Loading...
Staff Report with Exhibits 1-18 - 400 Surmont PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING REPORT MEETING DATE: 11/21/2022 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: November 18, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Construction of a Shared Driveway, Two New Single- Family Residences to Exceed the Maximum Height for Visible Homes in the Hillsides, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Vacant Property Zoned HR-2½. Located at 400 Surmont Drive. APN 527-20-003. Architecture and Site Applications S-21-004 and S-21-023. PROPERTY OWNER: Sandra K. Anderson, TTE. APPLICANT: Studio 3 Design. PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of a request for construction of a shared driveway, two new single-family residences to exceed the maximum height for visible homes in the hillsides, and site work requiring a grading permit on vacant property zoned HR-2½ located at 400 Surmont Drive. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Zoning Designation: HR-2½ Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Parcel 1 Size: 1.39 acres (60,752 square feet) Parcel 2 Size: 1.33 acres (57,840 square feet) Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ South Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ East Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ West Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ PAGE 2 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 CEQA: A Notice of Exemption (NOE) was prepared for the previous subdivision and subsequent construction of a driveway and two new single-family residences in 2020. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared NOE. FINDINGS:  A Notice of Exemption was prepared for the previous subdivision and subsequent construction of a driveway and two new single-family residences in 2020. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared Notice of Exemption.  The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations).  The project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, with requested exceptions for maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides, maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade, maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to each proposed home, maximum cut and fill for the shared driveway and fire turnaround areas, and maximum retaining wall heights.  The project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS:  As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the terminus of Surmont Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Blossom Hill Road (Exhibit 1). The 15-acre property was subdivided on October 6, 2020, into three separate parcels: vacant Parcel 1 at the northern edge; vacant Parcel 2 in the middle; and “remainder” Parcel 3 to the south with an existing single-family residence. The property owner is in the process of recording the Parcel Map for this subdivision. A NOE was filed with the subdivision application, which included reviews of the following technical analyses: Biological Resources Report; Arborist Report; Geotechnical Investigation; and PAGE 3 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): Geologic Report. The NOE also included review of future construction of a driveway and one single-family residence on each of the two new lots (Exhibit 4). An existing ephemeral drainage feature exists along the western edge of the properties, immediately adjacent to the entrance of the new shared driveway. To prevent indirect impacts on water quality within the drainage and in the downslope watershed, a two-foot tall retaining wall is proposed between the driveway and the drainage feature for the 30-foot portion of the driveway closest to the drainage feature. With the inclusion of this wall, along with standard environmental conditions of approval recommended in the NOE, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. This retaining wall is shown in the proposed plans, and the standard environmental conditions of approval are included with these applications (Exhibit 3). Following approval of the subdivision application, Parcel 1 is approximately 60,752 square feet, with an average slope of 27.3 percent. Parcel 2 is approximately 57,840 square feet, with an average slope of 27.3 percent. Architecture and Site application S-21-004 includes the proposed shared driveway and construction of a single-family residence and attached garage on Parcel 1. Architecture and Site application S-21-023 includes construction of a single-family residence and attached garage on Parcel 2. Both Architecture and Site applications have been referred to the Planning Commission for major exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) for maximum height of visible homes in the hillsides. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located at the terminus of Surmont Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Blossom Hill Road (Exhibit 1). The property contains three parcels: vacant Parcel 1 at the northern edge; vacant Parcel 2 in the middle; and “remainder” Parcel 3 to the south with an existing single-family residence. Parcel 1 is approximately 60,752 square feet and Parcel 2 is approximately 57,840 square feet. Single-family and hillside residential development surrounds the parcel. From the terminus of Surmont Drive, the property ascends approximately 75 feet to the highest point of Parcel 2. B. Project Summary The applicant proposes construction of a new shared driveway and two new single-family residences on vacant Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Both residences would be single-story with attached garages and located within the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) for each parcel. The proposed driveway work and site work associated with the two residences PAGE 4 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (continued): requires a Grading Permit as the proposed earthwork quantities would exceed 50 cubic yards. The proposed applications would comply with the objective standards of the Town Code, but exceptions to the HDS&G are requested. The specific exceptions include: maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides; maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade; maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to each proposed home; maximum cut and fill for the shared driveway and fire turnaround areas; and maximum retaining wall heights. C. Zoning Compliance Single-family residences and garages are permitted in the HR-1 zone. The proposed residences are in compliance with the zoning regulations for allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking requirements for the property. DISCUSSION: A. Architecture and Site Analysis Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) Pursuant to the HDS&G, when determining the maximum allowable floor area for a hillside property, the gross lot area is reduced based on its average slope. Parcel 1 is approximately 60,752 square feet with an average lot slope of 27.3 percent. Based on this average slope, the net lot area is 29,222 square feet, which provides for a maximum allowable floor area of 5,700 square feet. The applicant proposes construction of a new 3,683-square foot, single-story residence with an attached 996-square foot garage on Parcel 1 (Exhibit 15). The applicant has provided a Written Description/Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 5). The residence includes a 996-square foot attached garage, 596 square feet of which would count toward the total house floor area allowed for the property. A summary of the floor area for the proposed Parcel 1 residence is included in the table below. Parcel 1 - Floor Area Residence 3,683 sf Garage 996 sf Subtotal 4,679 sf Garage Credit (400 sf) Total 4,279 sf PAGE 5 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): The proposed residence on Parcel 1 would be sited near the center of the parcel, within the LRDA. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet, where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed by the Town Code and a maximum of 18 feet is allowed by the HDS&G for homes that are more than 24.5 percent visible from the established viewing areas. The project requires a Grading Permit for site improvements for earthwork quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards associated with the building footprint and new driveway. Exceptions to the HDS&G are requested, which are described in Section B below. Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) Parcel 2 is approximately 57,840 square feet with an average lot slope of 27.3 percent. Based on this average slope, the net lot area is 27,821 square feet, which provides for a maximum allowable floor area of 5,500 square feet. The applicant proposes construction of a new 3,450-square foot, single-story residence with 713 square feet of countable attic space above and an attached 671-square foot garage on Parcel 2 (Exhibit 16). The applicant has provided a Written Description/Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 5). The residence includes a 671-square foot attached garage, 271 square feet of which would count toward the total house floor area allowed for the property. A summary of the floor area for the proposed Parcel 2 residence is included in the table below. Parcel 2 - Floor Area Residence 3,450 sf Countable Attic 713 sf Garage 671 sf Subtotal 4,834 sf Garage Credit (400 sf) Total 4,434 sf The proposed residence would also be sited near the center of the parcel within the LRDA. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet, where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed by the Town Code and a maximum of 18 feet is allowed by the HDS&G for homes that are more than 24.5 percent visible from the established viewing areas. Exceptions to the HDS&G are requested, which are described in Section B below. B. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Per the Project Description/Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5), both homes are designed to maintain as many trees on the property as possible, and are sited to protect the uphill PAGE 6 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): neighbor’s view to the valley floor as well as not to loom over or cast shadows on the downhill neighbor. The proposed residences run parallel to the contour lines and the footprints are adjusted to step with grade and around existing mature trees. The overall bulk and mass of the homes are broken up with a mix of materials to enhance the character. The following includes descriptions of the requested HDS&G exceptions. Maximum Building Height Exception (Parcels 1 and 2) Town Code allows a maximum height of 30 feet in the Hillside Residential zones; however, the HDS&G has more restrictive requirements. Per the HDS&G, buildings that are more than 24.5 percent visible from the established viewing areas are limited to 18 feet in height. Both proposed homes are considered visible from the Almaden Road/Selinda Way viewing area as follows: Parcel 1 residence is visible only in certain areas of the viewing areas as the proposed footprint is situated lower on the hill, and portions of Leigh High School block views to the site; and Parcel 2 is visible from most of the viewing area. Both residences are proposed to be approximately 25 feet in height, and therefore, exceptions to the HDS&G are required for each proposed residence. Pursuant to the HDS&G, building height exceptions are considered “major exceptions” and require Planning Commission approval; with, “the burden of proof on the applicant to show that there are compelling reasons for granting the requested deviation.” Per the applicant’s Project Description/Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5), although both homes are considered visible, the proposed materials blend into the hillside significantly better than adjacent homes. Additionally, the applicant has provided the following additional justification for the maximum building height exceptions within the Visibility Analysis (Exhibit 9); specifically: • Both parcels are within Environmentally Sensitivity – Level 1 pursuant to the Blossom Hill Open Space study and are over 70 feet away from the designated “critically visible slopes;” • The Almaden Road/Selinda Way viewing area is outside of Town limits and is roughly one- and one-half miles away from the project site; and • Other homes in the adjacent area are more visible. Parcel 1 Exceptions (Architecture and Site Application S-21-004) As noted in the applicant’s Project Description/Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5), additional exceptions to the HDS&G are requested for the proposed shared driveway and residence associated with Architecture and Site application S-21-004 for Parcel 1, summarized below with the HDS&G requirement, requested exception, and applicant’s justification: PAGE 7 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • HDS&G Chapter V, Section E, Standard 4: The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure, excluding below grade square footage pursuant to Section 29.40.072 of the Town Code, shall not be more than three feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. o Proposed: Approximately five feet along the North Elevation (Exhibit 15). o Applicant’s justification: The house footprint sits across approximately 12 feet of vertical grade differential while internal floor level changes absorb approximately five feet of height […] We have done our best to minimize the external grading that would be visible around the residence perimeter with the use of terraced walls at the rear yard and natural undulating slopes below the house. Along the north wall, we have included shallow fill slopes to mask the underfloor area and only 40 feet of the 100-foot length is at five feet above existing grade. The complex matrix of grading depth, building height, and terraced retaining walls results in this exception […]. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed cut outside of building excavation is four feet. o Proposed: Approximately nine feet as seen on Section D-D of Civil Sheet C-8 (Exhibit 15). o Applicant’s justification: Given the multiple depth of grading constraints, the terraced wall area has been compressed horizontally to minimize the amount and depth of grading to provide for a minimum safe perimeter pathway width of six feet. This allows for fire department ladder placement and a “wetband” of landscape for fire suppression. Finally, the highest top of retaining wall is at the roof eave level and as such, any and all of the rear yard grading is fully masked by the residence from off-site views. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed cut for driveways is four feet. o Proposed: Approximately five feet of cut as seen in the Earthwork Summary table provided on Sheet C-8 (Exhibit 15). o Applicant’s justification: We contend that the (driveway cut and fill maximums) are no longer valid now that as of April 2021, Santa Clara County Fire has significantly upsized their turnaround requirements and now requires the entire approach at five percent slope. The previous standard was […] a 20 percent slope for the approach driveway […] The depth of cut non- conformance is limited to 160 square feet at the interface of the lower fire department turnaround with the Parcel 2 driveway and does not result in a prominent visual scar on the hillsides. PAGE 8 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed fill for driveways is three feet. o Proposed: Approximately four feet of fill as seen in the Earthwork Summary table provided on Sheet C-8 (Exhibit 15). o Applicant’s justification: This occurs at the driveway where it intersects the parking area for the Parcel 1 garage. Note that we previously reduced the driveway width at this location due to a five-foot fill. We really can’t squeeze this any further, but have provided an undulating slope at the base of the retaining wall to mask this fill, resulting in a new wall height of three feet. Parcel 2 Exceptions (Architecture and Site Application S-21-023) As noted in the applicant’s Project Description/Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5), additional exceptions to the HDS&G are requested for the proposed residence and private driveway associated with Architecture and Site application S-21-023 for Parcel 2, summarized below with the HDS&G requirement, requested exception, and applicant’s justification: • HDS&G Chapter V, Section E, Standard 4: The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure, excluding below grade square footage pursuant to Section 29.40.072 of the Town Code, shall not be more than three feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. o Proposed: Approximately six feet along the North Elevation (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: Again, similar to Parcel 1, a one-story residence has a slightly larger footprint but is at least 10 to 12 feet shorter than a two-story residence design. So it is a matter of balance of visibility versus grading. To paraphrase the words of former Los Gatos Mayor, Randy Attoway, “I’d rather see a one time grading impact from foundation excavation for a week than stare at a 35-foot tall building for more than 60 years.” Such is the case here as to underfloor clearance that is merely five feet where three is the maximum […] There is a 30-foot length that is non-compliant in a location that is invisible to any downslope neighborhood. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed cut outside of building excavation is four feet. o Proposed: Approximately nine feet as seen on Section B-B of Civil Sheet C-9 (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: While we are allowed an eight-foot cut at the rear of the residence, we could have buried the rear of the house against a retaining wall. This would have compromised the floor plan and the window placement on the rear wall. Extensive moisture protection for the large retaining wall would also have been required […] Our current proposal of two PAGE 9 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): terraced walls with a fire ladder platform and landscape wetband around the residence is preferred for fire safety and aesthetics. The area of non- compliance is merely 70 feet long by seven feet wide at the invisible southeast corner of the residence. • HDS&G Chapter VI, Section C, Guideline 1: Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet. Where an additional retained portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions, the use of multiple-terraced, lower retaining structures is preferred. o Proposed: Approximately six-foot tall retaining wall behind the garage as shown on Sheet C-9 (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: The attached garage is buried eight feet at the southeast corner and this is merely a 20-foot long transition from the eight- foot garage wall to the four-foot yard wall. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed fill for driveways is three feet. o Proposed: Approximately four feet of fill as seen in Section A-A on Sheet C-9 (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: This is required to balance the cut and fill across the massive 3,600-square foot fire department turn around which is the size of a […] convenience store parking lot. We have done our best to mask the fill with that same trapezoidal wall used at the high crawl space. This is merely an area of 100 square feet. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed fill for driveways is three feet. o Proposed: Approximately five feet of fill for the fire department turnaround area as seen in the Earthwork Summary table provided on Sheet C-9 (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: This fire department turnaround sits diagonally across 80 feet of slope […] with five percent maximum slope imposed by Fire […] The size and slope for the fire department turnaround are non-negotiable […]. • HDS&G Chapter III, Section A, Standard 1, Table 1 – Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills: The maximum allowed cut for driveways is four feet. o Proposed: Approximately five feet of cut as seen in the Earthwork Summary table provided on Sheet C-9 (Exhibit 16). o Applicant’s justification: We contend that the (driveway cut and fill maximums) are no longer valid now that as of April 2021, Santa Clara County PAGE 10 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): Fire has significantly upsized their turnaround requirements and now requires the entire approach at five percent slope. The previous standard was […] a 20 percent slope for the approach driveway […] The depth of cut non- conformance is limited to 160 square feet at the interface of the lower fire department turnaround with the Parcel 2 driveway and does not result in a prominent visual scar on the hillsides. C. Building Design Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) The project proposes a Mediterranean inspired residence and garage with neutral colors and materials each with a Light Reflectivity Value (LRV) of under 30, compliant with the HDS&G. Proposed exterior materials include smooth stucco siding; clay tile roofing; aluminum clad windows with cast stone trim; wood posts and columns; and wrought iron railing (Exhibit 7). The applicant has provided a Written Description/Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 5). Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) The project proposes a Modern Farmhouse inspired residence and garage with neutral colors and materials each with a LRV of under 30, compliant with the HDS&G. Proposed exterior materials include a mixture of horizontal and board and batten wood siding; shingled roofing with metal standing seam roofing used as accents throughout the roof form; aluminum clad windows; wood posts and columns; and wood railing (Exhibit 8). The applicant has provided a Written Description/Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 5). The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed residences on July 23, 2021 (Exhibit 10). In the report, the Consulting Architect noted that each proposed home is limited to one-story in height and designed to blend into the natural topography of the site. They are well designed with substantial façade articulation and authentic architectural details carried consistently around all sides of the homes. The Consulting Architect identified two minor concerns, one for each proposed residence. The Consultant’s recommendation for each residence is provided below, along with the applicant’s response (Exhibit 11). PAGE 11 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • Parcel 1 Recommendation: Provide an adequate recess for all windows and assure that the size of the window head trim and sills are properly scaled for the size of the home. o Applicant Response: Windows for Parcel 1 will be set to the inside and will provide the desired look/detail. The floor plan has been revised to show the new window placement. • Parcel 2 Recommendation: Reevaluate the Parcel 2 building base materials, details, and potential buffer landscaping. This will be a judgement call for the architect and applicant, but using board form concrete at the exposed base for the wall may not be the best solution for this architectural style. o Application Response: We will proceed with board form concrete and will provide a textural change. D. Neighborhood Compatibility Pursuant to the HDS&G, the maximum allowable floor area is 5,700 square feet for Parcel 1, and 5,500 square feet for Parcel 2. The table below reflects the current conditions of the homes in the immediate area and the proposed projects. Address Zoning House Garage Total Floor Area (w/garage credit) Lot Size FAR No. of Stories Parcel 1 (Proposed) HR-2.5 3,683 996 4,279 60,752 0.070 1 Parcel 2 (Proposed) HR-2.5 4,163 671 4,434 57,840 0.077 1 400 Surmont Drive HR-2.5 2,798 600 2,998 530,095 0.006 1 401 Surmont Drive HR-2.5 1,960 440 2,000 520,341 0.004 1 200 Surmont Drive HR-2.5 3,050 816 3,466 66,974 0.052 1 303 Belgatos Lane HR-2.5 3,250 615 3,465 123,389 0.028 1 307 Belgatos Lane HR-2.5 6,495 2430 8,525 464,785 0.018 2 308 Belgatos Lane HR-2.5 4,165 1349 5,114 84,070 0.061 2 198 Surmont Ct R-1:20 2,742 657 3,399 18,080 0.152 1 180 Surmont Ct R-1:20 4,007 1135 5,142 21,228 0.189 2 197 Surmont Ct R-1:10 3,474 720 4,194 10,170 0.342 2 155 Surmont Dr R-1:10 4,340 562 4,902 20,763 0.209 1 The properties in the immediate neighborhood are developed with one- and two-story residences with a mix of Hillside Residential and Single-Family Residential zoning. With the different zoning classifications, the property sizes within the immediate neighborhood vary drastically, with a range from 10,170 square feet to 12 acres. PAGE 12 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): Based on Town and County records, the square footage of the residences located in the immediate neighborhood range from 1,960 square feet to 8,525 square feet. The subject parcels are larger than the adjacent Single-Family Residential properties, yet smaller than the other Hillside Residential properties. Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) The applicant is proposing a 3,683-square foot residence with an attached 996-square foot garage on a 1.39-acre parcel, where a maximum total floor area of 5,700 square feet is allowed by the HDS&G. The proposed development on Parcel 1 would be the fifth largest in terms of total square footage and fifth largest in terms of FAR. Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) The applicant is proposing a 4,163-square foot residence with an attached 671-square foot garage on a 1.33-acre parcel, where a maximum total floor area of 5,500 square feet is allowed by the HDS&G. The proposed project would be the fifth largest in terms of total square footage and fifth largest in terms of FAR. E. Site Access A 12-foot-wide shared driveway approach is proposed at the north-western corner of the property, immediately adjacent to the ephemeral drainage feature and the neighboring property at 200 Surmont Drive. The shared driveway approach would have a 20 percent slope, leading to a Fire Department hammerhead turnaround feature with a five percent slope, all of which would be located on Parcel 1. The Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 driveways each have a 20 percent slope and would branch-off from the hammerhead feature. The Parcel 1 private driveway would run along the northern edge of Parcel 1, adjacent to the neighboring property at 200 Surmont Drive, and connect to the three- car garage and four additional on-site guest parking spaces as required by the Hillside Specific Plan. The Parcel 2 driveway would branch off the hammerhead turnaround on Parcel 1, and connect to a separate Fire Department turnaround and the two-car garage and four on-site parking spaces. F. Tree Impacts The development plans were reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Arborist who inventoried a total of 39 trees within the project area of the two parcels and made recommendations for their preservation (Exhibit 12). The applicant responded to the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 13) and updated the project plans to show requested tree fencing locations. PAGE 13 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): The site includes a total of 39 trees, 23 of which are considered protected trees. Two of these trees are Large Protected oak trees (Trees # 116 and 133), both of which are proposed to be protected and preserved. A total of seven protected trees are expected to be highly impacted and are proposed for removal. Based on Town Code, these seven removals require a total of 21, 24-inch box, replacement trees to be planted on the sites. Per the landscape plans, the required replacement requirements would be met, with new trees proposed on either side of the shared driveway and along the northern edge of both homes to provide privacy screening to the downhill neighbors. G. Visibility The applicant has submitted a visibility analysis, provided as Exhibit 9. The visibility analysis shows that the proposed residence at Parcel 2 is visible from the Almaden Road/Selinda Way viewing area, but that the Parcel 1 residence would be obscured by portions of Leigh High School. Town staff visited the site and determined that both proposed homes are visible from the Almaden Road/Selinda Way viewing area, with the Parcel 1 residence only blocked from view in certain sections of the viewing area, and therefore both homes are visible and are limited to 18 feet in height pursuant to the HDS&G. The applicant has provided justification for the height exceptions, which are discussed in Section B of the staff report above, as well as the applicant’s Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5). H. Grading The project includes site improvements with grading quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards, which requires approval of a Grading Permit. For both sites, a total of 2,432 cubic yards of cut and 599 cubic yards of fill are proposed as summarized in the tables below. The proposed grading plan requests exceptions to the maximum allowed cut and fill standards per the HDS&G, as discussed in Section B of the staff report above. Parcel 1 Grading Summary Cut Fill Total Shared Access 74 40 114 Driveway 80 218 298 Residence 589 100 689 Garage 192 0 192 Rear Yard 320 0 320 Total 1,255 358 1,613 Parcel 2 Grading Summary Cut Fill Total Driveway 205 241 446 Residence 525 0 525 Garage 162 0 162 Rear Yard 285 0 285 Total 1,177 241 1,418 PAGE 14 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): The Town’s Parks and Public Works Engineering staff have included a condition of approval requiring submittal and evaluation of a Grading Permit in parallel with the required Building Permits (Exhibit 3). As a part of their review, a Geotechnical and Geological Report was required and peer-reviewed for the entire project. Parks and Public Works have also included conditions of approval related to the recommendations of the peer review. I. Neighbor Outreach The applicant has indicated that they have been meeting with the surrounding neighbors to discuss the project dating back to the Subdivision Application review in 2019. A summary of their outreach efforts is included as Exhibit 14. J. CEQA Determination A Notice of Exemption (NOE) was prepared for the previous subdivision and subsequent construction of a driveway and two new single-family residences in 2020. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared NOE. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by October 24, 2022. Public comment received by 11:00 a.m. on Friday, November 18, 2022, is included as Exhibit 17. The applicant has provided response to public comment in Exhibit 18. CONCLUSION: Summary, Recommendation, and Alternatives are provided separately below for each of the two Architecture and Site Applications under review. Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) A. Summary - Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for construction of a shared driveway and Fire Department turnaround and a new single-family residence on vacant Parcel 1. The proposed site work associated with the driveway, turnaround, and residence require a Grading Permit. The proposed driveway, turnaround, and single-story residence comply with the Hillside Specific Plan and objective standards of the Town Code. PAGE 15 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 CONCLUSION (continued): Exceptions to the HDS&G are requested, including: maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides; maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade; maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to the proposed residence; and maximum cut and fill for the shared driveway and fire turnaround area. B. Recommendation - Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) Based on the analysis above, staff recommends denial of the Architecture and Site application due to the extent of the exceptions requested. C. Alternatives - Parcel 1 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-004) Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Approve the application by taking the following actions: a. Make the finding that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared NOE (Exhibit 2); b. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2); c. Make the finding that the project complies with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with requested exceptions for: maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides; maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade; maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to the proposed residence; and maximum cut and fill for the shared driveway and fire turnaround area (Exhibit 2); d. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2); e. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and f. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-21-004 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 15. Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) A. Summary - Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for construction of a private driveway and Fire Department turnaround and a new single-family residence on PAGE 16 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 CONCLUSION (continued): vacant Parcel 2. The proposed site work associated with the driveway, turnaround, and residence require a Grading Permit. The proposed private driveway, turnaround, and single-story residence comply with the Hillside Specific Plan and objective standards of the Town Code. Exceptions to the HDS&G are requested, including: maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides; maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade; maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to the proposed residence; maximum cut and fill for the private driveway and fire turnaround area; and maximum retaining wall heights. B. Recommendation - Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) Based on the analysis above, staff recommends denial of the Architecture and Site application due to the extent of the exceptions requested. C. Alternatives - Parcel 2 (Architectural and Site Application S-21-023) Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Approve the application by taking the following actions: a. Make the finding that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared NOE (Exhibit 2); b. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2); c. Make the finding that the project complies with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with requested exceptions for: maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides, maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade, maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to the proposed residence, maximum cut and fill for the private driveway and fire turnaround area, and maximum retaining wall heights. (Exhibit 2); d. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2); e. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and f. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-21-023 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 16. PAGE 17 OF 17 SUBJECT: 400 Surmont Drive/S-21-004 and S-21-023 DATE: November 18, 2022 EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Subdivision Notice of Exemption 5. Project Description/Letter of Justification 6. Property Photos 7. Color and Materials Board – Parcel 1 8. Color and Materials Board – Parcel 2 9. Visibility Analysis 10. Consulting Architect’s Report 11. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report 12. Consulting Arborist’s Report 13. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Arborist’s Report 14. Neighbor Outreach Summary 15. Development Plans – Parcel 1 16. Development Plans – Parcel 2 17. Public Comments 18. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments This Page Intentionally Left Blank BLOSSOM HILL RD W E S T H I L L D R BELGATOS RDREGENT DRBELVUE DRBELGATOS LNBELBLOSSOM WY OLD ORCHARD DRBELBLOSSOM DRSURMONT DRRAMOS WY HEINTZ CTLAS FLORES LN400 Surmont Drive 0 0.250.125 Miles ° Update Notes: - Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm) - Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label - Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area - Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm) EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 2 - Findings.docx PLANNING COMMISSION – November 21, 2022 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 400 Surmont Drive Architecture and Site Applications S-21-004 and S-21-023 Requesting Approval for Construction of a Shared Driveway, Two New Single-Family Residences to Exceed the Maximum Height for Visible Homes in the Hillsides, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Vacant Property Zoned HR-2½. APN 527-20-003. PROPERTY OWNER: Sandra K. Anderson, TTE. APPLICANT: Studio 3 Design. FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: ■ A Notice of Exemption (NOE) was prepared for the previous subdivision and subsequent construction of a driveway and two new single-family residences in 2020. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction, and consistent with the previously prepared NOE. Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations: ■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations). Required compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines: ■ The project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), with requested exceptions for maximum allowed height of visible homes in the hillsides, maximum height of the lowest finished floor of a structure above existing grade, maximum cut for the rear yard areas adjacent to each proposed home, maximum cut and fill for the shared driveway and fire turnaround areas, and maximum retaining wall heights. Required compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan: ■ As required, the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx PLANNING COMMISSION – November 21, 2022 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 400 Surmont Drive Architecture and Site Applications S-21-004 and S-21-023 Requesting Approval for Construction of a Shared Driveway, Two New Single-Family Residences to Exceed the Maximum Height for Visible Homes in the Hillsides, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Vacant Property Zoned HR-2½. APN 527-20-003. PROPERTY OWNER: Sandra K. Anderson, TTE. APPLICANT: Studio 3 Design. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 4. TREE IN-LIEU FEES: Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, tree in-lieu fees (or replacement trees) must be paid to the Parks and Public Works Department with the Tree Removal Permits. 5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 6. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 7. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 8. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report dated as received February 11, 2022 for the project, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 9. TREE REPLACMENT: Replacement trees and/or in-lieu fees, subject to the Town Arborist requirements, must be planted or paid prior to building permit final inspections. 10. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. EXHIBIT 3 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 11. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped. 12. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 13. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 14. LRV DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 15. FAULT ZONE DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant must record a deed restriction stating the detached garage on Parcel 2 is within a fault zone and cannot be converted to habitable space or an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the property owner shall execute a five-year maintenance agreement with the Town that the property owner agrees to protect and maintain the trees shown to remain on the approved plans, trees planted as part of the tree replacement requirements, and guarantees that said trees will always be in a healthy condition during the term of the maintenance agreement. 17. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 18. NESTING BIRDS: To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Construction activities that include any tree removal, pruning, grading, grubbing, or demolition shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If this type of construction starts, if work is scheduled to start or if work already occurring during the nesting season stops for at least two weeks and is scheduled to resume during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. Two surveys for active nests of such birds shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the second survey conducted with 48 hours prior to start of construction. Appropriate minimum survey radius surrounding each work area is typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. 19. SPECIAL-STATUS BATS: Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or structure demolition activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in trees within 50 feet of the development footprint, and within and surrounding any structures that may be disturbed by the project. These surveys will include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and no further measures are required. If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents will be prepared prior to grading permit issuance and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures will be implemented: a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they will be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they will be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats will be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) will be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance will occur until after the nursery season. b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures scheduled to be disturbed by project activities, the individuals will be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If pre-construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other methods conducted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance of any structures will be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night will be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/structure disturbance). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation. 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN REMAINS: a. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50- meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. b. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines 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. c. If the Community Development Director finds that 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 15064.5( e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. d. 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 will 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. 21. DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRATS: This project will implement the following standard measures to minimize impacts on woodrats and active woodrat nests on the project site. a) PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within 30 days of the start of work activities. If active woodrat nests are determined to be present in, or within 10 feet of the impact areas, the conditions below (Avoidance and/or Nest Relocation) will be implemented, as appropriate. If no active woodrat nests are present on or within 10 feet of impact areas, no further conditions are warranted. S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx b) AVOIDANCE. Active woodrat nests that are detected within the work area wil be avoided to the extend feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer will be maintained between project activities and woodrat nests to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a small buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, nest relocation (below) would represent a greater disturbance to the woodrats than the adjacent work activities. c) NEST RELOCATION. If avoidance of active woodrat nests within and immediately adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the work areas is not feasible, then nest materials will be relocated to suitable habitat as close to the project site as possible (ideally, within or immediately adjacent to the project site). Relocation efforts will avoid the peak nesting season (February-July) to the maximum extent feasible. Prior to the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist will disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the construction area. Disturbance of the woodrat nest will be initiated no earlier than one hour before dusk to prevent the exposure of woodrats to diurnal predators. Subsequently, the biologist will dismantle and relocate the nest material by hand. During the deconstruction process, the biologist will attempt to assess if there are juveniles in the nest. If immobile juveniles are observed, the deconstruction process will be discontinued until a time when the biologist believes the juveniles will be capable of independent survival (typically after 2 to 3 weeks). A no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest until the juveniles are mobile. The nest may be dismantled once the biologist has determined that adverse impacts on the juveniles would not occur. 22. WATER QUALITY: The project will implement the following conditions to minimize impacts on water quality within the ephemeral drainage (many of these conditions are overlapping conditions with what will be required for compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit): a) All construction activities in the ephemeral drainage shall be avoided. Within the Slope Stability Protection Area, grading will be minimized to the extent necessary and existing contours and slopes shall be maintained. b) Existing native vegetation adjacent the drainage shall be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the construction of the retaining wall. When possible, a vegetated buffer strip between staging/excavation areas and the drainage shall be maintained. c) Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative bugger strips) shall be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the ephemeral drainage. Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control measures will be placed at the top of bank of the drainage or the edge of the Slope Stability Protection Area where possible. The erosions control measures should follow the approaches and details outlined in the Bank Protection/Erosion Repair Design Guide in the Santa Clara Valley Water S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Valley Water 2006). d) All disturbed soils shall be revegetated with native plans and/or grasses or sterile nonnative species suitable for the altered soil conditions upon completion of construction. Local watershed native plants will be used if available. If sterile nonnative species are used for temporary erosion control, native seed mixtures must be used in subsequent treatments to provide long-term erosion control and slow colonization by invasive nonnatives. All disturbed areas that have been compacted shall be de-compacted prior to planting or seeding. Cut-and-fill slopes will be planted with local native or non-invasive plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. Again, revegetation of disturbed soils shall follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Valley Water 2006). e) No stockpiling or placement of erodible materials shall be allowed within 20 feet of the ephemeral drainage or along areas of natural stormwater flow where materials could be washed into waterways. f) No equipment servicing shall be done within 20 feet of the ephemeral drainage, unless equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators.) g) Construction personnel shall prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water into channels. Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). Personnel shall implement measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, and all construction waste will be disposed of in designated areas to prevent stormwater from flowing onto or off these areas. h) Potential contaminating materials must be stored in covered storage areas or secondary containment that is impervious to leaks and spills. Runoff pathways shall be free of trash containers or trash storage areas. Trash storage areas shall be screened or walled. i) Vehicles and equipment shall be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas. 23. WATER AGENCY PERMTTING: Prior to start of any work along or within a water agency’s right-of-way/easement, the Owner and/or Applicant shall obtain necessary encroachment permit(s) and/or plan check review(s) from said Agency(ies) corresponding with the proposed work. A copy of any necessary permit(s) is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to Grading or Building Permit issuance. 24. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 25. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 26. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Building Permit is required for the construction of the new single- family residence and attached garage. An additional Building Permit will be required for the PV System if the system is required by the California Energy Code. 27. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2020, are the 2019 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes. 28. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 29. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 30. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”. 31. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 32. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations 33. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 34. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch wide doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 35. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 36. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies. 37. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and must comply with Section R337 of the 2019 California Residential Code, Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 38. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 39. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 40. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 41. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 42. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 43. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's expense. 44. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 45. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website. 46. PRIOR APPROVALS: All conditions per prior approvals shall be deemed in full force and affect for this approval. 47. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Owner/Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 48. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 49. STREET CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 50. DRIVEWAY: The existing or proposed driveway shall conform to existing pavement on Surmont Drive and shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 51. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Owner and/or Applicant. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, before the issuance of any grading or building permits or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Surmont Drive: Driveway, tie-in paving, guardrail, signing, striping, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, and utility services/laterals as required. 52. DEDICATIONS: The following dedications shall be included in the parcel map. The dedication shall be recorded before any grading or building permits are issued: a. Open Space/Visual Easement as delineated on the development plans. b. Weed Abatement Easement as delineated on the development plans 53. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without inspection. 54. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 55. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the commencement of plan check review. 56. GRADING PERMIT FEES: All fees associated with the grading permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 57. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by the respective deciding body, the grading permit application (with grading plans and associated required materials and plan check fees) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant/Developer’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 58. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans. 59. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. 60. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not commence until after/occur during the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15-April 15), has ended. 61. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section III of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All development shall be in compliance with Section II of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 62. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map (except maps for financing and conveyance purposes only) or prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 63. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 64. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction. 65. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 66. SOILS REPORT: One electronic copy (PDF) of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 67. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of occupancy is granted. 68. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Engineering Geologic Investigation by Steven F. Connelly C.E.G, dated May 18, 2019, Geotechnical Investigation by Milstone Geotechnical, dated June 12, 2019, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. 69. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner and/or Applicant shall be required to improve the project’s public frontage (right-of-way line to centerline and/or to limits per the direction of the Town Engineer) to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), signs, pavement, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, storm drain facilities, traffic signal(s), street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 70. UTILITIES: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 71. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 72. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall install one (1) Town standard residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed, therefore. 73. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the recordation of the preceding parcel map or issuance of grading or building permits, the Owner/Applicant/Developer shall pay the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees at the Town adopted rate at the time of the payment. 74. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets without written approval from the Town Engineer. 75. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit. 76. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 77. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, holidays excluded. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 78. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 79. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Owner and/or Applicant’s design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), concrete washout(s) and S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx proposed outhouse location(s). Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information. 80. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 81. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 82. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 83. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 84. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: 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, or otherwise kept dust- free. b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site. c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes. e. 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, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt-track-out onto adjacent public roads. f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. g. All 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. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334- ODOR (6367). i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour. j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 85. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 86. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If stormwater treatment facilities are to be used, they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line. Alternatively, the facility may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property line if the responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how the adjacent property will not be adversely affected. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 87. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by the Town’s Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and an electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 88. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains. 89. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's expense. 90. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase; reclamation, landscape, and grading, shall be issued simultaneously. 91. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 92. OTHER FEES: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, Storm Drainage and Construction Activities Mitigation Fees would need to be paid. 93. STORMWATER C.3 PROVISION: There development projects shall comply with the Municipal regional Stormwater NPDES Permit requirements for C.3 New Development and Development. Following documents shall be submitted with the Grading Permit submittal for review by the Town’s third-party stormwater consultant: • A completed C.3 Data Form for regulated projects • A stormwater control plan that shows how treatment will be provided for all impervious surfaces on the two parcels, the drainage areas to the treatment measures, calculations demonstrating that the treatment measures are properly sized, and details for the treatment measures and connections to storm drains S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 94. GEOLOGICAL/GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS: The proposed site improvements are potentially constrained by surface fault rupture and secondary ground deformation, along with moderate to steep slopes that are prone to instability. Appropriate measures should be implemented to limit the potential for collapse given the identified risk of fault deformation. Based on the results of geotechnical peer reviews, following conditions are attached: a. Restrictive Covenant for Proposed Detached Garage – A restrictive covenant to be recorded before issuance of grading or building permits to limit the use of the proposed garage structure to that consistent with a non-habitable structure, as recommended by the Project Engineering Geologist. The Owner and future property Owners should be aware of this restriction, and also be aware that conversion of the detached garage to habitable space (i.e., an Additional Dwelling Unit) is not feasible in its current location. b. Structural Engineering Evaluations – Given the recommendations and findings of the Project Engineering Geologist that proposed non-habitable structures located within the fault set-back zone should be sufficiently detached from habitable improvements, additional evaluations and confirmation required by the Project Structural Engineer. The Project Structural Engineer should review the proposed breezeway design and structure locations as well as findings of the Project Engineering Geologist. Then, perform additional analysis, as necessary, to develop a design that will protect occupants from collapse of the breezeway and main residence in an earthquake rupture scenario. c. Geotechnical Plan Review – The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should also be provided the “Second Peer Review” letter by Wood dated January 28, 2022. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review along with other documents for grading and building permit plan checks. d. Engineering Geologic Plan Review – The Project Engineering Geologist should review and approve final layouts of proposed improvements to ensure that their recommendations, including setbacks for habitable structures, have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Engineering Geologist in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review along with other documents for grading and building permit plan checks. e. Engineering Geologic Construction Inspections – The construction inspections shall be performed by the Project Engineering Geologist, who should coordinate with the Contractor and be provided the opportunity to inspect, clean and log (as needed), site excavations exposing pertinent soil and bedrock conditions in the vicinity of the proposed main residence (e.g., pad grading, site retaining wall excavation, etc.,). If evidence of faulting is identified in foundation excavation (or other), additional geologic investigation and possible relocation of proposed improvements may be necessary, as noted in prior geotechnical peer reviews. The Town should be notified if S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx evidence of faulting is identified during construction. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the Engineering Geologist in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. f. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 95. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 96. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and twofamily dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasing the area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all attached ADUs, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. Please indicate on the cover sheet that an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided and installed per NFPA 13D. 97. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Driveways Required: (As Noted on Sheet C-2) Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum outside turning radius of 36-feet and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to the Fire Department Standard Details Specifications D-1 and CFC Section 503. Access driveways shall provide a minimum 12 foot conforming driving surface exclusive of shoulder or drainage gutter, as demonstrated on Sheet C-2. The proposed access driveway exceeds the maximum 15% slope requirement and is proposed at up to 20%. Please incorporate your attached justification letter for slope increase, onto the sheets detailing the Lot 2 access driveway profile. 98. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turnaround Required: (As Noted on Sheet C-5) Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\11-21-2022 (Special Meeting)\Item 2 - 400 Surmont\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg). Please demonstrate on the plans, SCCFD D-1 compliant turnarounds, having no greater than 5% slope in any direction, throughout the entire turnaround. 99. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1]. Previously approved hydrant location (PC 19-2053) is shown on the site plan. Please provide the following: A note on the cover page indicating that this hydrant will be a deferred submittal. A flow letter from San Jose Water verifying that the required flow will be available from the proposed hydrant. NOTE: Hydrant installation shall occur prior to the commencement of combustible construction. 100. Water Supply Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water- based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 101. Address identification: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 102. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 1 S eptember 2020 kimley-horn.com 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250, San José, California 92113 (669)800-4130 CEQA Memorandum 400 SURMONT DRIVE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY Project Location and Description The 15.1-acre site is located at 400 Surmont Drive, within the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. The project site is located on Surmont Drive, west of Belgatos Lane and south of Blossom Hill Road, a major arterial road that runs east to west in the Town of Los Gatos. The project site can be accessed via the existing Surmont Drive. See Figure 1, Local Vicinity Map for a local context of the site location. The project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 527-20-003) is currently occupied by an existing single-family home. There are two additional existing residential homes to the north and west of the project site on adjacent lots. The project site is within a relatively sloped hillside area (approximately 27.3% average slope). The project site’s Zoning designation is Hillside Residential (HR -2 ½) with an allowed density range of 2.5 to 10 acres per dwelling unit. The site’s Land Use designation is Hillside Residential. The proposed project is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to divide one residential lot (APN 527- 20-003) into three lots (approximate lot sizes 1.4 acres, and 1.3 acres, with an existing single-family residence to remain on a remainder parcel of approximately 12 acres) and to construct a driveway connecting the two new lots to the existing Surmont Drive. See the attached Figure 2, Parcel Map for the proposed site plan. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations. While there is no construction currently planned on the two new lots, the proposed project would allow for future construction of one single-family residence on each of the two new lot s . CEQA Class 3 Categorical Exemption The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3. The project qualifies for a CEQA Class 3 Categorial Exemption, which allows for construction and location of limited number of new structures, including construction of up to three single -family residences in an urbanized area [14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 15303]. An urbanized area is defined as a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (14 CCR § 15387). The Town of Los Gatos has a population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile, and t he Town of Los Gatos and the City of San Jose are contiguous, and together have a population exceeding 1 million people. Therefore, the project would be within an urbanized area . Because the project would allow for the future creation of two new single-family residences within an urbanized area, the projec t would qualify for a Class 3 CE. EXHIBIT 4 Page 2 September 2020 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard , Suite 1250, San José, California 92113 (669) 800-4130 CEQA Class 15 Categorical Exemption The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Class 15. The project qualifies for a CEQA Class 15 Categorial Exemption, which allows for the division of property into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the general plan and zoning, no other variances or exceptions requiring environmental review are required, and all required services and access to the proposed parcels per local standards are available. The proposed project would divide one residential lot (APN 527-20-003) into three lots (approximate lot sizes 1.4 acres, and 1.3 acres, with an existing single-family residence to remain on a remainder parcel of approximately 12 acres), which is less than the allowed maximum of four parcels. The project is in conformance with the general plan and zoning requirements for the project site. No other exceptions requiring environmental review are required, and all required services and access to the new lots would be available. Therefore, the project would qualify for a Class 15 CE. Technical Analyses Several technical memoranda were prepared for the project to understand the potential environmental effects, and they are attached to the end of this memorandum. Specifically, the following reports and memoranda were prepared: • Biological Resources Report (Attachment A) • Arborist Report (Attachment B) • Geotechnical Investigation (Attachment C ) • Geologic Report (Attachment D) The applicant will be required to obtain any required review or permits from applicable water agencies. Categorical Exemption Exceptions The project does not meet any of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions, which are listed in CEQA Section 15300.2. The analysis below identifies the exceptions with a discussion that substantiates how the project does not meet those exceptions. a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is in an urbanized area and largely consists of undeveloped ruderal grassland with small Page 3 September 2020 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard , Suite 1250, San José, California 92113 (669) 800-4130 areas coast live oak woodland. The project site is not located in an area mapped or designated as critical habitat or as containing hazardous resources. Further, no critical habitat was identified on the project site and there are no hazardous resources on the project site. The project , with implementation of the Town’s standard conditions of approval (including requirements to address potential impacts to birds, bat s, or rats), would not result in damages to critical habitat . b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed project is a minor s ubdivision to divide one residential lot into three lots with an existing single-family residence to remain on a remainder parcel and for the future construction of two single - family residences , and construction of a driveway to connect the two new lots to the existing Surmont Drive. The project site is located in an existing residential neighborhood and is zoned for residential uses. Surrounding lots, adjoining the project site, would not be impacted by the proposed improvements to the project site. No significant adverse impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to or cause a cumulative impact based on successive projects of the same type in the same place. c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Based on the substantial evidence described below and contained in the whole of the project record, the Town finds that t here are no unusual circumstances related to this project or project site. As such, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The terrain and vegetation of the project site do not constitute unusual circumstances in Los Gatos, par ticularly within the setting of the surrounding area. There are existing residential dwellings located immediately adjacent to the north, south, and west of the proposed new lots . These existing, surrounding residential dwellings are subject to similar terrain and biological conditions as the project site. Therefore, there is nothing unusual about the terrain or vegetation of the project site. In the same vein, the seismic conditions of the project site do not constitute unusual circumstances in Los Gatos, and particularly as compared to the immediate project vicinity, because the risk for strong seismic- induced ground shaking exists throughout Los Gatos and is identical at the immediately adjacent properties that are already developed with residential dwellings . Further, the risk for strong seismically- induced ground shaking is present throughout most of the greater San Francisco Bay Area due to the many active fault lines located throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. As such, the project site’s proximity to a fault line and potential to experience strong ground shaking during a seismic event are not unusual circumstances. Given the project site’s proximity to a fault line and the site topography, the project site is located in an area mapped as an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone, which indicates the potential for seismically-induced landslides to occur in these mapped areas. However, a site -specific Geotechnical Page 4 September 2020 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard , Suite 1250, San José, California 92113 (669) 800-4130 Report and geologic Report were prepared and signed by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer and a Certified Engineering Geologist , respectively (See Attachment C and D). These reports were also peer reviewed, and the peer reviews are included in Attachment C and D. The Geotechnical Report concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed dwelling s from a geotechnical standpoint and that the Geologic Report concluded that the landslide risk for the project site is negligible. The mapped potential for landslide risk is superseded by the site-specific study indicating there is negligible landslide risk on the project site. Therefore, the geologic and geotechnical considerations for the project are not unusual circumstances. Further, while no construction is proposed at this time, should future construction proceed, the design of the dwellings will require site-specific engineering to obtain a building permit. The Town of Los Gatos has determined, based on substantial evidence, that there are no unusual circumstances related to this project . Notwithstanding, for the purposes of transparency and context , the following analysis evaluates the potential for environmental impacts as result of the project (not as a result of unusual circumstances). The