Item 03 - 19 Highland Ave - Staff Report Exh.45
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum
to the Previously Adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 Highland Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-15-077
October 2016
Prepared for:
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95113
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A. Determination
This document constitutes an Addendum to the December 10, 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (2010 IS/MND, included in this document as Attachment 1) (Geier & Geier
Consulting, Inc., 2010) originally prepared and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos (Town) for
approval of the 19 Highland Avenue Project (hereafter referred to as the Original Project). This
Addendum evaluates whether modifications/refinements to the proposed single-family
residential home design, as revised July 11, 2016, (hereafter referred to as the proposed project)
would result in any new or substantially more significant effects or require any new mitigation
measures not identified in the 2010 MND.
Similar to the Original Project, the proposed project would consist of the development of one
single-family-home and driveway at 19 Highland Avenue. The proposed project differs from the
Original Project because of changes to the architectural design of the proposed house and
modifications to the project footprint to increase setbacks from the adjacent stream, reduce the
number of trees to be removed, and avoid the need to export soils from the project site.
As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the 2010 MND remain current
and valid. The proposed revisions to the Original Project, in the form of minor changes to the
project design, would not cause new significant effects not identified in the MND nor increase
the level of environmental effect to substantial or significant, and, hence, no new mitigation
measures would be necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect
to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more
severe significant environmental effects than were identified in the 2010 MND. In addition, no
new information has become available that shows that the project would cause new or
substantially more severe significant environmental effects which have not already been
analyzed in the 2010 MND.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. This Addendum
incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the 20 10 MND. With this Addendum, the
proposed project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the Original Project
as documented in the 2010 MND.
B. Background
An IS/MND was circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in 2010. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission
adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program when th e Original
Project was approved on December 8, 2010. The Town approved a time extension in 2012 after
which the property owner passed away and the property was placed on the market. The applicant
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 2
and current property owner purchased the property in 2015 an d submitted a new application
derived from the previously approved project plans.
Refinements to the project design constitute minor modifications to the original project that was
evaluated in the 2010 MND, which necessitate subsequent environmental
review/documentation under CEQA. Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an
Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162
(further described below under Section 4) apply.
The 2010 MND is the relevant environmental document for the proposed project for the
following reasons:
The 2010 MND evaluated the construction of one single family residence at 19 Highland
Avenue in generally the same location within the property as the proposed project; and
There have been no significant changes with regard to the surrounding land uses that
would result in new impacts from what was previously disclosed in the MND; and
There have been no changes to the Town’s General Plan designation or zoning
classification on the project site from what was previously evaluated in the 2010 MND;
and
There have been no changes in circumstances in which new information is now available
that was not available at the time the 2010 MND was adopted such that new or more
significant impacts would occur.
Therefore, the MND adopted in 2010 by the Town retains informational value regarding the
potential impacts associated with the proposed development of one single-family residence at
the 19 Highland Avenue site. The Town is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this
Addendum to address the potential for new or more severe environmental impacts as a result of
the proposed project changes when compared to the baseline assuming buildout of the original
project.
C. Purpose of This Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed project as currently
proposed would result in any new or substantially greater significant effects or require any new
mitigation measures not identified in the 2010 MND prepared for the original project. This
Addendum, together with the 2010 MND will be used by the Town when considering approval of
the proposed project.
D. CEQA Framework for Addendum
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 3
For a proposed project with modification from an original approved project, State CEQA
Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND
have occurred:
Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption,
shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND,
B. The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed
in the MND,
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative, or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
Based on the analysis and evaluation provided in this Addendum, no new significant impacts
would occur as a result of the proposed project, nor would there be any substantial increase in
the severity of any previously-identified significant environmental impact. In addition, no new
information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the
2010 MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred . For
this reason, an addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements
for the proposed project.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 4
E. Adoption and Availability of the Addendum
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an addendum to an adopted MND need
not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted MND and
presented to the decision-making body. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum
with the adopted MND prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section
15164(d)).
Although not required, this Addendum is also available for public review at the Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California 95030, and
will be made available as an Attachment to the Staff Report that will be provided when the
project is scheduled for consideration by the decision-making body.
2.0 Project Description
A. Project Location
The project is located at 19 Highland Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within Santa Clara County
(Assessor’s Parcel Number: 537-11-030). Please see Figures 1 and 2: Regional Map, and Vicinity
Map, respectively.
