1 I -------------,-------1------~------_j ---- i Valley oak (Quercus lobata)* 1 49 I 23.5 j Low ! Retain i Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 50 1 7.5 I Low i Retain I Calilornia buckeye (Aescutus ~ -51 Low I Retain i californica)* 1 i I ' i I ! --I I !!aile~ oak (Quercus lobata)* ____ j 52 i 15 1 Low i Retain I ·--------, I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)* I 53 i 5.5 1 Low Retain --1 I I l 54 ,7, 4 ! ! Retain I Bay laurel (Umbel/uta ria californica) I 1 Low j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i j 32 1 Moderate I Remove due I disease ' I i - -------I 57 1 I I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 15 Low I Retain I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 59 14 Moderate I Retain/Protect ! : I j I I Remove Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 60 12 High Bay laurel ( Umbellularia cafifornica) i 61 12 High Remove I ' I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 62 1 11.5 High 1 Remove Valley oak (Quercus fobata) I 63 1 15.5 Moderate i Retain /Protect I I I Retain /Protect Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! 65 ,_ 8 1 Moderate I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! 66 1 I i Retain I ! 12.5 j Low i I 8 1 Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 101 1 1 Retain I I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 102 1 12 \ Low i Retain I I I I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 103 i 12 i Low j Retain i I I I_ : I 104 1 4 ! Low i Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifofia) I I I I I ' I I 105 ! I I Retain ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 4 ! Low i I --I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 20 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay I a u re i ( Umbellularia californica) Number i 106 ! Trunk Diameter Influence Level 12 : Low .. --------·---------! 107 8 Low 108 4 and 4 1 Low Remove or Retain Retain Retain , Retain ;-----------------------------'------··-· -----·----·--·------------ 109 . 10 i Low I Retai n , Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ' _j 110 I I 21 1 Low --------------·-----·---·----.-· I 1 Retain · Bay la u re l ( Umbellularia ca lifornica) 111 : 8 Low : Retain : -----____ , _ __j_ ------~----______ ._I_ -----'---------1 : Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) I 11 2 1 4 1 Low ! Retain i i Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) l--113 :----1 2-~:--Lo_w ____ j Retain -~ ll __ _,___ ___ ______,, -----'---- Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 114 : 12 i Low ! Retain 1 ~ay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) I 115 ! 5 1 Low I Retai n i 1---------------~------------------1 Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) ! 116 I 4 1 Low I Retain I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 117 1 4 I Low I Retain ---' I -----' --- Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I_ 11 8 I 4 1 Low I Retai n 1-C-o_a_s_t-li_v_e _o_a_k_(_Q_u_er_c_u_s_a_g-ri-fo-11-.a-) ---1l 119 I 1 ;-r Low I Retain LC_oa_s_t_li_v_e _o_a_k_(_Q_u_e,.,_c_u_s_a_g_ri_fo_fl_·a_) ---+--~-0 i --~ Low I Retain I Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) 121 I a and 8 i Low 1 Retain Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) ' 122 1 Low Retai n I 4 I I I ' I 123 1 8 1 Low Coast li v e oak (Quercus agrifolia) I Retain I ' I_ 124 1 ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 13 1 Low Retain I I -I I Low ~ Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 125 1 8 and 4 1 Ret ain I I 126 1 8 and 5 ' I Retain Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ca lifornica) I Low ' ·-· Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 127 1 I Retain i 8 Low I 128 I 20 I Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Retai n ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 129 2a l Low I Retain ·Black walnut (Juglans nigra) ! 130 i 8 I Low Retain I ' I - 131 I 6 ! Low Bay laurel ( Umbellularia califo rn ica) Retain I Coast live oak Quercus a rifolia g ! 132 i 22 1 Low I Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 133 1 8 ! Low ! Retain _____ ! Bay lau re l ( Umbellularia californica) 134 ! 12 and 8 I Low . Reta in 1 ~--------------~---·~· -----7'------~-----~ I Plum (Prunus sp.) 135 1. 6 ' Low 1 Retain ______ I _____ _ Monarch Consulting Arborist s LLC -P.O Box 1010, Fe lton, CA 950 18 831.331.8982-ri ck @monarcharborist.com 21 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix C: Photographs ------l Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com ! May 10 , 2016 23 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment I . ·-··--·----·-···-------·-----------------· --. --------------··-··-·--···-·--·-··--·--·---J Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick @mona rcharbo rist.com May 10, 2016 24 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 25 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 26 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 27 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2 . Area type to be fenced: Type 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. 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 two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3. Duration of Type I, ll, Ill fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025 ." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of construction, 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, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drip line of the tree unless approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the drip line of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside ofthe dripline when feasible. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7. The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Additional tree protection measures: Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified according to ANSI A-300A standards and limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices, and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 29 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: Engl ish (I) c: 0 N C)c: c: .2 ·-.... c: (.) 