proposed project is a minor subdivision to divide one residential lot into three lots with construction of a driveway to connect the two new lots to the existing Surmont Drive , and future construction of two single family residential homes . A biologist from H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted a single -day site visit to the project site in October 2019 to identify habitats present onsite and determine if the site supports potentially suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal which are known to occur regionally. The results of the field survey are compiled in memo attached to this notice (Attachment A). The biologists found that no special-status plant species have the potential to occur on the project site and the project, with implementation of the Town’s standard conditions of approval, would not have a significant effect on special status animal species . The Town of Los Gatos receives its utility services from: San Jose Water Company; West Valley Sanitation District; Guadalupe Landfill; and the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Cont rol Plant. The existing buildings on the project site have been adequately serviced and the project site will continue to be adequately serviced with the new development. Therefore, the project would not require construction of any new public service or ut ility facilities that would result in environmental impacts. The project entails construction of a new driveway to connect the two new lots to the existing Surmont Drive, which would ensure sufficient access to the proposed parcels. As noted in Attachment A, the proposed driveway would be located adjacent to a n ephemeral drainage feature, which is potentially a jurisdictional drainage feature. Portions of the proposed driveway would be located within the required 20-foot slope stability protection area for the ephemeral drainage feature on the site (Santa Clara Valley Water District's Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams). To prevent indirect impacts on water quality within the drainage and in the downslope watershed, the project will construct a two-foot tall retaining wall in between the driveway and the drainage feature for the 30-foot portion of the driveway closest to the drainage feature. The retaining wall will be constructed just above the top of bank to protect the bank and avoid any erosion form the construction of the driveway into the ephemeral drainage feature. No project work will be inside the bed and bank of the ephemeral drainage feature. A slope stability analysis was also conducted and peer reviewed for the proposed site work encroaching into the slope stability protection area (Attachment C ). However, as detailed in Attachment A, with Page 5 September 2020 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard , Suite 1250, San José, California 92113 (669) 800-4130 implementation of the Town’s standard conditions of approval for water quality, the project would not have a significant effect on any jurisdictional waters or on water quality. The project would not have a reasonable potential to have any significant effects on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project , with standard conditions of approval, would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances . d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. There are no state designated scenic highways on the project site or in the near vicinity of the project site. The nearest highway to the project site is State Route (SR) 17, located approximately 2.68 miles west of SR 17. However, SR 17 is not a designated scenic highway within the Town of Los Gatos and the project site is not visible from SR 17, or any other public rights -of-way that are designated as a scenic resource. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to affect a scenic resource. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Gove rnment Code. Per Figure 8.7-1, Hazardous Materials Sites in the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Background Report, there are no hazardous waste sites located at or within the local vicinity of the project site. According to the Geotracker Website, administered by the California State Water Quality Control Board, there are no listed sites within 1,500 feet of the project site. Therefore, the site is not included on a hazardous materials list. f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Per the Town of Los Gatos Interactive GIS Map, the project site is not a designated historic site and is not located within an historic district. According to records, t he existing single family residential home on-site was built in 1929, and is therefore potentially historical, absent any evaluation from the Town determining the structure has no significance. However, the two new single family residential homes allowed by the project would be located on separate lots from the existing single-family residence to remain on the remainder parcel. Construction of the two new single family structures would not effect the existing residential structure, and no modifications to the existing structure are proposed as part of the project. As such, the project would not cause any substantial adverse changes to the significance of a potential historical resource. As previously mentioned, the site’s zoning is Hillside Residential, with no Historic Preservation Overlay. There are no known archaeological resources or human remains on the project site, however ground disturbance associated with any future construction would have the potential to inadvertently discover previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains . Page 6 September 2020 kimley-horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard , Suite 1250, San José, California 92113 (669) 800-4130 The Town’s standard condition of approval regarding inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and human remains , would ensure any potential impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 and Section 15315, Class 15. The proposed project characterizes the new construction allowed by the Class 3 CE and the minor land division allowed by the Class 15 CE. The proposed project complies with the Town’s general plan designation and zoning for the project site, utilities and public services would not be impacted, and the proposed project does not fall within the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. The project, with standard conditions of approval, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Project Site ^_ TOWN OF LOS GATOS C:\Users\Maria.Rodriguez\OneDrive - KH\SJC_400 Surmont_CE_Los Gatos\LocalVicinity_LosGatos_CE.mxd FIGURE 1: Local Vicinity Map 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County [ 0 0.5 1Miles LEGEND Project Site (400 Surmont Drive) Town of Los Gatos Boundary ^_ SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018. FIGURE 2: Parcel Map 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County [ Attachment A: Biological Resources Report 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report Project #4374-01 Prepared for: Danae Hall Kimley-Horn 100 West San Fernando Street , Suite #250 San José, CA 95113 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report ii H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Standard Conditions................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Nesting Birds.................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Roosting Bats ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.3 San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrats ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 2. Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Background Review................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Site Visit .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Section 3. Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................................11 3.1 General Project Area Description.......................................................................................................................11 3.2 General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use ..................................................................................................11 3.2.1 Ruderal Grassland .........................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 Coast Live Oak Woodland...........................................................................................................................14 3.2.3 Ephemeral Drainage .....................................................................................................................................15 Section 4. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats........................................................................................17 4.1 Special-Status Plant Species .................................................................................................................................17 4.2 Special-Status Animal Species..............................................................................................................................20 4.3 Sensitive and Regulated Habitats ........................................................................................................................22 Section 5. CEQA Discussion .....................................................................................................................................24 5.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species ......................................................................................................................25 5.1.1 Special-Status Plants (No Impact) ..............................................................................................................25 5.1.2 Impacts on the San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat (Less than Significant) .................................25 5.1.3 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant) ....................................................................................25 5.1.4 Roosting Bats (No Impact)..........................................................................................................................26 5.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities ....................................................................................................................26 5.2.1 Impacts on Riparian Habitat, or Other Sensitive Natural Communities (No Impact) ......................26 5.3 Impacts on Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................26 5.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................................27 5.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies....................................................................................................28 5.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Protected Trees (Less than Significant)............................................28 5.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.........................................................29 5.7 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................................................................29 Section 6. References ...................................................................................................................................................31 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Project Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Biotic Habitats ..............................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4. CNDDB -Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants ..............................................................................19 Figure 5. CNDDB -Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals ..........................................................................21 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report iii H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 List of Preparers Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist Robin Carle, M.S., Project Manager/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Jillian Pastick, M.S.., Plant Ecologist Christian Knowlton, B.S., Wildlife Ecologist 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 1 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 1. Introduction This report describes the biological resources present within and adjacent to the proposed 400 Surmont Drive project site, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed development on biological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report was prepared to facilitate CEQA review of the project. 1.1 Project Description The approximately 2.8-acre project site is located at 400 Surmont Drive in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1), and the site is bounded by residential development to the north and mown fields surrounding residential development to the east, west, and south (Figure 2). The project site currently consists of undeveloped grasslands with a number of trees. A private residence and horse facility is located approximately 180 feet south of the site within the existing parcel. The proposed project entails the subdivision of the existing parcel to create two new lots, as well as the future development of two new single-family residences on the site (one on each new lot) at a later date. 1.2 Standard Conditions The project will comply with standard conditions to protect nesting birds, roosting bats, San Fr ancisco dusky- footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and water quality on the project site, as described below. 1.2.1 Nesting Birds To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Construction activities that include any tree removal, pruning, grading, grubbing, or demolition shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If this type of construction starts, if work is scheduled to start or if work already occurring during the nesting season stops for at least two weeks and is scheduled to resume during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction surveys for nesting birds t o ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction. If project -related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. Two surveys for active nests of such birds shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the second survey conducted with 48 hours prior to star t of construction. Appropriate minimum survey radius surrounding each work area is typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nes ting activities. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintain ed until 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest i s no longer active. 1.2.2 Roosting Bats Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed and in trees within 50 feet of the development footprint. These surveys will include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and no further measures are required. If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents will be prepared prior to grading permit issuance and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures will be implemented: a.If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they will be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery sea son, they will be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats will be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50 -foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the California department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) will be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities includ ing tree removal or structure disturbance will occur until after the nursery season. b.If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures scheduled to be disturbed by project activities, the individuals will be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If pre -construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees to be 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one -way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qual ified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other methods conducted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance of any structures will be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night will be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/structure disturbance). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation. 1.2.3 San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrats This project will implement the following standard measures to minimize impacts on woodrats and active woodrat nests on the project site. •Preconstruction Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within 30 days of the start of work activities. If active woodrat nests are determined to be present in, or within 10 feet of the impact areas, the conditions below (Avoidance and/or Nest Relocation) will be implemented, as appropriate. If no active woodrat nests are present on or within 10 feet of impact areas, no further conditions are warranted. •Avoidance. Active woodrat nests that are detected within the work area will be avoided to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10 -foot buffer will be maintained between project activities and wo odrat nests to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, nest relocation (below) would represent a greater disturbance to the woodrats than the adjacent work activities. •Nest Relocation. If avoidance of active woodrat nests within and immediately adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the work areas is not feasible, then nest materials will be relocated to suitable habitat as close to the project site as possible (ideally, within or immediately adjacent to the project site). Relocation efforts will avoid the peak nesting season (February –July) to the maximum extent feasible. Prior to the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist will disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the construction area. Disturbance of the woodrat nest will be initiated no earlier than one hour before dusk to prevent the exposure of woodrats to diurnal predators. Subsequently, the biologist will dismantle and relocate the nest material by hand. During the deconstruction process, the biologist will attempt to assess if there are juveniles in the nest. If immobile juveniles are observed, the deconstruction process will be discontinued until a time w hen the biologist 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 believes the juveniles will be capable of independent survival (typically after 2 to 3 weeks). A no -disturbance buffer will be established around the nest until the juveniles are mobile. The nest may be dismantled once the biologist has determined that adverse impacts on the juveniles would not occur. 1.2.4 Water Quality The project will implement best management practices (BMPs) as described in this section to avoid and minimize impacts on water quality in the ephemeral drainage on the project site. It is our understanding that the project will maintain a 20-foot setback from the ephemeral drainage feature for avoidance purposes, with the exception of a driveway that will be constructed adjacent to the drainage . As a result, the project will not result in direct impacts on jurisdictional wetlands or waters. Indirect impacts on water quality due the construction of single-family residences on the project site will be avoided and minimized by implementing erosion and sediment control measures, as well as BMPs for work near aquatic environments. Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1 acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009 -0009- DWQ). Prior to the start of construction, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of BMPs to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Sta ndard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wa sh racks, among other factors. In many Bay Area counties, including Santa Clara County, projects must also comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Fra ncisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Water Board Order No. R2 -2009-0074). This permit requires that all projects implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design that prevents stormwater runoff pollu tion, promotes infiltration, and hold/slows down the volum e of water coming from a site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors . In April 2019, Live Oak Associates prepared a memorandum for the project proponent to evaluate the ephemeral drainage with respect to the Town of Los Gatos’ stream setbac k guidance. As discussed below, the Town of Los Gatos has adopted guidance from the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Valley Water 2006). In its evaluation, Live Oak Associates characterized the aquatic feature as an ephemeral channel, which only flows following storm events and has no other water source aside from storm water runoff from adjacent hillsides, which agrees with the determination made in this report. According to that evaluation, the 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 5 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 recommended minimum Slope Stability Protec tion Area (or setback for ephemeral aquatic features such as the drainage along the site’s western boundary) for structures is between 10 to 20 feet, with the exact setback determined at the discretion of the local jurisdiction (Live Oak Associates 2019). Exceptions may be granted to allow a structure or driveway to be located within the slope stability protection area where a slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance or repair of the stream will be provided. In February 2020, Live Oak Associates conducted a follow-up survey to evaluate the location of the proposed wall adjacent the new driveway in relation to the bed and bank of the ephemeral drainage (Live Oak Associates 2020). This assessment confirmed that the wall and driveway will be outside the top of bank of the feature. Project measures as described below will ensure that indirect impacts to water quality downstream of the drainage will be avoided. H. T. Harvey & Associates concurs with the results and recommendations provided in the two memoranda prepared by Live Oak Associates. All project work will be outside the bed and bank of ephemeral drainage feature on the project site, though the proposed driveway will be directly adjacent and immediately outside the top of bank at its downslope end (i.e. in the northwest corner of the parcel). The project proposes a 30 -foot long by 2 -foot tall retaining wall to be constructed just above the top of bank to protect the bank and avoid any erosion from construction of the driveway into the ephemeral drainage. In addition, this project will implement the following conditions to minimize impacts on water quality within the ephemeral drainage (Note: many of these conditions are overlapping conditions with what will be required for compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit [Water Board Order No. R2 -2009- 0074] as described above). •All construction activities in the ephemeral drainage shall be avoided. Within the Slo pe Stability Protection Area, grading will be minimized to the extent necessary and existing contours and slopes shall be maintained. •Existing native vegetation adjacent the drainage shall be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the construction of the retaining wall. When possible, a vegetated buffer strip between staging/excavation areas and the drainage shall be maintained. •Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetati ve buffer strips) shall be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the ephemeral drainage. Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control measures will be placed at the top of bank of the drainage or the edge of the Slope Stability Protection Area where possible. The erosion control measure should follow the approaches and details outlined in the Bank Protection/ Erosion Repair Design Guide in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Valley Water 2006). •All disturbed soils shall be revegetated with native plants and/or grasses or sterile nonnative species suitable for the altered soil conditions upon completion of construction. Local watershed native plants will be used if available. If sterile nonnative species are used for temporary erosion control, native seed mixtures must 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 be used in subsequent treatments to provide long-term erosion control and slow colonization by invasive nonnatives. All disturbed areas that have been compacted shall be de -compacted prior to planting or seeding. Cut-and-fill slopes will be planted with local native or non-invasive plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. Again, revegetation of disturbed soils shall follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidel ines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Valley Water 2006). •No stockpiling or placement of erodible materials shall be allow with 20 feet of the ephemeral drainage or along areas of natural stormwater flow where materials could be washed into waterways . •No equipment servicing shall be done within 20 feet of the ephemeral drainage, unless equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators). •Construction personnel shall prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water into channels. Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). Personnel shall implement measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, and all construction waste will be disposed of in designated areas to prevent stormwater from flowing onto or off of these areas •Potential contaminating materials must be stored in covered storage areas or secondary cont ainment that is impervious to leaks and spills. Runoff pathways shall be free of trash containers or trash storage areas. Trash storage areas shall be screened or walled. •Vehicles and equipment shall be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously di sturbed areas. 0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles N:\Projects4300\4374-01\Reports\400 Surmont Drive BRR\Fig 1. Vicinity Map.mxd akaiserProject Location Figure 1. Vicinity Map400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report and Constraints Analysis (4374-01) PacificOcean MONTEREY SANTA CLARA ALAMEDA SAN BENITO STANISLAUS SAN JOAQUIN CONTRA COSTA SANTA CRUZ SAN MATEO MERCED MARIN SAN FRANCISCO Salinas Oakland San Jose Stockton Hollister Santa Cruz San Rafael Redwood City San Francisco Detail California 0 20 Miles Project Vicinity We s t h i l l D rRegent DrBela g atosLnBelagatos RdHeintz Ct Surmont CtSurmont DrBlossom Hill Rd 400 0 400200 Feet N:\Projects4300\4374-01\Reports\400 Surmont Drive BRR\Fig 2. Biological Study Area.mxd akaiserFigure 2. Project Site400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report and Constraints Analysis (4374-01) Legend Project Site H e i n t z O p e n S p a c eP r e s e r v e Belgatos Park S a n t a R o s aO p e n S p a c eP r e s e r v e 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 2. Methods 2.1 Background Review Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed the project plans and description provided by Kimley-Horn in October 2019 ; aerial photos (Google Inc. 2020) and topographic maps; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2020); Calflora (2020); the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020); bird records from the project vicinity reported to the eBird data base (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2020), which has been established by the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology to archive records of birds seen worldwide; and other relevant scientific literature and technical databases in order to assess the current distribution of special-status plants and animals in the site vicinity. In addition, for plants we reviewed all species on the current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B lists occurring in the Los Gatos, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle in which the project is located, as well as the surrounding eight quadrangles (Cupertino, San Jose West , San Jose East , Castle Rock Ridge, Santa Teresa Hills, Felton, Laurel, and Loma Prieta, California) using both the CNDDB and CNPS databases. Quadrangle-level results are not maintained for CRPR 3 and 4 species, so we also conducted a search of CNPS Inventory records for these species occurring in San Mateo County (CNPS 2020). In addition, we queried the CNDDB for natural communities of special concern that occur in the project vicinity . For the purposes of this report, the “project vicinity” encompasses a 5 -mile radius surrounding the project site. In addition, H. T. Harvey & Associates peer-reviewed two memoranda prepared by Live Oak Associates for the Town of Los Gatos. In April 2019, Live Oak Associates prepared a memorandum for the project proponent to evaluate the ephemeral drainage with respect to the Town of Los Gato s’ stream setback guidance, and in February 2020, they produced a follow up memorandum to evaluate the location of the proposed wall adjacent the new driveway in relation to the bed and bank of the ephemeral drainage (Live Oak Associates 2019 and 2020). The findings of these m emoranda were utilized in the impact analysis with respect to potential project impacts on jurisdictional waters and/or sensitive communities. 2.2 Site Visit Following our background review, H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist Jillian Pastick, M.S., and wildlife ecologists Christian Knowlton, B.S., and Robin Carle, M.S., conducted a reconnaissance -level survey of the project site on October 24, 2019. The purpose of this survey was to identify existing biological conditions and the site’s potential to support special-status species of plants and animals, as well as sensitive/regulated habitats such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, potential waters of the state, and/or riparian habitats. The survey included an assessment of habitats for special-status species both on the site and in adjacent areas (e.g., in developed and landscaped areas on adjacent properties) that could be impacted either directly or indirectly by proposed activities, as well as an assessment 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 of adjacent habitats that could potentially support source populations of sensitive species that could then disperse onto the project site. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 3. Environmental Setting 3.1 General Project Area Description Historical aerial imagery indicates that the project site was formerly agricultural, and appears to have been planted with orchard trees (Google Inc. 2020). The site currently consists of a disked field with several remnant orchard trees. A dirt access road is present along the western boundary of the site that leads to the residence and horse stable at the southern end of the existing parcel. A n ephemeral drainage is present off -site just west of the dirt road, and this drainage runs south to north from the residence to a culvert and storm drain at Surmont Drive. Elevation on the project site ranges from approximately 335 to 422 feet above sea lev el (Google Earth 2020). The Natural Resource Conservation Service has mapped two soil units on the project site: Alo-Altamont complex, 15 to 30 % slopes and Alo-Altamont complex, 30 to 50 % slopes (Natural Resource Conservation Service 2020). These soil types have a variable profile and are considered well-drained and not ideal for farmland. 3.2 General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use The project site and surrounding areas have been heavily modified by anthropogenic activities as a result of residential development and agricultural impacts. The reconnaissance-level survey identified three habitat/land use types on the project site: ruderal grassland (2.3 acres), coast live oak woodland (0.5 a cre), and ephemeral drainage (<0.1 acre). These habitat/land use types are described in detail below and are shown on Figure 3 . 100 0 10050 Feet N:\Projects4300\4374-01\Reports\400 Surmont Drive BRR\Fig 3. Biotic Habitats .mxd akaiserFigure 3. Biotic Habitats400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report and Constraints Analysis (4374-01) Legend Project Site Culvert Ephemeral Drainage 20-foot Setback Biotic Habitats Coast Live Oak Woodland Ruderal GrasslandSurmont DrWesthill Dr Surmont Ct 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 3.2.1 Ruderal Grassland Vegetation. Ruderal (i.e. disturbed) grassland habitat is the most extensive vegetation community on the project site (Photo 1). At the time of the reconnaissance survey, this habitat was entirely disked (in open areas) or mowed and partially disked (beneath trees). Based on evaluation of the remaining stubble, it appears that prior to mowing and disking the vegetation was largely dominated by non-native grasses such as wild oat (Avena fatua ) and various bromes (Bromus spp.). Intermittent patches of stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) are also present as well. There were also a few orchard trees scattered throughout the grassland habitat, including the rootstock of stone fruit (Prunus sp.), which are likely remnants from an historical orchard on the site. Wildlife. Wildlife use of grasslands on the project site is limited by human disturbance (e.g., due to regular disking and mowing), the small extent of the grassland habitat, and the isolation of this habitat from more extensive grasslands in the region. As a result, some of the wildlife species associated with extensive grasslands in the South Bay, such as the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum ), are absent from the grasslands on the project site. In addition, due to the minimal vegetation present, this habitat provides limited foraging opportunities for wildlife species that may inhabit adjacent developed or woodland areas and forage on the site opportunistically. Bird species that occur on the site are primarily associated with surrounding developed and woodland areas and use the grasslands and remnant orchard trees on the site for foraging. These include the California towhee (Melozone crissalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura ), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria ), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna ), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Birds are not expected to nest on the ground in the grassland habitat on the site due to the mown/disked conditions; however, small numbers of common bird species such as the Anna’s hummingbird and mourning dove may nest in the remnant orchard trees within this habitat. Burrows of California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) are present beneath trees along the western boundary of the site where the grassland area is mown instead of disked. These fossorial mammals are an important component of grassland communities, providing a prey base for diurnal raptors and terrestrial predators. Other rodent species that can potentially occur in the grassland habitat on the site include the California vole (Microtus californicus) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Diurnal raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperi) forage for these Photo 1. Ruderal grassland habitat. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 small mammals on the site during the day, and at night nocturnal species, such as barn owls (Tyto alba) and great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), will forage for nocturnal rodents, such as deer mice. Several reptile species may occur in the ruderal grassland habitat, including the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Mammals such as the native striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis latrans) as well as the nonnative Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus) and feral cat (Felis catus) are likely to occasionally forage in the se grasslands. Common species of bat, such as the Mexican free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) may forage aerially over this habitat for insects. 3.2.2 Coast Live Oak Woodland Vegetation. A small portion of the site contains a coast live oak woodland (Photo 2 ). Within the south west portion of the project site, this habitat is situated on a westward-facing slope (30 –40%) and abuts the dirt road that runs along the western boundary of the site. This habitat is dominated by mature, closely spaced coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees. The understory of the coast live oak woodland is mowed, partially disked, and mostly devoid of any vegetation, except for small patches of wild oats around the bases of trees. Wildlife. Woodlands dominated by oaks typically support diverse animal communities in California. Coast live oaks provide cavities, bark crevices, and complex branching growth that create shelter for wildlife species, and these trees produce mast crops that are an important food source for many birds and mammals. However, the coast live oak woodland habitat on the project site is limited in extent, with a mown understory that is nearly devoid of vegetation. As a result, this habitat provides fewer structural resources and foraging opportunities for wildlife species compared to more natural and/or more extensive oak woodlands in the region. Nevertheless, due to the close proximity of Heintz Open Space immediately west of the site, species associated with more extensive oak woodlands in the open space area may utilize the oak woodland habitat on the site for breeding and foraging. Birds such as the California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica ), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) may nest and forage in oaks on the project site, and the acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) and California quail (Callipepla californica) may forage for acorns on the site and nest in the adjacent Heintz Open Space . Other birds expected to use this habitat are the wintering ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) and Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi). Raptors such as the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk may forage for prey in this woodland. These species could also potentially nest in the limited oak woodland present Photo 2. Coast live oak woodland habitat. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 15 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 on the site, but no active or inactive raptor nests were detected during the site visit, suggesti ng that raptors have not nested on the site in recent years. Because the oak woodland habitat on the site lacks understory cover and vegetation, amphibian and reptile species that are typically associated with dense leaf cover and coarse woody debris in wooded habitats are not expected to occur here. Reptiles associated with the adjacent grassland habitat, such as the western fence lizard and Pacific gopher snake, may forage in the mown understories. Burrows of native California ground squirrels and Botta’s pocket gophers were observed beneath these trees during the site visit, and several nests of the nonnative eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) were present in the oak trees. Mammals that forage in grasslands on the site such as the striped skunk, black -tailed deer, and coyote as well as the nonnative Virginia opossum and feral cat are expected to forage in this habitat. No cavities or crevices were observed in oaks on the site that provide high-quality roosting habitat for bats. 3.2.3 Ephemeral Drainage An ephemeral drainage feature is located along the western boundary of the project site (Photo 3). The drainage is situated in a topographically low position relative to the adjacent slopes and is located in what historically (i.e. prior to the development of the area) would have been the bottom of a ravine. Presently, the drainage appears to only convey flows following storm event s in winter months, and the majority of the flow in the channel is likely contributed by run-off from the adjacent road. There was no observed flowing or standing water within the drainage during the October 24, 2019 site visit. The channel bottom of the ephemeral drainage is approximately 1 foot wide. The width of the channel (and what would be considered its ordinary high water mark [OWHM] during periods of flow following storm events) is approximately 2 feet. The channel banks are earthen and largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of a small patch of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) found near the culvert at the downstream end. The drainage is within the canopy cover of the adjacent coast live oak woodland as well as remnant orchard trees rooted on the hillside upslope of the drainage. There is no riparian vegetation associated with the drainage. The culvert at the downstream end of drainage (at the northeast corner of the project site) is an 18 -inch concrete culvert, which conveys run- off from the site into the storm drain system in the neighborhood to the north. The storm drain system in the neighborhood flows into Ross Creek approximately 1 mile north of the project site and subsequently into Guadalupe Creek in the City of San José. Photo 3. Ephemeral drainage located adjacent to the western border of the project site. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 16 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Wildlife. The ephemeral (short-lived) nature of the drainage along the western boundary of the project site precludes the presence of fish and aquatic wildlife species , and wildlife use of this drainage is similar to that described for the ruder al grassland and coast live oak woodland habitats above. During rain events when the drainage conveys flow, this feature may be utilized as a water source for bird and mammal species, as well as a dispersal corridor for common species of amphibians such as the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris sierra) and California newt (Taricha torosa). 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 17 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 4. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special -status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the project, special-status species have been defined as described below. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are: •Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. •Listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. •Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: •Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. •Listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. •Designated by the CDFW as a Califor nia species of special concern. •Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515). Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special -status species that potentially occur on the project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in Section 2.1 above. 4.1 Special-Status Plant Species The CNPS (2020) and CNDDB (2020) identified 92 special-status plant species as known or potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles containing or surrounding the project site. The majority of the site is ruderal grassland, which may have historically been in orchard production, and which is presently mowed and disked. The small amount of coast live woodland in the southwest corner of the property is also heavily disturbed in the understory, with limited understory herbaceous vegetation, and also being mowed and disked in this area, in many cases right up to the trees. Due to the current and recent historical 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 18 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 land use involving frequent and continued disturbance of native vegetation, as well as the lack of specialized habitats (e.g. serpentine soils, wetlands, etc.) on the site, none of the special-status plant species identified in the background review have potentia l to occur on the project site. Figure 4 shows the CNDDB -mapped records of special-status plants within a 5-mile radius of the project site. A total of 14 special-status species have been known to occur within a 5 -mile radius of the project site, including: r obust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta), hairless popcornflower (Plagiobothrys glaber), arcuate bush- mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus), woodland woollythreads (Monolopia gracilens), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa), Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon), smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata), most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea ), Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii), San Francisco Collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), and chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) (CNDDB 2020). Though the project site is within the appropriate elevational range for each of these special-status species, no appropriate habitat and edaphic conditions exist to support these species. Robust spineflower is found in sandy or gravelly openings in chaparral, scrub, or grassland habitats, and these edaphic conditions do not occur on the project site. Woodland woollythreads, Loma Prieta hoita, Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle, smooth lessingia, most beautiful jewelflower , fragrant fritillary , Santa Clara Valley dudleya, and San Francisco collinsia all occur on serpentine soils, which do not occur on the project site. A rcuate bush-mallow can occur in woodland habitats, but is more associated with chaparral, which does not occur on the project site; additionally, no shrubs in the genus Malacothamnus (which are apparent and identifiable to genus year -round) were observed on the project site . Chaparral ragwort occurs in dry, open rocky areas in chaparral or scrub habitats, often in alkaline soils, which do not occur on the site. Congdon’s tarplant is the one special-status plant which is known to occasionally occur in disturbed annual grassland habitat. This plant, which blooms from May to October, would have been blooming and identifiable at the time of the survey. The plant ecologist conducting the site visit for this project also surveyed for and observed Congdon’s tarplant at the Sunnyvale Baylands Park , in Sunnyvale, California, on October 23, 2019. Given the small size of the 400 Surmount Drive project site, she was able to survey the entirety o f the project site for Congdon’s tarpla nt. No Congdon’s tarplant was observed on this site and it is presumed to be absent. Thus, no special-status plant species are expected to be present on the project site. robustrobustspineflowerspineflower Congdon'sCongdon'starplanttarplant SanSanFranciscoFranciscocollinsiacollinsia Loma PrietaLoma Prietahoitahoita woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads dwarfdwarfsoaprootsoaproot woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads arcuatearcuatebush-mallowbush-mallow robustrobustspineflowerspineflower hairlesshairlesspopcornflowerpopcornflower chaparralchaparralragwortragwort San FranciscoSan Franciscocollinsiacollinsia Santa ClaraSanta Clarared ribbonsred ribbons smoothsmoothlessingialessingia smoothsmoothlessingialessingia smoothsmoothlessingialessingia SantaSantaClara redClara redribbonsribbons woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya SantaSantaClara ValleyClara Valleydudleyadudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya smoothsmoothlessingialessingia Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleyaSanta ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya Santa Clara ValleySanta Clara Valleydudleyadudleya SantaSantaClara Valley dudleyaClara Valley dudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya arcuatearcuatebush-mallowbush-mallowarcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow smoothsmoothlessingialessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingiasmooth lessingiasmooth lessingia most beautifulmost beautifuljewelflowerjewelflowerarcuatearcuatebush-mallowbush-mallow Santa ClaraSanta Clarared ribbonsred ribbons smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smoothsmoothlessingialessingiasmoothsmoothlessingialessingia smoothsmoothlessingialessingia most beautifulmost beautifuljewelflowerjewelflower Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya arcuatearcuatebush-mallowbush-mallow Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Mt. HamiltonMt. Hamiltonthistlethistle woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValley dudleyaValley dudleya Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya westernwesternleatherwoodleatherwood Metcalf CanyonMetcalf Canyonjewelflowerjewelflower Hall'sHall'sbush-mallowbush-mallow Hall'sHall'sbush-mallowbush-mallowHall's bush-mallowHall's bush-mallow Mt. HamiltonMt. Hamiltonthistlethistle Mt. HamiltonMt. Hamiltonthistlethistle Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma PrietaLoma Prietahoitahoita Loma PrietaLoma Prietahoitahoita Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma PrietaLoma Prietahoitahoita Mt. HamiltonMt. Hamiltonthistlethistle Loma PrietaLoma Prietahoitahoita mostmostbeautiful jewelflowerbeautiful jewelflower most beautifulmost beautifuljewelflowerjewelflower Mt. HamiltonMt. Hamiltonthistlethistle Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smoothsmoothlessingialessingia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya MetcalfMetcalfCanyonCanyonjewelflowerjewelflower smoothsmoothlessingialessingia western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood SantaSantaClara redClara redribbonsribbons woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLomaLomaPrieta hoitaPrieta hoita most beautifulmost beautifuljewelflowerjewelflower LomaLomaPrieta hoitaPrieta hoitaSanta ClaraSanta Clarared ribbonsred ribbons fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary rock saniclerock sanicle LomaLomaPrietaPrietahoitahoita SantaSantaClara ValleyClara Valleydudleyadudleya most beautifulmost beautifuljewelflowerjewelflower woodlandwoodlandwoollythreadswoollythreads fragrantfragrantfritillaryfritillary Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya SantaSantaClara ValleyClara Valleydudleyadudleya Hall'sHall'sbush-mallowbush-mallow Santa ClaraSanta ClaraValleyValleydudleyadudleya smoothsmoothlessingialessingia Serpentine BunchgrassSerpentine Bunchgrass SerpentineSerpentineBunchgrassBunchgrass Figure 4. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report and Constraints Analysis (4374-01) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles N:\Projects4300\4374-01\Reports\400 Surmont Drive BRR\Fig 4. CNDDB Plants.mxdLegend Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Project Location Plants General Area Terrestrial Communities 5-mile Radius CNDDB Records 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 20 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 4.2 Special-Status Animal Species We identified several special-status animal species as potentially occurring in the project vicinity, and Figure 5 shows CNDDB -mapped records of special-status animals in the site vicinity . However, the majority of these species were determined to be absent from the project site. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, are as follows: •The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened, and the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a Califor nia species of special concern, occurred historically in the project vicinity. No suitable breeding habitat for these species occurs on the site, and both species have been extirpated from the majority of the project region, including the entire urbanized Santa Clara Valle y floor, due to development, the alteration of hydrology of its aquatic habitats, and the introduction of nonnative predators such as non -native fishes and bullfrogs (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997, Santa Clara Valley Water District 2011). As a result, these species are determined to be absent from the project site. •The foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, occurred historically in the project vicinity . No aquatic habitat to support this species occurs on the site (or adjacent to the site in the ephemeral drainage), and this species has been extirpated from Valley floor areas of Santa Clara County, and is no longer known to occur along the County’s streams belo w major reservoirs (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999 ). As a result, this species is determined to be absent from the project site. •Burrows of California ground squirrels on the site provide ostensibly suitable roosting habitat for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern. However, all of these burrows are located under trees, which provide perches for predatory raptors (e.g., hawks, owls and falcons) that prey upon burrowing owls, and the adjacent grassland habitat provides limited foraging habitat due to high levels of disturbance (i.e., due to disking) and its small size. As a result, the site provides only very low - quality habitat for this species due to high levels of disturbance and the presence of trees . Burrowing owls occur more widely in the South Bay during the nonbreeding season, but they are not known to nest or occur on the site or in nearby areas in the foothills of Los Gatos and south San José (CNDDB 2020, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2020). No burrowing owls or signs of recent burrowing owl use of the site (e.g., pellets, fecal material, or feathers) were observed on the site during the October 24, 2019 site visit. Due to the low-quality of the habitat on the site and the lack of recent or historical records of th e species from the surrounding area, burrowing owls are determined to be absent. CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTSCTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF North Central CoastNorth Central CoastDrainage SacramentoDrainage SacramentoSucker/Roach RiverSucker/Roach River northernnorthernCaliforniaCalifornialegless lizardlegless lizardyellow railyellow railwesternwesternbumble beebumble bee obscureobscurebumble beebumble bee CrotchCrotchbumble beebumble bee steelhead -steelhead -central Californiacentral Californiacoast DPScoast DPS steelhead - centralsteelhead - centralCalifornia coast DPSCalifornia coast DPSsteelhead -steelhead -central Californiacentral Californiacoast DPScoast DPS coho salmon -coho salmon -central Californiacentral Californiacoast ESUcoast ESU foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog Santa CruzSanta Cruzblack salamanderblack salamander obscureobscurebumble beebumble bee burrowing owlburrowing owl pallidpallidbatbat hoary bathoary bat foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrogSanta CruzSanta Cruzkangaroo ratkangaroo rat CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander Townsend'sTownsend'sbig-eared batbig-eared bat Townsend'sTownsend'sbig-eared batbig-eared bat hoary bathoary bat foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog obscureobscurebumble beebumble bee CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Santa Cruz blackSanta Cruz blacksalamandersalamander foothill yellow-leggedfoothill yellow-leggedfrogfrog black swiftblack swift westernwesternbumblebumblebeebee BayBaycheckerspotcheckerspotbutterflybutterfly golden eaglegolden eagle Opler'sOpler'slonghornlonghornmothmoth BayBaycheckerspotcheckerspotbutterflybutterfly CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander Opler'sOpler'slonghorn mothlonghorn moth CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander BayBaycheckerspotcheckerspotbutterflybutterfly burrowing owlburrowing owl westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle Bay checkerspotBay checkerspotbutterflybutterfly Santa Cruz blackSanta Cruz blacksalamandersalamander foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Hom'sHom'smicro-blindmicro-blindharvestmanharvestman purplepurplemartinmartin Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander greatgreatblue heronblue heron Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander SantaSantaCruz blackCruz blacksalamandersalamander CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog foothillfoothillyellow-leggedyellow-leggedfrogfrog Bay checkerspotBay checkerspotbutterflybutterfly tricoloredtricoloredblackbirdblackbird SantaSantaCruzCruzblack salamanderblack salamander SantaSantaCruz blackCruz blacksalamandersalamander western pondwestern pondturtleturtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle burrowing owlburrowing owl California giantCalifornia giantsalamandersalamander westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk CaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander Santa Cruz blackSanta Cruz blacksalamandersalamanderSanta CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander An isopodAn isopod western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Hom's micro-blindHom's micro-blindharvestmanharvestman San FranciscoSan Franciscodusky-footeddusky-footedwoodratwoodrat BayBaycheckerspotcheckerspotbutterflybutterfly westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle western pondwestern pondturtleturtlewesternwesternpond turtlepond turtle burrowingburrowingowlowl burrowing owlburrowing owl westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle SanSanFrancisco dusky-footedFrancisco dusky-footedwoodratwoodrat westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle tricoloredtricoloredblackbirdblackbird California giantCalifornia giantsalamandersalamander YumaYumamyotismyotis California giantCalifornia giantsalamandersalamanderCaliforniaCaliforniagiantgiantsalamandersalamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pondwestern pondturtleturtlewesternwesternpondpondturtleturtle AmericanAmericanbadgerbadger American badgerAmerican badger western pond turtlewestern pond turtlewestern pond turtlewestern pond turtle SantaSantaCruzCruzblack salamanderblack salamander Santa Cruz blackSanta Cruz blacksalamandersalamander westernwesternpondpondturtleturtle westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle AmericanAmericanbadgerbadger American badgerAmerican badger great bluegreat blueheronheron San FranciscoSan Franciscodusky-footeddusky-footedwoodratwoodrat Santa CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamander AmericanAmericanbadgerbadgerSanta CruzSanta Cruzblackblacksalamandersalamanderwestern pond turtlewestern pond turtle burrowing owlburrowing owl coastcoasthornedhornedlizardlizard burrowing owlburrowing owl SantaSantaCruz blackCruz blacksalamandersalamander westernwesternpond turtlepond turtle Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk pallid batpallid batwesternwesternpond turtlepond turtle Townsend'sTownsend'sbig-eared batbig-eared bat ospreyosprey westernwesternpondpondturtleturtle burrowing owlburrowing owl western pondwestern pondturtleturtle Figure 5. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report and Constraints Analysis(4374-01) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles N:\Projects4300\4374-01\Reports\400 Surmont Drive BRR\Fig 5. CNDDB Animals.mxdLegend Project Location 5-mile Radius Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Wildlife General Area Aquatic CNDDB Records Note: CTS = California Tiger Salamander,CRFL = California Red-legged Frog 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 22 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 •An examination of trees on the project site failed to detect any cavities or crevices large enough to provide high-quality habitat for a roosting or maternity colony of common or special -status bat species. Further, no sign of bats (e.g., guano or urine staining) was observed on trees on the project site. Special-status bats, including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), are not known to occur in the site vicinity, and are determined to be absent from the site due to a lack of suitable roosting habitat. In dividual bats may fly over the site or forage opportunistically on the site on occasion. The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a state fully protected species, occurs in open grasslands in the South Bay. However, the grasslands on the project site and in the immediate vicinity are not sufficiently extensive to support a nesting pair of this species, and white-tailed kites are not known to nest in the site vicinity. Occasional individuals may occur on the site or in adjacent open space areas as non-breeding foragers. The proposed project will have little impact on this species’ foraging habitat and no impacts on regional populations of the species. Therefore, this species is not discussed further in this report. One old nest of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, a California species of special concern, was observed in an oak tree on the project site; however, this nest was dilapidated and clearly inactive. Several active woodrat nests were observed at the edge of the adjacent Heintz Open Space west of the site, and woodrats that inhabit the open space area likely forage on the site occasionally. Suitable habitat for this species is present within oak woodland habitat on the project site; however, woodrats are unlikely to occupy the site in the future due to the lack of understory vegetation, which they rely on for foraging opportunities and cover. Nevertheless, given the presence of an old woodrat nest in a n oak tree on the site, the possibility that one or more woodrats may create new active nests in oak trees on the project site in the future cannot be ruled out. To address potential project impacts on dusky -footed woodrats that may occur on the project site, this species is discussed under Section 5 CEQA Discussion below. In summary, the only special-status animal species that can potentially occur on the project site are the white- tailed kite, which may occasionally occur on the site or in adjacent open space areas as a non-breeding forager, and the San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat, for which there is at least a low potential of nesting on the site . 4.3 Sensitive and Regulated Habitats Sensitive and regulated habitats are rare, ecologically valuable, and/or protected by federal, state, regional, and/or local laws. Generally, such habitats require permits from regulatory agencies if they are to be disturbed, altered, or lost. The CDFW ra nks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, tracked in the CNDDB. The most commonly regulated habitats are wetland and aquatic habitats including rivers, streams, ponds, and seasonal wetlands, which fall under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) via Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or the CDFW via Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 23 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities and Sensitive Vegetation Alliance and Associations . A query of sensitive natural communities in Rarefind (CNDDB 2020) identified three sensitive natural communities as occurring in the project vicinity: maritime coast range ponderosa pine forest (Rank G1/S1.1), northern maritime chaparral (G1/S1.2), and serpe ntine bunchgrass (Rank G2/S2.2). None of these sensitive natural communities occurs on the project site. The CDFW also maintains a list of vegetation alliances and associations within the state of California (CDFW 2020). This list includes global (G) and state (S) rarity ranks for associations and alliances. Alliances and associations currently ranked as S1 -S3 are considered highly imperiled. The California annual grassland and coast live oak woodland on the site do not correspond to any sensitive vegetation alliances or a ssociations as defined by CDFW. Waters of the U.S./State. H. T. Harvey & Associates’ reconnaissance-level survey of the project site and background review of available material was in agreement with the two memoranda prepared by Live Oak Associates for the Town of Los Gatos (Live Oak Associates 2019, Live Oak Associates 2020). The ephemeral drainage that is located along the boundary of the project site has potential to be considered a jurisdictional drainage by the USACE and/or RWQCB based on the fact that it is a channel with a bed and bank morphology (and therefore containing an ordinary high water mark ), and at least seasonal flow, and is hydrologically connected via the storm drain system north of the project site to Ross Creek approximately 1 mile to the north. In summary, the only sensitive or regulated habitat on the project site is the ephemeral drainage located along the site boundary. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 24 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 5. CEQA Discussion The State CEQA Guidelines provide direction for evaluating the impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the env ironment” 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 impacts on biological resources are deemed significant if 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” D.“reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan gered 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 eff ects. 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: A.“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” B.“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” C.“have a substantial adverse eff ect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means” D.“interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident o r migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” E.“conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” F.“conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 25 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Following is a brief assessment of potential project impacts on biological resources. The impact assessment below is structured based on the six significance criteria (A –F) listed above. 5.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modific ations, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant) 5.1.1 Special-Status Plants (No Impact) As described above, no special-status plant species have potential to occur on the project site. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these species, and no mitigation measures are warranted to avoid and minimize project impacts on special-status plants under CEQA . 5.1.2 Impacts on the San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat (Less than Significant) Suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is present in oak woodland habitat on the project site, and one old/inactive woodrat nest was observed in an oak tree on the si te during the October 2019 site visit. In our opinion, woodrats are unlikely to occupy the site in the future due to the lack of understory vegetation, which they rely on for foraging opportunities and cover. Nevertheless, given the presence of an old woodrat nest in an oak tree on the site, the possibility that one or more woodrats may create new active nests in oak trees on the site in the future cannot be ruled out. If one or more woodrats established active nests in trees on the site, we would expect them to be present in very low numbers (i.e., one or two individuals) due to the limited availability of foraging opportunities and cover in the immediate area. In our opinion, impacts of the project on, at most, one or two individual woodrats would not be considered significant under CEQA, as such an impact would represent a small proportion of the regional population of the species. Thus, in our opinion, no mitigation measures are warranted to avoid and minimize project impacts on woodrats under CEQA. Neve rtheless, the project will be required to implement standard conditions to avoid and minimize impacts on woodrats during project construction, as described in Section 1.2.3. 5.1.3 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant) Several species of common native birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code may nest in trees and shrubs on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The removal of vegetation supporting active nests may cause the dir ect loss of eggs or young, while construction-related activities located near an active nest may cause adults to abandon their eggs or young. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA, in our opinion, because of the local and regional abundan ces of the species that could potentially nest on the site and the very low magnitude of the potential impact of development on these species (i.e., the project is expected to impact only a few pairs of these species, which is not a substantial impact on their regional populations). Thus, in our opinion, no mitigation measures are warranted to avoid and minimize project impacts on nesting birds under CEQA. Nevertheless, per the 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 26 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 requirements of the Town of Los Gatos, the project will implement standard condi tions to avoid and minimize impacts on nesting birds during project construction, as described in Section 1.2.1. 5.1.4 Roosting Bats (No Impact) As discussed under Section 4.2 above, a n examination of trees on the project site failed to detect any cavities or crevices large enough to provide high-quality habitat for a roosting or maternity colony of common or special-status bat species. As a result, the project is not expected to impact common or special -status species of bats, and no mitigation measures are warr anted to avoid and minimize project impacts on roosting bats under CEQA, in our opinion. Nevertheless, per the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos, the project will implement standard conditions to avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats during proje ct construction, as described in Section 1.2.2. 5.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (No Impact) 5.2.1 Impacts on Riparian Habitat, or Other Sensitive Natural Communities (No Impact) The CDFW defines sensitive natural communities and vegetation alliances using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology (CDFW 2020), as described above in Section 4.3. Aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project impacts on sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, o r any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, were considered and ev aluated. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located on or adjacent to the project site, and thus, there will be no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as a result of the project. Indirect impacts to aquatic habitat due to water quality are discussed below under Section 5 .3. 5.3 Impacts on Wetlands : Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (Less than Significant) A potentially jurisdictional ephemeral drainage is located alo ng the western boundary of the project site. This drainage may be considered jurisdictional water s of the U.S. by the USACE, waters of the state by RWQCB, and/or waters subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and G ame Code. The Town of Los Gatos has adopted the guidance for evaluation of land use near streams provided in the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water’s) Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 27 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County (Valley Water 2006) Consistent with Section II.E. on page 3.8 of the Guidelines (“Slope Stability Protection Area for Single -Family Units”, page 3.8) and as determined by the Town of Los Gatos, the setback for the ephemeral aquatic feature on the site is 20 feet. This setback is shown on Figure 3. In our opinion, no additional setback from this drainage should be necessary given its relatively low ecological value. Where the project pr oposes features with the proposed setback described above, all project work will be outside the bed and bank of ephemeral drainage feature on the project site. The proposed driveway will be directly adjacent and immediately outside the top of bank at its d ownslope end (i.e. in the northwest corner of the parcel). To prevent indirect impacts on water quality within the drainage and in the downslope watershed, the project will construct a 30 -foot-long by 2 -foot-tall retaining wall in between the driveway and the drainage. The retaining wall will be constructed just above the top of bank to protect the bank and avoid any erosion from construction of the driveway into the ephemeral drainage. In addition, this project will implement the conditions to minimize impacts on water quality within the ephemeral drainage as described in Section 1.2.4. With the use of the proposed setback, the retaining wall, and the avoidance and minimization measures that will be part of the project, the project will not resu lt in direct impacts on jurisdictional wetlands or waters. As discussed in Section 1.2.4 above, the project will implement standard erosion control measures and BMPs for work near aquatic environments, and comply with the Town’s required setback for the co nstruction of new structures. Project compliance with these conditions will reduce potential project impacts on water quality to a less-than-significant level under CEQA, in our opinion, and no mitigation measures are warranted to avoid and minimize project impacts on water quality under CEQA, in our opinion. 5.