B. Proposed Project Components
The proposed single-family residence would have three levels with the garage set to the lowest
grade, stepping up to two floors of living space. The first floor of living space exits at grade to a
dirt patio at the rear of the residence. The residence has a mode rn/contemporary architecture
with roof forms that slope with the hillside. The proposed materials include: cedar siding and
smooth finish stucco, with a standing seam metal roof .
The proposed project is in compliance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines (HDS&G) inclusive of grading and drainage criteria, allowable floor area, height, and
architectural and landscape design. The only exception requested is in regard to development on
slopes greater than 30 percent. The limited area of development on slopes greater than 30
percent is consistent with the approved placement of the residence from 2010. The proposed
project has reduced HDS&G exception requests compared to the 2010 original project.
The layout of the proposed project is shown in Figure 3 : Site Plan, the proposed grading for the
site is shown in Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan, and the trees that are proposed to be
removed are shown in Figure 5: Tree Inventory Plan. The proposed project includes landscaping
along the perimeter of the development envelope, including trees to replace those trees that are
proposed to be removed. The proposed landscape plan is shown in Figure 6 : Landscape Plan.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 5
C. Comparison of the 2010 Original and 2016 Proposed Projects
The proposed project includes changes to the project design that reduce the overall impact of
the proposed project compared to the original design. Examples of the design features that
minimize the physical impacts on the project site include a reduction in the overall lot coverage
by 1,065 square feet (approximately 14%); an increase in the creek setbacks to the garage and
residence, and driveway; elimination of the need to export soil; a reduction in the overall length
of retaining walls by 54%, and a reduction in the number of trees to be removed from 16 to 7 (a
56% decrease). These changes are tabulated in Table 1: Comparison of Project Components which
provides a comparison of the 2010 original project and the 2016 proposed project.
Although the floor area of the proposed project is approximately 211 square feet more than the
original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover,
the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum
proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified
residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the
contours. The proposed project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and
materials of the proposed project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible
with the natural surroundings than the original project’s colors and materials which included
taupe, “ochre” (yellowish or orange-brown), and “terra cotta” (brownish red). The proposed
project would use stone and wood, a more natural element, compared to the original project
which was planned to be stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space).
3.0 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects
The 2010 MND identified mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential
environmental effects of the original project to a less than significant level. All of the mitigation
measures approved for the original project would also apply to the proposed project and no new
mitigation measures are necessary. No new or substantially more significant adverse impact has
been identified.
1) AESTHETICS
The 2010 MND found that the project would have less than significant effects on scenic vistas,
scenic resources, and the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed
project would remove 7 of the existing 86 protected trees onsite (nine fewer trees than originally
proposed).
The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic resources
beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. Despite the minor changes proposed in the house
and driveway locations, the overall nature and intensity of construction would not be
substantially different than under the proposed project, and all construction activities would
occur within the project site as was also evaluated in the 2010 MND. No mitigation measures
are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 6
Table 1: Comparison of Project Components
1The difference in earthwork quantities account for soil shrinkage during the compaction process.
2010 Original Project 2016 Proposed Project
Lot Size 1.04 acre 1.04 acre
General Plan Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre
Zoning
HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone (2
½ to 10 acres per dwelling with a
minimum lot size of one acre)
HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone
(2 ½ to 10 acres per dwelling with
a minimum lot size of one acre)
Floor Area:
Main Level:
Upper Level:
Garage/Storage:
Subtotal:
(garage credit)
Total Floor Area:
2,310 square feet
1,535 square feet
592 square feet
4,437 square feet
-400 square feet
4,037 square feet
2,379 square feet
1,652 square feet
617 square feet
4,648 square feet
-400 square feet
4,248 square feet
Maximum Height
Maximum Elevation:
25-feet
35-feet
25-feet
35-feet
Lot Coverage
- Residence
- Driveway
- Deck/Patios
Total Lot Coverage
~ 2,642 square feet
~ 2,880 square feet
~ 1,927 square feet
7,449 square feet
2,372 square feet
3,583 square feet
~ 429 square feet
6,384 square feet
Property Setbacks
- Front:
- North (left) Side:
- South (right) Side:
- Rear
190.0-feet
20.0-feet
24.0-feet
63.5-feet
185.0-feet
21.0 feet
25.0 feet
65.0 feet
Creek Setbacks:
- Residence/Garage:
- Driveway:
Minimum 10-feet
Minimum 1-foot
Minimum 20-feet
Minimum 10-feet
Area outside LRDA: ~1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet
Grading:
342 cubic yards cut
188 cubic yards fill
154 cubic yards of export
439 cubic yards cut
429 cubic yards fill
0 cubic yards of export1
Retaining Wall Height:
< 3 feet height: 0 feet
3-6 feet height: 394-feet
> 6 feet height: 63-feet
< 3 feet height: 106-feet
3-6 feet height: 104-feet
> 6 feet height: 0-feet
Retaining Wall Length: ~457-feet ~210-feet
Tree Removal
Proposed: 31 trees
Removed: 15 trees
Remaining to Remove: 16 trees
Proposed: 7 trees
(including one dying tree)
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 7
2) AGRICULTURE
The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to agriculture beyond
those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no prime, unique, or statewide important
farmlands in the project study area. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts to agricultural
uses; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the
proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the
2010 original or the proposed project.
