Loading...
Item 04 - 19 Highland Ave - Staff Report Exh.28-2919 ~ighland Avenue modified project-PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/ CONDITIONS PROJECT PERM ITTED Zoning district HR-2 1/2 same - Land use va c an t Sin gl e-fa m ily - General Plan Designation h ill si de re sidentia l same - Lot size $ Gross square feet 45,2 40 same 40 ,000 sq . ft. minimum $ Net square feet 19,77 9 same - Exterior materials: $ siding N/A Cedar si din g a nd - smoot h stu cco $ trim N/A none - $ windows N/A Fiberglass clad wood - $ roofing N/A Stand ing Seam metal - Building floor area: $ first floor N/A 2,379 $ second floor N/A 1,652 4 ,700 sq. ft. maxi mum $ garage N/A (61 7)217 400 sq . ft. exemption $ cellar N/A N/A exe mpt $ accessory structure(s) N/A N/A included in FAR $ total (excluding cellar) N/A 4,248 5,10 0 sq . ft. maximum Setbacks (ft.): $ front -185' 30 f eet minimum $ rear -61 ' 25 f eet minimum $ left side -20 ' 20 f eet minimum $ right side -24 ' 20 f eet minimum Average slope (%) 28 .76 same - Maximum height (ft.) 25'/35 ' 25'/35' 25 feet maximum Building coverage (%) no m ax imum Parking garage spaces -3 fou r sp aces min imu m in uncovered spaces 3 add it ion t o two in garage - Sewer or septic sewer - N: DEV·Mami A&S 19 Hig h land p rojectdata.\\"pd "EXHIBIT 2 8 July 21, 2016 Alex H. Jewell, AICP, LEED AP Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Biological Evaluation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2035-01). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town of Los Gatos’ request, Live Oak Associates’ (LOA) ecologist Pamela Peterson conducted an additional site visit on July 19, 2016 to the approximately one-acre 19 Highland Avenue project site. The one-acre site is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd. interchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. The additional site visit was for the purpose of evaluating a large coast live oak (Tree Tag #56) for potential bat habitat and to evaluate a small reach of the on-site creek where the alignment appears to have moved locations sometime in the period between 1996 and 2015 based on current and previous site plans for the property. For the latter, we were requested to evaluate the existing condition of this reach of the creek and determine whether the potential change in the creek’s alignment has resulted in, or could in the future result in, any potential biological issues. Background Review. Prior to the site visit, LOA reviewed two site plans provided to the Town by the project proponent, one that was prepared in 1996 by Westfall Engineers and one prepared in 2015 by Peoples Associates. Additionally, we reviewed the Appellant’s biological report with regard to their assertion that a single large coast live oak (Tag #56) provided habitat for bats, including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) which is a state species of concern. Habitat for Special Status and Non Special Status Bats. The large coast live oak tree was evaluated visually and with binoculars for the presence of features such as hollows, exfoliating bark or deep bark fissures that may potentially be used by bats for day roosting or maternity habitat. The tree was relatively easy to evaluate since it is in the process of succumbing to a bark beetle infestation and may also be highly drought-stressed, and therefore is almost barren of foliage. There are less than a half dozen places where limbs have fallen that have created small, relatively shallow hollows, ranging in diameter from about 6 to 8 inches. There are also a few areas of exfoliating bark as a result of the bark beetle infestation. These features do not provide potential maternity or roosting habitat for special status bats such as the Townsend’s big-eared bat or the pallid bat as these latter species do not use these types of features. Townsend’s big- eared bats require large cavernous areas such as buildings, mines, caves and less frequently large hollows in the bases of trees; while the pallid bat typically uses buildings, caves, and rock crevices, so removal of the tree is not expected to affect either of these special status bat species that potentially occur in the project vicinity. The small hollows and areas of peeling bark could be used as day roosts by certain common bat species, although these features wouldn’t provide maternity habitat for any of these species. The removal of the tree would not represent a significant loss of bat roosting habitat, however removal could impact a few individuals (based on the limited availability of roosting features, this number would be extremely low) of more common bat species, in the unlikely event individuals are roosting at the time the tree is removed. This potential impact could be avoided simply by removing the tree via a two-step process over two consecutive days outside of the bat winter torpor season, i.e. outside of the time period from mid-October through the end of March, under the supervision of a qualified biologist. To implement the two-step process, in the afternoon of the first day, limbs and branches would be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only and chipped on the site to create noise and disturbance. Limbs with cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark or deep bark fissures would be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features would be removed. This action would allow bats to leave during the night after the first day of the two-step removal process, thus increasing their chances of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight hours. The tree would then be removed