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement: 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 (Less than Significant) For many species, the landscape is a mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between these different habitats while also providing cover. Development that fragments natural habitats (i.e., breaks them into smaller, dis junct pieces) can have a twofold impact on wildlife: first, as habitat patches become smaller they are unable to support as many individuals (patch size); and second, the area between habitat patches may be unsuitable for wildlife species to traverse (connectivity). The project site is situated on the edge of a dense matrix of urban development. Further, the ephemeral drainage on the site does not provide an important movement pathway for aquatic or terrestrial wildlife species, as the drainage does not support vegetative cover and holds water only ephemerally during rain events. As a result, the proposed redevelopment of the project site would not result in the fragmentation of natural habitats . While some wildlife species that occur in nearby natural areas may move through the site when traveling through the 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 28 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 area , they will continue to be able to move betwee n Heintz Open Space to the east and Belgatos Park to the west following construction of the new residences on the property, either by passing south of the new structures on the property or south of all development on the property (i.e., through the park, which connects from east to west south of the property). Thus, any wildlife species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so following project construction, and the project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors in the site vicinity. 5.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies : Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolog ical resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Less than Significant) 5.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Protected Trees (Less than Significant) According to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code, no person is allowed to unlawfully prune or remove any tree that qualifies as a “protected tree” (Los Gatos, CA Code of Ordinances, Sec. 29.10.0950). The Town considers a protected tree of significant size to be: •All trees which have a 12 -inch or greater diameter on a developed residential property . •All trees which have an 8 -inch or greater diameter on a developed hillside residential property. •All trees of the following species which have an 8 -inch or greater diameter (measured at 4.5 feet [54 inches] above natural grade) located on any developed re sidential property: o Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) o Black oak (Quercus kelloggii) o California buckeye (Aesculus californica ) o Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) •All trees which have a 4 -inch or greater diameter on a vacant or non-residential property. •All trees which have a 4 -inch or greater diameter when removal relates to any development review . •Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (6) of this section (e.g., landscape or site plans). •All trees, which have a 4 -inch or greater diameter (12.5 -inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on property other than developed residential property. •All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a public right-of -way easement, which have a 4 -inch or greater diameter (12.5-inch circumference) of any trunk. •A protected tree shall also include a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 29 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 •Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development approval, building permit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action . •Any large protected tree with a diameter of 48 inches or mor e, as well as all native oak species, California buckeye, and Pacific m adrone with a diameter of 24 inches or more . Many of the trees on the project site, including all remnant orchard trees greater than 24 -inches in diameter, as well as all coast live oak trees greater than 8 inches in diameter, would be considered protected trees by the Town of Los Gatos. A Tree Removal Permit will be required from the Town of Los Gatos for the removal or pruning of any protected trees. 5.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Con servation Plan: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Less Than Significant) The project site is not located within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans. 5.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. Future development activities in the Town will result in impacts on the same habitat types and species that will be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project, in combination with other projects in the area and other activities that impact the species that are affected by this project, could contribute to cumulative eff ects on special-status species. Other projects in the area include office/retail/commercial development, mixed use, and residential projects that could adversely affect these species. The cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from the project in combination with other projects in the larger region would be dependent on the relative magnitude of adverse effects of these projects on biological resources compared to the relative benefit of impact avoidance and minimization efforts prescribed by planning documents, CEQA mitigation measures, and permit requirements for each project; and compensatory mitigation and proactive conservation measures associated with each project. In the absence of such avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources could occur. However, many projects in the region that impact resources similar to those impacted by the project will be subject to CEQA requirem ents. It is expected that such projects would mitigate their impacts on sensitive 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 30 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 habitats and special-status species through the incorporation of mitigation measures and compliance with permit conditions. Regardless of the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts that result from other projects, the 400 Surmont Drive project is not expected to have a significant impact on biological resources, and would implement the conditions described in Section 1.2, which ensure the project would not result in significant impacts. Thus, the project will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources. 400 Surmont Drive Biological Resources Report 31 H. T. Harvey & Associates October 2020 Section 6. References Calflora. 2020. Calflora Database: Information on California Plants for Conservation, Education, and Appreciation. Accessed June 2020 from http://www.calflora.org/. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2020. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed June 2020 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp . [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Game. 2020. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Vegetation Alliances and Rarity Ranking. Accessed June 2020 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/natural-communities. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (7.0 and 9.0 online editions). Accessed June 2020 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2020. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed through June 2020 . Google Inc. 2020. Google Earth (Version 7.3.1.4507) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Red -legged Frog Distribution and Status – 1997. June. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Distribution and Status –1999. Project No. 1563 -01. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Live Oak Associates. 2019. 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2358- 01). April 3, 2019. 3 pp. Live Oak Associates. 2020. 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2358- 01). February 13, 2020. 4 pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 2020 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. [Valley Water] Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2006 Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. Prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. San Jose, CA . [Valley Water] Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2011. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Multi-Year Stream Maintenance Program Update 2012-2022. February 13, 2020 Mr. Bob Hughes 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE: 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2358-01) Dear Mr. Hughes: At your request, I conducted a site visit to evaluate the location of a wall that is being proposed to be built between the driveway that will access the proposed project’s two new lots and an existing ephemeral swale feature, on your property located at 400 Surmont Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, in Santa Clara County, CA. The purpose of this follow-up site visit was to evaluate whether the construction of the proposed wall would result in fill being placed within the swale that may require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Site Visit Previously, in January 2019, I conducted a site visit to evaluate the swale and provide our analysis of an appropriate setback from this feature. A full description of the swale was provided in our report of findings from that evaluation (LOA 2019). On February 10, 2020, I conducted the follow-up site visit to evaluate the location of the proposed wall in relation to the bed and bank of the ephemeral swale feature. The existing conditions of the swale had not changed since the January 2019 site visit. The swale was completely dry during this 2020 site visit and, in the location of the proposed wall, it was completely barren of vegetation within the bed and bank . Terry from T.S. Civil Engineering had staked and flagged the outside edge of wall prior to the site visit. Findings from the Site Visit Photos taken during the site visit are attached. The closest edge of the wall occurs outside of the bed and bank of the swale, and therefore, its construction will not result in fill being placed within the bed and bank of this feature. Discussion and Conclusions With features such as the one occurring on the site which does not support either wetland vegetation or woody riparian vegetation, the extent of the USACE’s jurisdiction would be the Ordinary High Water mark on opposing banks, while the jurisdiction of both the CDFW and RWQCB would be the top of the bank. In this case, the wall is proposed to be built outside of the bed and bank of the ephemeral swale feature and therefore will result in no impacts to waters regulated by the USACE, CDFW or RWQCB. Thank you very much for allowing us to assist you with your project. If you wish to discuss our evaluation or findings, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884. Sincerely, Pamela E. Peterson Senior Project Manager Plant and Wetland Ecologist Attachment: Photos April 3, 2019 Mr. Bob Hughes 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE: 400 Surmont Drive, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2358-01) Dear Mr. Hughes: At your request, we are providing this setback evaluation for an aquatic feature that occurs adjacent to areas where you are proposing to develop two new single-family lots, on your property located at 400 Surmont Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, in Santa Clara County, CA. The evaluation of the setback is being based upon guidance contained in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (SCVWD 2005, revised 2006) which the Town has adopted. To that aim, we conducted a background review and a site visit. Below we provide our evaluation of the feature. Background Review Prior to the site visit, LOA completed a background review of information relevant to the proposed project, the project site, and the site’s vicinity. Information reviewed included the site plans provided by T.S. Civil Engineers dated March 13, 2019, Google Earth aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (accessed on-line on April 2, 2019 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html). Additionally, the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2005 (revised 2006)) was reviewed, which has been adopted by the Town of Los Gatos to guide determinations on stream setback requirements. The aquatic feature in question does not show up as a wetland or stream on the USFWS NWI and it also does not show up on the USGS topographic map as a blue-line stream or other aquatic feature. There also are no aquatic features that show up on the NWI or USGS upstream of the feature that may provide a perennial or intermittent source of water for the feature, such as a spring. Existing Conditions On April 2, 2019, I visited the project site along with yourself and with Terry Scewczyk from T.S. Civil Engineering to evaluate the aquatic feature on the site. The feature generally flows from south to north along the east side, and within two to three feet, of the paved area of Surmont Drive. In the location where the two new lots are proposed, in the northernmost portion of the property, the channel has earthen banks which are generally barren of vegetation. Habitats adjacent to the feature include California annual grassland and oak woodland/savannah with an open canopy to the east, and on the west side of Surmont Drive, dense oak woodland habitat is present. The feature is incised with a width at the top of the bank of approximately five feet, and a depth of between one and two feet. It flows off-site to the north via an underground, 18-inch cement culvert, which in turn drains into the storm drain system and eventually into Ross Creek. As noted above, the channel is generally barren of vegetation along the reach that is adjacent to the proposed lots. Vegetation associated with the banks and channel in this location are limited to a few California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) plants just before the feature flows underground and off-site. No other wetland or riparian vegetation was observed to be associated with the feature. Trees that occur in the vicinity of the feature include native coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and one valley oak (Quercus lobata), as well as cultivated and ornamental species including apricot (Prunus armeniaca) (remnant trees from the apricot orchard that used to occur on the property per our discussion at the site), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpus), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and pine (Pinus sp.). Although it had rained the night before the site visit and surface soils were moist, there was no flowing or standing water observed in the channel, and there was no evidence of an ordinary high water mark observed. Per our communications at the site, after a very heavy storm, the feature may maintain a flow for up to a week after, but otherwise it will stop flowing and dry out quickly once it stops raining. There are two sources of water for the feature: one is storm water runoff from the hillsides of the adjoining property to the west which flow into the channel via a small erosional feature and the second source is storm water runoff from the hillsides of the owner’s own property. There are no springs or other non-storm water sources that appear to be associated with the feature. Upstream from the proposed lots, the channel is completely cement and rock-lined. Conclusions Based on the background review, site visit and information provided by the property owner, the aquatic feature on the site appears to be an ephemeral channel which only flows following storm events and has no other water source aside from storm water runoff from adjacent hillsides. According to Section II.E. on page 3.8 of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (“Slope Stability Protection Area for Single-Family Units”, page 3.8), the recommended minimum Slope Stability Protection Area or setback for ephemeral features such as the one occurring on the site is between 10 to 15 feet, with the exact setback determined at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. It does note in the Guidelines on page 3.8 that for lots larger than 10,000 square feet, another five feet may be added to the required Slope Stability Area (setback). Therefore, the setback range may be increased to a minimum of 15 to 20 feet from the top of the bank for your project. Other Considerations There are native oak trees that occur between the top of the bank and the proposed driveway that will service the two new lots. In addition to an appropriate setback from the top of the bank of the ephemeral feature, we would also recommend that the project avoids construction of impervious surfaces within the dripline of any retained native oak trees. Thank you very much for allowing us to assist you with your project. If you wish to discuss our evaluation or findings, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884. Sincerely, Pamela E. Peterson Senior Project Manager Plant and Wetland Ecologist Attachment B: Arborist Report Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos September 27, 2019 Prepared By: Richard Gessner ASCA - Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA - Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA - Tree Risk Assessor Qualified 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Table of Contents Summary 1 ............................................................................................................... Introduction 1 ........................................................................................................... Background 1 ............................................................................................................ Assignment 1 ............................................................................................................. Limits of the assignment 1 ........................................................................................ Purpose and use of the report 2 ................................................................................ Observations 2 ......................................................................................................... Tree Inventory 2 ......................................................................................................... Analysis 4 ................................................................................................................. Discussion 5 ............................................................................................................. Condition Rating 5 ..................................................................................................... Suitability for Preservation 6 ...................................................................................... Expected Impact Level 7 ........................................................................................... Mitigation for Removals 8 .......................................................................................... Tree Protection 9 ....................................................................................................... Conclusion 10 .......................................................................................................... Recommendations 11 ............................................................................................. Bibliography 12 ........................................................................................................ Glossary of Terms 13 ............................................................................................... Appendix A: Site Plan 15 ......................................................................................... Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables 16 ...................................... Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Appendix C: Photographs 19 .................................................................................. C1: Trees near hammerhead 19 ................................................................................ Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines 20 ........................................................... Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During Construction 20 ........................... Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 20 ................................................. All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 21 ..................................... Monitoring 21 ............................................................................................................ Root Pruning 22 ......................................................................................................... Boring or Tunneling 22 ............................................................................................... Tree Pruning and Removal Operations 22 ................................................................. Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs 23 .................................................................... E1: English 23 ............................................................................................................ E2: Spanish 24 ........................................................................................................... Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions 25 ................................... Certification of Performance 26............................................................................. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Summary The inventory contains 26 trees comprised of 6 different species. One coast live oak is considered Large Protected and seven are Exempt. Fourteen trees are in good condition, ten fair, and two in poor shape. Sixteen trees (mostly oaks) have good suitability for retention. There are six trees within the footprint of the proposed driveway and two in or near the proposed building sites. Tree protection for this project would consist of a Type I scheme around all the trees to be retained with a maximum encroachment radius of six times the trunk diameter distance. A total of 26 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $53,920.00 using the Trunk Formula Method. Introduction Background The Town of Los Gatos asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements. Assignment •Provide an arborist’s report including 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. Affix aluminum number tags on the trees for reference on site and on plans. •Provide tree protection specifications, guidelines, and impact ratings for trees that may be affected by the project. •Provide appraised values. Limits of the assignment •The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on May 20, 2019. No tree risk assessments were performed. •Tree heights and canopy diameters are estimates. •The most recent Guide to Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition was published in late 2018 by the ISA. The Guide is not functional at this time due to significant errors in the original printed version and gaps in information regarding regional species characteristics and nursery stock wholesale costs. Therefore the ninth edition and its supplemental publications was used for this assignment with the exception of the “condition ratings” assessment. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 1 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 •The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows (Table 1). 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 the Town of Los Gatos and the property owners as a reference for existing tree conditions to help satisfy planning requirements. Observations The plans provided indicated the proposed location of the driveway to the two lots. The topographic survey provided is not completely accurate and the red “X” located on the plan in Appendix A indicates at least one oak that has been removed. Tree Inventory The inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos located on site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. Sec. 29.10.0960. - Scope of protected trees. All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. (Appendix A and B). Los Gatos Town Ordinance 29.10.0970 Exceptions (1) states the following: “A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference). 