3) AIR QUALITY
The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts to air quality
beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 original project proposed a total cut of 342
cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards of soil, resulting in the need to export approximately
154 cubic yards of material. The proposed project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and
total fill of 429 cubic yards. No export of earthwork would be required resulting in fewer
construction trucks coming to and from the site during grading activities. It should be noted the
additional grading is proposed to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
The background conditions, construction equipment mix, and construction work hours identified
in the 2010 MND have not notably changed and the proposed refinements would not result in
any substantial change in the way the way the proposed house would be constructed . The
modifications to the construction plan would not substantially change the intensity or duration
of total construction activities identified in the 2010 MND. Therefore, as described in the 2010
MND, the proposed project would not exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) standards or contribute to air quality deterioration beyond BAAQMD projections. As
was the case for the 2010 original project, mitigation is required to limit the proposed project’s
construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, per BAAQMD-
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
Mitigation Measure 1:
To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the
following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be
implemented:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 8
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne taxies control
measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
4) BIOLOGY
The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts on biological
resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The proposed project has increased the
setbacks of the house and driveway from the creek that traverses the project site. In March 2016,
HT Harvey updated their previous biological resources report prepared in 1997 for the project
site. The biological resources report determined that the proposed project did not result in any
new or more significant impacts to biological resources. This report was peer reviewed by Live
Oak Associates. Both HT Harvey and Live Oak Associates recommend a project condition with
regards to completing a pre-construction tree-survey and pre-construction survey for migratory
birds be included. As no special status plant or animal species were identified onsite, the project
condition is proposed to ensure compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Live Oak Associates also recommended a project condition relative to
potential day-time roosting bat habitat of non-special status bat species that could utilize tree
#56 to further address neighborhood concerns regarding the potential for bat species onsite .
Inclusion of these project conditions is not a result of a new or more significant impact. No new
impact has been identified because potential project impacts on non-sensitive upland habitats
and associated common (non-sensitive) plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA
standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and are considered less than significant and no
mitigation is required under CEQA.
Tree Protection
The proposed project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously
approved for removal in 2010. Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s)
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 9
were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report
inventoried “protected” trees in proximity to the original project’s proposed development and
located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. Under
the “review of potential tree impacts” the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 protected trees that
“would either be removed or considered a loss” (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 37-40,
60-62, 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be
removed due to their failing health (#s 10, 46) for a total of 31 trees.
Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 Arborist Report, it appears that the property
owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree
#s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously
approved for removal (#s 55, 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees. The site survey also revealed that 16
of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site.
A Tree Inventory was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then
revised on July 10, 2016 for the proposed project. Per the 2016 Inventory, the subject property
contains a total of 86 trees1, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the nort herly portion of
the lot that were not previously considered.
Per the proposed project, seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while
seven (7) trees will need to be removed. This includes tree #56, and while not directly affected
by the proposed project, this tree also requires removal as it is infested with ambrosia (bark)
beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Additional trees would be
planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. A
landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and
locations appropriate for the subject site. Potential impacts are considered less than significant
and no additional mitigation is required.