the second day. The bat biologist would not be required to be present on the second day (i.e., day of actual tree removal), as the activity, noise, and vibrations of the chainsaw and chipping activity as well as the physical and visual change of the tree would deter bats from returning to the tree after their nightly flight. Creek Alignment Evaluation. LOA also evaluated a short reach of the on-site creek. According to the 1996 site plan (Westfall Engineers), the creek alignment for this reach used to occur further to the north than its present location as depicted in the 2015 site plan (People’s Associates). In the field, it appeared that the change may have been a natural process which occurred as a result of the erosion of a steep bank on the adjacent property to the north which subsequently resulted in the channel following a new alignment around that area to the south. It appears that this occurred quite some time ago as the area of the old alignment is now densely vegetated and the creek channel itself in this location is undifferentiated from those reaches immediately up and down stream of this area. In LOA’s opinion, the change in the creek alignment does not result in any current or future potential biological issues for the site or for the proposed project. Thank you once again for allowing us to assist you in this matter. If you wish to discuss any of our findings, conclusions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884 or Rick Hopkins at 408-281-5885. Sincerely, Pamela Peterson Senior Project Manager LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. May 5, 2016 Alex H . Jewell, AICP , LEED AP Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall , Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 a n Ecolog ica l Consulting Firm RE CEiVED MAf UQ {U w TCV.Nor · ~·A. <., Pt..ANNII\G u 1.. I.:. ION RE: Biologica l Eval uation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the T own of L os Gatos, Santa Clara C ounty, C alifornia (PN 2035-0 1). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town 's request. we have prepared this pe er rev ie w ofH. T. Harvey's Biological Constraint s Analysis ( 1997) and Bio logical Evaluation (20 16) for the approximately one-acre 19 Highland A venue project site. The one-acre site is located approximately 0 .5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd. in terchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. As we understa nd it from the site plans provided, the proj ect includes the construction of an approximatel y 5000 square foot, two-story, single -family residence, and associated driveway and landscapin g . Background Review Prior to a s ite visi t t o evaluate existing site conditions, LOA completed an appropriate background r ev iew . In addi tion to a review of the biologi c al constraints analysis and b iological evaluatio n 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 th e prior biological peer re view report completed by Mike Wood o f Wood Biological Consu lt ing (2008), the 19 Highland Avenue Mitigated Negati ve Declarati on (Town of Los Gatos 20 1 0), the project s ite plans (Peoples Associates 2015), aer ial photographs of the project site, U .S . Fish and Wild life S ervice (USFWS) National Wetl ands Inventory Maps (accessed April 19 , 2016 on-line at hup:'/\.,ww .fws.go\',\H'tlanus 'Data!Ma pper.hrm l), and the Californi a Natura l Div ers ity Data base (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 (CDFW 2016). Existing Si te Conditions On 20 April 2016, LOA eco lo gist Pamela Peterson conducted a reconnaissance -level s it e visit with the property owner, E d Pearso n, to evalu ate existing conditi ons of the site. During the si te visi t , habitats present on the site w ere verified, includin g potentially suitable habitat for any s pecia l s ta t us plant or anima l species that are known to occur, or once to have occurred, regionall y. The s ite vi si t also eva lu ated the extent o f potentially jurisdictional habitats present San Jo;,e : 68 40 Via d t!l Oro, Su tte 2 20 . San Jo se. CA 9 5 11 9. Ph o nP (408) .224 -8 300 . Fa x: {408) 224 ·14 11 OakhUist: P.O . Box 2697 • 39 930 St E.'n a Way . Suite B • Oak h ur st. CA 9 3644. Phone: (5 59 )642·4880 . Fax . (55 9) 642 48 83 B<~ke nliel d : 8200 Sto<kdal e Highway. M10-2 9 3 . Bak ers f,('ld, CA 933 11 Resources of the Project Site. We have o rganized our review to be consistent wi th these sections of their r eport. No I mpact Impacts on Special Status P la nts. H . T. Harvey concluded that special statu s p lants are absent from the site and therefore that the project will ha ve no impact on special status plants. We concur w ith H.T. Harvey's concl usio n. The dominance of the herb aceous underst01y by non- na tiv e grasses and forb s, including fairly de nse mats of periwinkle would preclude spec ial status plants fro m occun"ing on the site. and sp ec ial status woody shrub species such as arcuate mallow and western Ieatherwood wo uld have been identifiable if present on the s ite even outside of their blooming season and they were not observed. Impacts on Special Status Animals. H .T. Ha rvey concluded that the site d oes not provide habitat for special status animals that may occur in the project region and therefore that the project will n ot imp act any special statu s animal s pecies. We conc ur with H. T. Harvey's conclusions. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. H .T . Harvey concluded that while the on-site c reek would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U SACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW. the project as proposed will hav e no direct impact on t he creek and , ther efore. the project w ill have no imp act to jurisdictional waters of the U .S . and state. We concur that t here will be no di rect impa ct (i.e., fillin g) to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state as a result of the proj ect, and, as such it d oes not appear that Section 401 or 404 permits will be required from the RWQCB or U SACE, res pectively, or a Section 1600 pennit from CDFW. Additio nally. H.T. Harvey states that " .. it is our o pinion that the current setback from the top of bank re fle c ted in th e site plans is suflicient to minimi ze s ignificant impacts on biologi cal resources." While we concur that there will b e no direct impact to areas of the creek considere d jurisdictional by th e resourc e age ncies, H.T. Harvey's report lack s a m o re detailed di scussion of creek setbacks. For instance, H.T. Harvey do esn't cite the project plans that they evaluated (i.e., the preparer and dat e), although we assum e they were the same site p lan s that we evaluated, and they do no t discuss what the actual setback w idths are that ar e r e flected .in the plans they evaluated and why tho se setbacks ar e adequate in their opinion. Based on o ur site visit and the lo c ations of fla gs and story poles showing the outline of project footprints, and based o n o ur re view of the project plans (Peoples Asso ciate s dated November 30, 2015), se tbacks from the proposed home to the top of the creek bank appear to be, at minimum, 1 2 feet from th e top of the creek bank in the eastern po rtion o f the s it e where a small oxbow occurs (the setback may originally have been g reate r in this location, but due to a tree falling into the creek this past winter and blocking flow s, some erosion ha s occurred here, w hich appears to have brought the southem b ank of th e oxbow slight ly closer to the proposed horne site. Sheet G4 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 th e 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 regton. I mpacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project may ha ve a significant impact on trees that are protected und er the Town of Los Gatos' Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, Section 29.10.0950-29.1 0.0990). According to the site plans (Sheet G5). approximately 14 trees will be removed as a result of the project. A s 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 fo r loss of protected tree s incl uded : l. Conducting a pre-constmction tree survey , and 2. Appl ying for a pem1it and complying with pem1it 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 depend ing 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, additiona l measures for compensation for a loss of ordinance size trees may be required , s uch as in-lieu fees. C ompliance with Additional Laws a nd Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site H.T. Harvey has concl uded 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 tor 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 simp le matter of difference of opinion. impact s 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-constructiontpre-disturbance survey area include surveys of January 29, 2016 Project 0084491980 Mr. Ryan Do Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos . California 95031 amec foster wheeler Subject: Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Proposed Site Development, Pearson Property 19 Highlands Avenue Los Gatos, California Dear Mr. Do: At your request , Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure , Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), has performed a review of the Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Site Development, Pearson Property, 19 Highlands A venue, Los Gatos, California, prepared by Upp Geotechnology (Upp), dated December 22,2015. We also reviewed a set of Plans prepared by Peoples Associates, Structural Engineers, for Lands of Pearson . The December 22, 2015 report updates a Nove mber 22, 201 3 report to current CBC criteria, and confirms that the geotec hnical engineering recommendations in the November 22, 2103 report are valid for the proposed project. As AMEC did not review the November 22 , 2013 report titled Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Site Development, Lands of Orphan, 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA , prepared by Upp Geotec hnology, dated Nove mber 22, 2013 , for a different owner, we have review this report as part of the current review. Although titled "Limited" the November 22 , 2013 report is a design-level geotechnical investigation report. Amec Foster Wheeler has not visited the site. The proposed project is a single-family residence. We (as Geomatrix) previously reviewed a Geologic Feasibility Evaluation , Proposed Residence, 19 Highland Avenue , prepare d by Pacific Geotechnica l Engineering (PGE), dated March 9 , 2004, for a different owner, a nd submitted our review comments in a letter to the Town dated April 6, 2006. This proposed projec t was for a single -family residence . Based on our review, we note that the Upp report does not specifically comment on the potential for liquefaction . The data on the boring logs suggests that the potential for liquefaction is probably low. Upp should revi ew the data and confirm that the potential for liquefaction is low, or provide appropriate mitigation me asures to the design . A mec Foster W heele r Environment & Infrastru cture, Inc. 180 Gra nd Avenue , S uite 11 00 Oakland, Ca lifornia 9461 2-3066 US A Tel (510) 663 -4 100 Fax (510 ) 663-41 41 a mecfw.com