1.. (I) ca .... ~~ D.. (I) (I) 1.. 1- t2 -cO) Q) c > ·-o-c EOLO Q)(.)C\j a:uo Q)<(~ co ~0 -,..... +-' ccs . Oca> Za>C\J =O..a> ctJo-c ..!:FO (/)._.() Q) ~ c (.) ·~ :> c .0 > Q):::lt-2 U..C/) en en ·--..c-c I-c <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick @monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 30 of 33 19 Highland Avenue E2: Spanish Arborist Assessment 0 (J} -c en"'' 0 c ·--c --o LO • L Cl) rn ·-N uuo ~ rn c ~ Cl) en2 0 I-L.. ~ c . 0 D.. (J} (J}(j') en eN -c -c -ca 0 --co --o a> L.. ·u -c -c .c "''C-c ·-I-o rn rn :::J <t C. en-a 0 o rn ::J c ·-Cl) coSO c -a>o -·~ ~ ::J .S2> ca en-a rn --co --o c +-' +-' (.) en en 0 UJ Q) N >- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 31 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my fmdings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report , and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report bas been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies m ade by the client for the expres s u ses stated in this report, no p arts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re trieval sy stem , or tran smitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, re cording, or othetwis e without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborist s LLC -P.O Box 1010, Fe lton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com 33 of 33 l I • ' ' . . Comparison Of Existing Neighborhood Lots With Slope Study 19 High land A ttachment# 7 To Proposed Development Of 19 Highland Ave. By LIDAR From USGS 2006 Data 1. FAR is calculated using the f ollowing formula: The allowable FAR for all structures (excluding garages} on lots between 5,000 SF and 30,000 SF shall be determined by the following formula : FAR= .35-( [A-5] x .20) 25 Calculating FAR for sloping lots For all residential projects, if a slope is greater than 10% Then the net lot area shall be reduced according to the Following standard : Average lot slope % of net site to be dedutted 10.01 -20% 10% plus 2% for each 1% of slope Over 10% 20 .01-30% 30% plus, 3% for each 1% of slope over 20% Ov;er 30% 60 % Note: The net site area after this deduction is calculated shall be used to Calculate the FAR for this site. ~%4}~Wt:;~~~ ~~-~:--, .. ,\~1<r;:":5-~'·.·'~~'\·'" PLAN VIEW .. -~HN;· f~~~;__:::,~ ~---SCALE: 1"-80' ·.'\'-,,,· ... ~h ~.:i,'• .. ::~;:.~~--1-o" '\'\ r,_,. ~'·~ ... ~l~'-"~;. ·< . ~ ·~ I • \ \ ( , .. ·~~1:~.:. ·~·': ]Jt~-~t~~~~i:~~1 - .-. J .. ::.~:..::.-· . ·. ~.--... {::_~f-.;·:·::..;: .. " ':.:S~'i}~\~'~.::~~\~\~~-;:\~:.._,: <~~~ ~~-·.-.~,;_. -~Q . ,~-----;~~~3:~~~:{\~~~-~i:·~~-;_;~~~};;~\~\~~\~~~~~;~~~~~~\~~~~i~·:1:~~~~:~:~~«--- !. , .. j .). \ .. :~<::;-:~:~-~lJ;E: {J!I;~~~t~~\~-~~\~~~~~~\~~}(:~:;:~ ... ~12~~Z1~-~~ -.:::: -~ / ., -", ··'0·\~,--.-.l / -~~,~~t~~~~\':>~,'~,~~--,·-~~>::-..::·-> .. ·.::-.. -::...::. . , ~ ·> ! AVER .. ~g-~st ~-' <:'~~'.::~~W''ii\\\~'%1~~;-t'" c:::;. ~ ~~I , 1 . .. t..r ·~iciJ..:ft.. , .• ' • '' \.' .. _j ........__ .~~tfSftif: '· l i 25 Highland Avenue Built in 1935 Gross Lot Area: 67,953 SF Average Slope 39.2% Lot Area Reduction/ Net Lot Area 100%-60% (40% x 67,953 SF= 27,181 SF Floor Area Per HDSG/ FAR: Maximum Allowable Living= 5,500 SF Living Area Currently Built On Site 4 ,343 SF SF Below today's FAR Standards: -1,167 SF i. i I l j I ; I I I 78 Alpine Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 December 7, 2010 VIA EMAIL [c/o hbradle\l@losgatosca.govl John Bourgeois, Chair Marico Sayoc, Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner Marcia Jensen, Commissioner Phil Micciche, Commissioner Joanne Talesfore, Comm issioner Thomas O'Donnel~ Commissioner Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 11 0 E. Main street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re : 19 Highland Avenue . Architecture and Site Application S-03-49 · Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED DEC 8-2010 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION My wife, Lisa Roberts, and r live immediately adjacent to 19 Highland Avenue and write this letter to express our· strong support for the above application . We regret that we will not be able to attend tomorrow's hearing, since we both liave pre~existing commitments (a client function in Hollister and a band concert at Fisher Middle School) which prevent us from attending the hearing and showing our support. Our home of 21 years is on the north boundary of the property across the tributary of Los Gatos Creek,·and, as a result, w~ are in an excellent position to judge its impact on . the site and its environment, including the trees and flora on-site and the creek between o~r two properties, and the surrounding neighborhood: The home and landscaping · prop~sed by Dr. Orphan and his arc!litect are sensitive, thoughtful, and aesthetically pleasing, and represent an excellent .example of what can be achieved when a home is designed and tailored to a unique site like this. The proposed home is also very compatible with the neighborhood i n terms of size, mass, and design, and in fact, would represent a significant improvement when compared to other homes in the neighborhood. A be~utifully and sensitively designed honie of this character and quality would, in our estimation, only enhance the neighborhood which is another reason we strongly support this application. ! I ! I J I I · I Planning Comm ission Of the Town Of Los Gatos December 7, 2010 Page2 Dr . Orphan has also proven to .be a very thoughtful neighbor and a ca reful caretaker of this property and its resources. He has been diligent in maintaining the property even though h~ does not live there, and has worked ha rd to protect the condition of the property and its flora and the integrity of the adjoining creek . Dr. Orphan has shown himself to be an excellent steward of this property and its unique natural setting , and the Town should approve the application only to insure that he will continue his stewardship. The wo~e thing the Town could do would be to disapprove the application, and force the current owner to sell the property