Creek Protection
There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either
ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining
what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. Creek setbacks are at the discretion
of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank would occur that would
require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams recommends setbacks
for slope stability2, ranging from 10- to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 20- to 25-feet for
intermittent streams. In addition, establishment of a 10-foot wide setback between the top of
bank and paved surfaces3 is also consistent with regional and state guidelines, provided
1 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed).
2 Page 3.8, Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and revised July 2006
3 The project will use permeable paver construction for the driveway surface.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 10
appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are
designed, implemented and maintained.
Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their
existing priorities, permitting processes, and on-site conditions. Exceptions may be granted to
allow a structure to be located within the slope stability protection area where a slope stability
analysis is provided and maintenance of the stream will be provided, as is the case with this
project. A letter from Upp Geotechnology, dated February 2016, notes that the proposed project
would not present a slope stability hazard with a setback of 15 feet for the proposed structure
(the structure has since been moved to a minimum 20-foot setback) and a 10-foot setback for
the driveway. Additionally, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-
foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on
the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to
within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10-feet for the driveway would
result in less than significant impacts on the creek.
The proposed project will provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a
majority of the home being setback further than 20 feet. A small portion of the home is
cantilevered above the ground with a minimum setback of 16 feet. The driveway will have a
minimum setback of 10 feet from the top of the creek bank. The proposed project would increase
the setbacks from the Original Project which proposed minimum setbacks of 10 feet from the top
of bank and 1 foot from the top of bank to the driveway. As such, the creek setbacks included
with the proposed project are consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams and would increase the amount of setback distance compared to the Original Project.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the existing creek and no mitigation is
required.
Sensitive Bat Species
As a result of public comment, the Town’s biologist (Live Oak Associates) visually evaluated tree
#56, a large coast live oak tree, in July 2016. The tree was inspected 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 ma ternity 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 tree #56 is
not expected to affect either of these special status bat species that could potentially occur in
the project vicinity. The small hollows and areas of peeling bark could be used as day roosts by
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 11
certain common bat species, although these features wouldn’t provide maternity habitat for any
of these species.
In conclusion, the changes between the original project and the modified project would not
trigger any of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, requiring
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. While new
information regarding the creek location has become available, the modified project will have a
20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank, such that there would be no significant
environmental effects not already mitigated in the 2010 IS/MND. Overall, the modified project
would result in fewer environmental impacts than the original project, due to the increased
setback from the creek (from 15-feet in the original project to 20-feet in the modified project).
The conclusions in the 2010 IS/MND remain current and valid. The mitigation measures included
in the 2010 IS/MND remain applicable and would be applied to the modified project. Therefore,
an Addendum prepared by the Town of Los Gatos would satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
Mitigation Measure 2:
With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February
15, 2010) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees
to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the
arborist’s report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section
addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainage,
facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection
Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape,
demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report’s recommendations are included as
Attachment 1 of the Initial Study.
5) CULTURAL RESOURCES
The extent and intensity of construction activities would not vary substantially relative to that
evaluated in the 2010 MND, and mitigation measures prescribed in the 2010 MND would still be
applicable and necessary to reduce potentially significant of impacts under the proposed project.
The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects with mitigation on
archaeological resources and human remains. While the proposed project would include
increased excavation for building foundations and bioswales, the potential effects on
archaeological resources and human remains would be the same as the original project and
would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3 through
6 which would remain the same for the proposed project.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 12
Mitigation Measure 3:
In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius
of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an
archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.
Mitigation Measure 4:
If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner
will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that
the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans.
Mitigation Measure 5:
If the Community Development Director finds th at the archaeological find is not a significant
resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and
after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying
descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.S(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a
mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Developmen t Director
for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources
Code Section 21083.2.
Mitigation Measure 6:
A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site,
and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include
background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources,
the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and
conclusions.
6) GEOLOGY
The proposed refinements would not result in substantially different geophysical impacts beyond
those identified in the 2010 MND. While the proposed project involves proposed changes to the
timing and location of some construction activities, these changes do not represent a substantial
deviation from the project analyzed in the 2010 MND, and the conclusions of the 2010 MND
remain valid. A Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology was submitted for the proposed
project in 2016 and peer reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 would remain the same for the proposed project.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 13
Mitigation Measure 7:
A design-level geotechnical investigation and final construction plans shall be completed and
reviewed as specified by Geomatrix, Inc. (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for detailed
recommendations).
7) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The proposed project would result in a similar (or potentially reduced) duration and intensity of
construction activities relative to the original project, and both the original and proposed project
would be operationally identical. As such, the proposed construction modifications would not
result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions or related impacts to global climate change or
conflicts with applicable climate change plans, policies, or regulations. The 2010 MND found the
project would have a less than significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed
changes to the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects due to
greenhouse gas emissions.
8) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to hazards or hazardous
materials beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no hazardous wastes or
hazardous materials at the project site. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts from
hazardous materials or lack of defensible space for project located within a fire hazard area.
Therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the
proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the
2010 original or the proposed project.
9) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed project would be required, as under the original project, to comply with all
applicable water quality regulations during and following construction activities. The project site
is not located within a 100-year flood plain. As is the case with the 2010 MND, compliance with
stormwater regulations would preclude the potential for significant impacts to receiving water
bodies, including the creek at the project site. No mitigation measures are required for either the
original or the proposed project.
10) LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed project would require the same entitlements, permits, and other approvals as the
original project. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed
project.
11) MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to mineral resources beyond
those identified in the 2010 MND and because the project site is not located within an area of
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 14
known mineral resources, either of regional or local value, the 2010 MND did not identify any
impacts to mineral resources; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation
measures are required for the changes to the original project. No mitigation measures are
required for either the original or the proposed project.
12) NOISE
The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to noise beyond those identified in
the 2010 MND. The proposed not result in design or operational changes to the project site or
surrounding area from that analyzed in the 2010 MND. The overall intensity, equipment mix,
duration, and proximity to sensitive receptors would not be notably different than under the
original project. The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant impacts
related to noise. The proposed project would have no change on the project’s noise operations;
therefore, it would not affect the MND noise analysis of the original project. No mitigation
measures needed for either the original or the proposed project.
13) POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed project would not have any effect on population, housing, or employment in the
Town or region at large, as is the case for the original project. No adverse impacts would occur in
this regard. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project.
14) PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to public services/utilities beyond
those identified in the 2010 MND because they would not result in changes to existing public
services those evaluated in the 2010 MND for the original project. The 2010 MND did not identify
any potentially significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation was not required. No
new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.
15) RECREATION
The proposed design modifications would not result in additional impacts to recreational facilities
beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 MND did not identify any permanent impacts
to recreational resources or facilities. No mitigation measures area required for either the original
or the proposed project.
16) TRANSPORTATION
The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects on transportation
and circulation. The proposed project would result in no changes to operational trip generation;
therefore, it would not affect the 2010 MND analysis related to transportation and circulation.
No mitigation measures area required for either the original or the proposed project.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 15
17) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any public
utilities beyond those required for the original project. Temporary short‐term and operational
demands on public utilities or other infrastructure would not measurably change under the
proposed project and therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
18) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to biological resources, cultural
resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings would be comparable to the original
project, and potentially reduced with regard to biological resources given the reduction in trees
to be removed and increased setbacks from the creek under the proposed project. As impacts
under the proposed project would be similar to or reduced relative to the original project, impacts
would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation measures are required.
4.0 Recommendation
That the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence in the
light of the whole record that the proposed modifications to the original project are within the
scope of the original 2010 MND analysis and will not cause any new significant environmental
impacts, substantially increase previously identified impacts, nor require any new or modified
mitigation.
In making this finding, the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by Town
Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and has determined that:
(1) NO substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
(2) NO substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise
of reasonable diligence at the time the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
was adopted, does NOT show any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration;
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 16
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasib le would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerabl y different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the analyses conducted and the conclusions reached
in the Final MND adopted on December 10, 2010 remain valid. The proposed revisions to the
project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the 2010 MND, and no new
mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred
with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause significant
environmental impacts to which the project would contribute considerably, and no new
information has become available that shows that the project would cause significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required beyond
this addendum. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum need not be
circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 17
Figure 1 Placeholder Page
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 18
Figure 2 Placeholder Page
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 19
Figure 3 Placeholder Page
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 20
Figure 4 Placeholder Page
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 21
Figure 5 Placeholder Page
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016 22
Figure 6 Placeholder Page
Not to scale
Project Site
FIGURE 1: Regional Map
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Source: Google Maps, 2016
Los Gatos
Not to scale
Source: Google Earth, 2016
Fountain Valley
Project Site
Al
p
i
n
e
A
v
e
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
ePier View Wy
Foster RdN
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
S
t
N
M
y
e
r
s
S
t
Highland AveJackson StGrove
S
t
Central AveFIGURE 2: Vicinity Map
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Project Site
Not to scale
Source: Peoples Associates, 2016
FIGURE 3: Site Plan
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Not to scale
FIGURE 4: Grading and Drainage Plan
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Source: Peoples Associates, 2016
Not to scale
FIGURE 5: Tree Inventory Plan
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Source: Peoples Associates, 2016
Not to scale
FIGURE 6: Landscape Plan
19 Highland Avenue
Town of Los Gatos
Source: Ecotone Landscape, 2016
ID Qty.Size Latin Name Common Name Notes
AB 5 24" box Acer p. 'Bloodgood' Japanese Maple
CO 6 24" box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
HA 9 15 gal. Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
PI 6 15 gal. Prunus i. lyonii Catalina Cherry
UC 4 15 gal. Umbellularia californica California Laurel
CJ 40 1 gal. Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter' Wild Lilac
CS 28 1 gal. Coleonema 'Sunset Gold' Pink Breath of Heaven
CH 40 1 gal. Cotoneaster 'horizontalis' Rock Cotoneaster
RP 39 1 gal. Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Rosemary
3TR
N
K
5
'
O
A
K
10
"OAK 10"OAK 12
"
O
A
K
1
0
"
O
A
K T2
1
8
"
O
A
K
T
B WALL430
420
440
410
420
430
T14
E 3
0
"
E
U
C
T2
0
T6
6
T5
7
IP T
A
G
MA
G
N
A
I
L
T5
4
T5
9
T6
2
T63
T6
5
T23
T2
2
T1
8
T1
1
T13
T29 T30 T33
T32
T31
T34
T42
T4
0
T39
T3
8
400
T44
T45
T4
3
T47
T5
0N 48°23'37" E 98.40'S 07°02'50" W 37.00'N 60°08'
3
3
"
W
7
1
.
5
8
'
N 4
2
°
1
7
'
0
8
"
W
1
4
0
.
0
0
'S 52°27'52" WN 67°20'06" W 1
6
7
.
5
2
'S 37°42'7" W 68.97'S 82°19'
0
2
"
W
4
4.
5
3'
N 75°14'43" W 309.40'
N
1
9
°
5
4
'
5
8
"
W
7
1
.
6
2
'26.40' CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
LANDS OF PEARSON
1.04 Acres
A.P.N. 529-37-033
BEN
C
H
M
A
R
K
440
.
4
6
T27
T1
T3
5
T3
6
T4
1
T9
T4
6
T8
408408412
410
408
406
404
409418420422Drawing No.
Scale
Project IDProject Manager
Drawn By
Reviewed By
Date
CAD File Name
L1
1/16" = 1'-0"
Date
1
of
Drawing Title
Project Title
Landscape Plan
Pearson Residence
19 Highland Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Consultant
Design Firm Ecotone Landscape
P.O. Box 320201
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408 357 0354
No. Date Revision NotesAppr
No. Date Issue Notes
3-HA
T1
1
7-CH
Undisturbed Landscape1-CO
1-UC
3-PI
3-PI
1-AB
3-HA
Landscape Plan Landscape PlanPearson Residence19 Highland Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
6-CJ
5-CH
Ex. Densely Wooded Area
Ex. Densely Wooded Area
Plant List
L1
1-UC 1-CO7-RP
6-CJ
5-CJ
6-CJ
5-CS
11-RP
7-CS
1-UC
8-CJ 6-CH1-UC1-CO
7/10/16
www.ecotone-la.com
mark@ecotone-la.com
(408) 357-0354
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
1-CO 3-HA 4-RP
10-RP
5-CJ
1-AB
8-CH
1-CO7-RP1-CO 6-CH 4-CH4-CH5-CS 5-CS1-AB
6-CS
1-AB
4-CJ1-AB
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
August 2016
Attachment 1
19 Highland Avenue
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 10, 2010
19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077
Town of Los Gatos
Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2016
Appendices
Appendix A – Live Oak Associates Peer Review Letter
(July 21, 2016)
Appendix B – UPP Geotechnology Response to Comments Letter
(February 17, 2016)
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
Appendix A
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
Appendix B