to another, less careful , owner who might allow it to languish or be developed by a speculative home developer. Cand idly, there will al ways be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant wooded lot in their neighborhood to the construction of ano ther home. Such a view does a terrible disservice not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home t o l ive in, it creates the impression that the planning arid build ing standards of the community are always subject to, and can be disregarded by, the will of a few neighbors who would utilize the public planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding. While the Com miss ion can and should listen to all those interested in t he . application, we hope the Commission approves the app l ication because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable addition to the neighborhood and our community. T hank you for your attenti on to the foregoing. Sincerely, V\AA-- Peter M. Rehon Cc: Heather Bradley, Planner · Dr. Angelo Orphan (via email) Jo hn Lien , Architect (via email) 19 ·Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Neighbor Acknowledgment of Support To: Homeowners adjacent to 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos 19 Highland Attachment # 11 f/We, neighbors of the proposed project at 19 Highland Avenue. los Gatos have reviewed the architectural plan renderings for the proposed new single family home on this site. 1/We are in support of this project and look forward to seeing this enhancement to the neighborhood. Signature Date 5/10/16 Neighbor contact and meetings 19 Highland Attachment# 12 1. 3/11/2016 Met with Teresa Spal ding and presented project to her. We discussed project for about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if l could sc reen it with some tree cover. I agreed and said .it would be in my final landscape plan. She then gave me a letter dated 3/11/2016 stating her approval and support for the project. 2. 3/12/2016 met with Badame and his wife. Presented project to him, they both looked at it and had no comments. Said they would get back to me in a couple days. Badame sends 12 page opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29/2016. He did not contact me with any feedback whatsoever. 3. 3/19/2016 Met with Peter Rehon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home. He mentioned that he fully supported th e past owner Dr. Orphan and his project in 2010. He sta ted that he fully supports me being able develop my site and looks forward to having a new neighbor. Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to meet with her. Her main concern was the retention and protection oftree #30. We emailed several times during the first week of April2016, that is when she sent me the tree #30 contract. 4. Setup meeting with the four appe llants on 3/26/2016 at the smullen's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were in attendance. Badame and Spalding did not attend. 5. Setup meeting with Dede Smullen on 4/6/2016 at her home to discuss issues regarding the easement that run s through my property. The Smullen's use th is easement for ingress/egress to access their home at 25 Highland. We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all where easement states it is. I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into it. To date, she ha s not contacted me in any way concerning this issue. 6. Setup meeting with the four appellants for 5/7/2016 at the Smu ll en's house. Of the four appe ll ants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding were not in attendance. After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot of time preparing presentation and received no response. At 2:45 on the same day, Anthony Badame sent text sa yin g sorry he missed meeting and wo ul d like to meet. I replied at 2:46 saying "I wou ld be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime. It is now 3 days later, 5/10/2016 and have gotten no r eply. 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 May 13, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report - Revised (HTH # 1333-02) Dear Mr. Pearson: Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared an updated biological resources report for the site located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California. This report updates the previous biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997) prepared for the site with respect to existing biological conditions and evaluation of the current potential biological and regulatory constraints to the proposed development of the site in the context of applicable laws and regulations. Project Description and Location The 1.0-acre (ac) proposed Project site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1). The Project site is bounded by Highland Avenue to the south and residential development to the north, west, and east. The proposed Project entails the construction of a house and associated driveway. The following conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed Project to minimize potential effects on biological resources:  Erosion control systems will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season.  Erosion control measures will conform to the Association of Bay Area Governments standards or Town of Los Gatos standards.  In the event of rain, all grading work will cease immediately and the site will be sealed in accordance with the approved erosion control measures.  The contractor will be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control measures after rain storms.  All cut and fill slopes will be protected by seeding and covered with straw mulch following completion of construction.  Contractor will prevent any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of the paved road. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 1. Vicinity Map 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Methods H. T. Harvey & Associates plant/wetland ecologist Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., and wildlife ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., characterized the existing biotic conditions on the Project site, including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. This assessment involved a review of relevant background information regarding biological resources in the vicinity of the Project site that might supersede or modify our previous assessment of constraints, as well as a site visit conducted on February 19, 2016. Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed, including information from the following sources:  California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2016)  Federally listed species information for the vicinity from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2016)  Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2016) was conducted for special-status plant and animal species occurring in the Los Gatos, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle within which the site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles (San Jose East, San Jose West, Cupertino, Castle Rock Ridge, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, and Santa Teresa Hills). In addition, for plants we reviewed the Online Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS 2016) for information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 that occur in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. Existing Biological Conditions General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Vegetation. Vegetation on the Project site has not changed substantially from the description provided in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). One biotic habitat type was identified on the Project site, coast live oak/California bay woodland. The overstory is dominated by native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and western chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Non-native bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) is also present in the overstory. The understory is dominated by non-native periwinkle (Vinca major). In addition, a drainage, best characterized as an ephemeral stream (defined as a waterway that conveys water surface runoff during and immediately after precipitation events in a typical year) crosses the site. At the time of the recent survey 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 (February 19, 2016), the on-site drainage supported flowing water from recent rains (approximately 1-inch of rain received on February 19, 2016); water in the drainage was approximately 18 inches across, on average, and was an estimated 4-6 inches deep. Flows within this drainage appear to be flashy and are likely to disappear into the relatively permeable Los Gatos and Mayhem soils that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall event. Wildlife. The coast live oak/California bay woodland produces mast crops that are an important food source for many birds as well as mammals, including the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), California quail (Callipepla californica), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). The oaks also provide breeding habitat for a variety of bird species, including the bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), while the understory provides habitat for the Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Mature trees also provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); however, no large stick nests were observed during the reconnaissance survey of the site. Common amphibians and reptiles in this habitat include the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Special-status Plant and Animal Species As described in Methods above, information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur on the Project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special- status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on the site. Figures 2 and 3 are maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general vicinity of the Project site, defined for the purposes of this report as the area within a 5-mile (mi) radius. These generalized maps are valuable on a historic basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions. While these records are not definitive, they show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously. Photo 1: Coast live oak/California bay woodland 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 5 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 2. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Plants 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Animals 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Special-status Plants A list of special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in the Los Gatos vicinity was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2016) and CNDDB records (CNDDB 20165) and reviewed for their potential to occur on the Project site. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with these species, all but three were determined to be absent from the Project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the Project site; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated. The three species which were analyzed further for their potential to occur on the Project site are discussed in more detail below. Maple-leaved Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malachroides). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR: 1B. Habitat for the maple-leaved checkerbloom includes broadleaved upland forests, coastal prairie, and north coast coniferous forest. The species often occurs within disturbed portions of these habitats. The blooming period for this perennial herb occurs from May through August. Aside from a historical occurrence within the Calaveras Reservoir quadrangle, no documented populations of maple-leaved checkerbloom are known from the vicinity of the Project. Although potential habitat for this species occurs within the Project site, the presence of dense mats of periwinkle preclude growth of the species. Therefore, maple-leaved checkerbloom was determined to be absent from the site. Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR 1B. Western leatherwood occurs within a wide range of habitats including: broad leaved upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. The blooming period of this deciduous shrub is from January through April. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, western leatherwood was not observed among the shrub component of the Project site. While out of the blooming period, this shrub is presently recognizable and if it occurred on site should have been detected. Therefore, this species was determined to be absent from the Project site. Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CRPR List: 1B. Santa Cruz manzanita is found in open areas within broadleaved upland forests and redwood forests below 2,300 feet. This species is endemic to the Santa Cruz mountains. The blooming period of this evergreen shrub is from November through April. This species is not known from the Los Gatos 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle in which the Project site occurs or the nine surrounding quadrangles. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, while out of the blooming period, this shrub would have been detected during the reconnaissance survey if it occurred on site. Therefore, Santa Cruz manzanita was determined to be absent from the project site. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Special-status Animals Based on our review of current CNDDB (2016) records (Figure 4) and other data sources, as well as our extensive experience with other projects in the Los Gatos area, we know that several special-status animal species are known to occur in the Project region. However, all of these species were determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or evidence that the species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others):  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of concern, and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened. The nearest known occurrence of the California red-legged frog is located over 4.5 mi from the Project site and the nearest known occurrence of the California tiger salamander is located approximately 3.9 mi from the Project site. Further, all potentially suitable aquatic breeding habitat for these species is separated from the Project site by extensive residential development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, neither of these species is expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern. Further, the Project site is separated from the nearest suitable aquatic habitat by extensive development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site and vicinity lack appropriate open habitat that could be used by foraging, nesting, or wintering burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern, and no burrows were present on the Project site. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend’s big-eared bat normally roosts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the to p corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this species is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend’s big-eared bats. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  A focused survey for nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, failed to detect any nests of this species on the Project site. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Although the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) were previously identified as California species of special concern that might occur on the Project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997), both species have subsequently been removed from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) list of California species of special concern. Sensitive and Regulated Habitats The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFW sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Waters of the U.S./State. The ephemeral drainage that crosses the property meets the regulatory definition of an “other waters,” which is a category of waters of the U.S., and activities conducted within this feature are likely regulated by the USACE. Additionally, the drainage is considered a “waters of the State” which is regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. These conclusions are consistent with those described in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). CDFW Sensitive Habitats. To identify other potentially occurring natural communities of special concern, a CNDDB (2016) search within the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain or surround the Project site was performed. The CNDDB identified one sensitive habitats as occurring in the Project region: serpentine bunchgrass. However, no serpentine habitat is present on the Project site. Thus, none of the sensitive habitats tracked by CNDDB occur on the Project site. Biotic Impacts and Mitigation Overview The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: E. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” F. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” G. “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act” H. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” I. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” J. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Following is a brief summary of potential Project impacts on biological resources. No Impact Impacts on Special-status Plants and Animals. As described above, suitable habitat is not present on the Project site for any special-status plant or animal species. Therefore, there would be no impact on special-status plants or animals due to the proposed Project. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid the ephemeral drainage on the site and would not result in the direct disturbance or loss of wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies, such as the USACE, San Francisco RWQCB, and CDFW. In addition, with implementation of the conservation measures incorporated into the Project, no indirect impacts on jurisdictional habitats would occur. Based on the proposed improvement plans (Peoples Associates, November 2015), that were recently revised (May 2016) to reflect the topographic top-of-bank as determined by H. T. Harvey & Associates, the average setback distance between the top-of-bank and the building envelope/deck as shown on the improvement plans is approximately 27 feet (this value is an average of seven measurements taken approximately every 20 feet from one end of the proposed building to the other; 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 values range from 15 to 36 feet). Between the proposed entrance road and the top-of-bank, the average setback distance is 20 feet (thirteen separate measurements were taken; values range from 4 to 40 feet). Riparian setback buffer widths are generally driven by a consideration of the ecological functions and values provided by the habitat, as well as the habitat quality. Typically, setbacks are greater for waterways that are perennial, support a diverse, broad, multi-storied canopy of native trees and shrubs, are adjacent to high-quality upland habitats, and are continuous in nature. Setbacks are reduced for intermittent/ephemeral drainages that are situated directly adjacent to existing development, do not provide connectivity upstream and downstream, do not support a diverse assemblage of wetland/riparian species, and do not support special-status wildlife species. Therefore, given a consideration of all of these factors, including (1) the drainage on the Project site is seasonal and does not support wetland plants or true riparian trees/shrubs, (2) the drainage is culverted immediately downstream of the Project site, (3) no special-status species are expected to make use of this habitat on the Project site, (4) common wildlife species are expected to continue to make use of this seasonal water source following Project construction, and (5) potential water quality issues with regard to run off from new impervious surfaces have been addressed through the incorporation of five bioswales, it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize impacts on biological resources. Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. The currently proposed Project would impact up to 1.0 ac of upland coast live oak/California bay woodland. The understory of this habitat type is dominated by non-native periwinkle, and the animal species that occur on the site are common species. Coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated plant and wildlife species are common and widespread in the San Francisco Bay area. Because the site supports only a very small proportion of the regional populations of common plant and wildlife species, the proposed Project would have very limited impacts on the regional abundance of these species. As a result, Project impacts on upland habitats and associated common plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would be considered less than significant under CEQA. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. The Project would result in the removal of several trees during construction. The Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, section 29.10.0950 to 29.10.0990) protects all trees having a trunk that measures 35 inches or more in circumference (12 inches in diameter) and all trees of the following species which have an 8-inch or greater diameter (25-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). In addition, the ordinance protects trees which have a 12-inch circumference (4 inches or greater in diameter) that are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property. The ordinance protects both native and non-native species. Heritage trees, defined as a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, are also protected. A tree removal 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 permit or other Town approval is required from the Town of Los Gatos for the removal or pruning of ordinance-sized trees. The removal of ordinance or heritage trees, without mitigation, would conflict with the City’s ordinance protecting trees and would thus be considered a significant impact under Appendix G, Item I, as described above. Implementation of the following measures will reduce impacts on ordinance-sized trees to a less-than- significant level by bringing the Project into compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 1a: Conduct a Preconstruction Tree Survey. A tree survey will be conducted prior to prior to any site grading or construction work in order determine whether any trees planned to be severely trimmed or removed are Ordinance trees as defined by the City of Los Gatos. Mitigation Measure 1b: Obtain Tree Removal Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will seek a Tree Removal Permit from the Town for any Ordinance trees that would be removed or severely trimmed. The approval authority may impose replacement standards for each tree to be removed or trimmed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds Construction disturbance during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest on the Project site due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project on these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact to their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code: Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. The survey should include the entire work area and surrounding 300 feet for raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, and falcons) and 100 feet for other nesting birds, as access allows—these distances are equivalent to the maximum recommended buffers around active nests of these species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Literature Cited [CNDDB] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed through October 2015. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ advanced.html. Accessed through October 2015. Google Inc. 2016. Google Earth [Software]. Available from www.google.com/earth. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. No 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, California Biotic Constraints Analysis. Prepared for Angelo Orphan.