 Table 1: Plans Reviewed Checklist Plan Date Sheet Review ed Source Existing Site Topographic Map or A.L.T.A with tree locations Proposed Site Plan 8/21/19 C-1 and C-2 Yes TS/Civil Engineering Demolition Plan Construction Staging Grading and Drainage Utility Plan and Hook- up locations Exterior Elevations Landscape Plan Irrigation Plan T-1 Tree Protection Plan Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 2 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 The inventory contains 26 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered Large Protected , and seven fruit 1 trees are Exempt . The chart below list the species and their relative quantities (Chart 1). 
2 Large protected tree means any oak (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), or Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) which has a 24-inch or 1 greater diameter (75-inch circumference); or any other species of tree with a 48-inch or greater diameter (150-inch circumference). A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference).2 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 3 26 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Analysis Tree appraisal was performed according to the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition, 2000 (CLTA) along with Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004. The trees were appraised using the “Cost Approach” and more specifically the “Trunk Formula Method” (Appendix B). “Trunk Formula Method” is calculated as follows: Basic Tree Cost = (Appraised tree trunk increase X Unit tree cost + Installed tree cost) Appraised Value = (Basic tree cost X Species % X Condition % X Location %). The trunk formula valuations are based on four tree factors; species, size (trunk cross sectional area), condition, and location. There are two steps to determine the overall value. The first step is to determine the “Basic Tree Cost” based on size and species rating which is determined by the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. The second part is to depreciate the value according to the location and condition of the trees. The condition assessment and percentages are defined in the “Condition Rating” section of this report. The condition ratings deviate from the Guide’s condition assessment numerical rating system. The reason for this deviation is the Guide’s assessment criteria fails to account for significant health or structural issues creating high percentages for tree with either significant structural defects or health problems that could ultimately lead to failure or irreversible decline. Location rating is an average of three factors; site, contribution, and placement. Site is determined by the relative property value where the trees are planted. The residential site would be classified as “very high” value with a 90 percent rating compared to similar sites in the area (ISA, 2000). Contribution and placement is determined by the function and aesthetics the trees provide for the site and their location on the property. The percent of contribution and placement can range from 10 to 100 percent depending on the trees influence to the value of the property. These percentages ranged from 0 to 90 percent in my assessment. A total of 26 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $53,920.00 using the Trunk Formula Method (Appendix B).
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 4 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Discussion Condition Rating A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form. The assessment considered both the health and structure for a combined condition rating. •100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. •61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site. •41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. •21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. •6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. •0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail. Fourteen trees are in good condition, ten fair, and two in poor shape (Chart 2). 
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 5 26 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Suitability for Preservation A tree’s suitability for conservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances, proximity to cutting and filling, proximity to construction or demolition, and potential longevity using a scale of good, fair, or poor (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). Trees with good suitability have good vigor, structural stability, and potential longevity after construction. •Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity. •Fair = Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life spans than those in the good category. •Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and will continue to decline regardless of treatment. The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Eight trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarily fruit trees (Chart 3). Two trees have fair suitability. The remaining sixteen have good suitability for retention. Most of the trees with good suitability are naturally occurring oaks on the site.
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 6 26 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Expected Impact Level Impact 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. There are six trees within the footprint of the proposed driveway and two in or near the proposed building sites (Chart 4). From what was provided there will be at least six trees lost due to the driveway configuration (Appendix A).
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 7 26 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Mitigation for Removals The table below indicates the recommended replacement values (Table 3). Alternatively it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. 1To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size. 2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. 3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieu fees for single family residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council. 4Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions—Hillsides.
 Table 3: Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree (1) Replacement Requirement (2)(4) Single Family Residential Replacement Option (3)(4) 10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24 inch box trees or two 36 inch box trees Four 15 gallon trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24 inch box trees; or three 36 inch box trees Not available Greater than 55 feet Ten 24 inch box trees; or five 36 inch box trees Not available Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 8 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches (Appendix D). The most current accepted method for determining the TPZ is to use a formula based on species tolerance, tree age/vigor, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). Preventing mechanical damage to the trunk from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle or using vertical timbers. Both the ISA Best Management Practices: Root Management, 2017 and ISA Best Management Practices: Managing trees during construction, second edition, 2016 indicate linear cuts should be beyond six times the trunk diameter distance when affected on only one side. Tree protection for this project would consist of a Type I scheme around all the trees to be retained with a maximum encroachment radius of six times the trunk diameter distance or at the drip line distance. If any tree is to be impacted on multiple sides the tree protection radius would need to be expanded to twelve times the trunk diameter radius in feet. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 9 26 Figure 1: Type I Tree protection with fence placed at a radius of ten times the trunk diameter. Image City of Palo Alto 2006. otlA olaP fo ytiC !nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT !thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatnohw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devorppa nA eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT( 1-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS otlA olaP fo ytiC )dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA .egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI ta dedaolnwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 Use addtional “T” sheets as needed TNEMETATS ERUSOLCSID EERT OTLAOLAP FO YTIC eunevA notlimaH 052 ,noisiviD gninnalP 10349AC,otlAolaP 1442-923 )056( gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth cilbup dna etavirp no detacol seert niatrec fo noitcetorp dna erusolcsid seriuqer ,040.01.8 retpahC ,edoC lapicinuM otlA olaP timrep gnidliub llaynapmocca tsum tnemetats erusolcsid detelpmoc A.snalp etis devorppa no nwohs ebyeht taht dna ,ytreporp .ytivitca tnempoleved rehto ro ,snoitacilppa timrep gnidarg ro noitilomed lla ,krowroiretxe edulcni taht snoitacilppa :SSERDDA YTREPORP ______________________________________________________________________ detalugeR ereht erA1 ONSEY?ytreporp eht ot tnecajda ro no seert )4noitceS ot deecorp ,on fI( ].elbacilppa erehw kcehc ro/dna elcric esaelP .tnacilppaeht yb detelpmoc eb TSUM 4 -1 snoitceS[ .ylppa taht esoht kcehC ?seert eht era erehW .1 )seert retemaid ”4 revo gniwohs dettimbus eb tsum snalP( ytreporp eht nO etis tcejorp eht gnignahrevo ytreporp tnecajda nO )seerT teertS( enil ytreporp fo ’03 nihtiwtnemesae yaw-fo-thgir ro pirts retnalp ytiC eht nI * *seert teertS1erusolcne decnef a yb noitcetorp laiceps eriuqer edivorp tsumuoy ,timrep yna gniviecer ot roirP .snoitcurtsnidehcattaeht rep, t deriuqer fo noitcepsni rof 3595-394 ta snoitarepO skroW cilbuPgnillacyb mrofnoitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS dezirohtua na III ro II ,I epy .)506# liateD dehcatta ees( gnicnef detcetorP yna ereht erA .21detangiseD ro1?seerTSEY )elbacilppa erehwkcehC(ON )s( eerT detcetorP )s( eerTdetangiseD ytreporp eht gnignahrevo ro nO ?seert eseht fo )retemaid knurt eht semit 01 suidar(?enilpird eht nihtiwgnidarg ro ytivitca ereht sI .3 ONSEY a ,seY fItropeRnoitavreserP eerT MTTees( weiver ffats rof dettimbus dna tsirobra deifitrec ASI na yb deraperp eb tsum 2 .)52.6 noitceS , .stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS rep ,”!nalP eht fo traPsti ,noitcetorP eerT:,1-T teehS ot troper siht hcattA stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS eht erA .4**?detelpmoc ON SEY yponacdnaretemaid knurt derusaem eht wohs tsum snalP )1(:gniwollof eht eriuqer tnempoleved gnirudseertdetalugeRfo noitcetorP** - 506# liateD dna1-TteehS rep ,enilpird eht ottuo aeraerusolcnedecnef a ,enil dehsad dlob a sa ,etoned tsum snalP )2( ;enilpird mth.smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptthMTT osla eeS(2 )decnef eb otaera rof 51.2 noitceS , .erusolcsid siht fo snoitidnoc eht ot eerga ,dengisrednueht ,I ro eslaf gnidivorp yltnegilgen roylgniwonk taht dnatsrednu I noitceSedoC lapicinuM otlA olaP eht fo noitaloiv a setutitsnoctnemeriuqer erusolcsid siht ot esnopser ni noitamrofni gnidaelsim .noitca lagel livic ro/dna lanimirc ot dael nac hcihw,040.01.8 ____________ :etaD______________________________ :tnirP __________________________ :erutangiS )tnegA ro renwO .porP( :ESU FFATS ROF gnicneF evitcetorP eb tsum 6-5 snoitceS ffats yb detelpmoc .)timrep gnidliub ro gnidarg ,noitilomed( timrep tnempoleved yna fo ecnaussi eht rof seerT detcetorP.5 taht gniyfirev dehcatta si tnemetats nettirw A .ecalp ni si gnicnef eert deificeps ehT . ecalp ni yltcerroc si gnicnef evitcetorp .seert detangised ro/dna detcetorp dnuora ONSEY ereh kcehc ,seertdetcetorp on era ereht fi A/N() seerT teertS.6 .dehcatta si mrof noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS skroW cilbuP dengis A .ONSEY ereh kcehc ,seert teerts on era ereht fi A/N(.) _____________________________1 5.11 era hcihw skaO yellaV ro skaO eviL tsaoC – seert detcetorP )b ;ytreporp cilbup no seert – seert teertS )a –seerT detalugeR tsaoC ,regral ro retemaid ni ” Cyb detangised seert era seert egatireH dna ;edarg larutan evoba ”45 derusaem nehw ,regral roretemaid ni ”81 era hcihw sdoowdeR )c dna ;licnuoC yti .nalp epacsdnal devorppa na fo trap era hcihw ,seert ytreporp laitnediser-non ro laicremmoc –seerT detangiseD2 ta elbaliava ,mrof siht no stnemeriuqer lla rof snoitcurtsni sniatnoc )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT otlA olaP lmth.launam-lacinhcet_eert/ytinummoc-gninnalp/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT/ofnI noitcetorPeerT/tsirobrA/vidalP/nalP:S 60/80desiveR J XIDNEPPA snoitacificepS dna sgniwarD dradnatS 4002 otlA olaP fo ytiC 60/80desiveR 13 noitceS ,EWP ,noitcetorP fo noitacifireV eerT teertS P S - OTLA OLA SNOITCURTSNI NOITCETORP EERT TEERT --13 NOITCES- lareneG1-13 snoitcnufyramirpeerhtsah noitcetorp eerT.a raelc erutcurts gnihcnarbdna yponac egailof eht peekot )1, dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor evreserp ot )2 ;seitivitcadna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatnoc morf si ecnabrutsidlios onhcihwni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht yfitnedi ot )3dna etats detcapmoc-non .devorppa esiwrehto sselnu,detcirtser era seitivitcadna dettimrep )ZPT(enoZ noitcetorP eerT ehT.b semit-net fo suidar a htiw eert ehtfoesab eht dnuora aera detcirtser a si .gnicnef ybdesolcne ,retaerg si revehcihw ;teefnet roknurt s'eert eht fo retemaid eht stnemucoD ecnerefeR 2-13 506 liateD.a .woleb debircsed snoitautis fo noitartsullI – smroF )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT.b ( /seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth ) .1 ( senoZ noitcirtseR gnihcnerT )C(02.2noitceS ,MTT ) .2 ( locotorP gnitropeR tsirobrA 03.6noitceS ,MTT ) .3 (stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS 53.6 noitceS ,MTT ) .4 ( tnemetatS erusolcsiD eerT JxidneppA ,MTT ) mroF )VTS( noitacifireV eerT teertS.c ( smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth ) noitucexE 3-13 :noitcetorP eerT I epyT.a eht tuohguorht detcetorpebot )s(eert eht fo ZPT eritne eht esolcne llahs ecnef ehT ,saera gnikrap emos nI .tcejorpnoitcurtsnoceht fo efil ton lliwtaht etercnoc rognivap nodetacol si gnicnef fi ybdevorppa fi ,esab etercnoc level edarg etairporppa na yb detroppus eb yamstsopeht neht ,dehsilomedeb .snoitarepO skroW cilbuP :noitcetorP eerT II epyT.b fo edis dray dna pirts gnitnalpeht ylno ,pirts gnitnalp a nihtiwdetautis seert roF dnaklawedis eht peekot redro nignicnef evitcetorpknil niahcderiuqer eht htiw desolcne eb llahs ZPT eht .esu cilbup rof nepo teerts :noitcetorP eerT III epyT.c ylnodesu eb oT a nidetautis seerT .snoitarepOskroWcilbuP folavorppa htiw ni-2htiw depparw ebllahs,tip retnalp klawedis ro lleweert ot dnuorg eht morfgnicnef citsalp egnarofosehc gidot dewolla eb ton llahs stals( yleruces dnuob stals nedoowkciht hcni-2htiwdialrevodna hcnarb tsrif eht yna gnigamad diova ot desu eb llahs noituac ,gnicnef citsalpeht fonoitallatsni gniruD.)krab eht otni .tsirobrA ytiCeht ybdetcerid sa gnicnef citsalperiuqer osla yam sbmil rojaM .sehcnarb .decnef eb otaera dna epyt ,eziS.d niahc hgihtoof )'6( xis htiwdetcetorp eb llahsdevreserpebot seert llA ot dnuorg eht otni nevird ,stsop nori dezinavlagretemaid hcni-owt nodetnuomeb ot era secneF.secnefknil sselnu,gnihcnarbretuoeht ot dnetxe llahs gnicneF.gnicaps toof-01 naht erom on ta teef-2 tsael ta fohtped a .mroFVTSeht no devorppa yllacificeps sngis ’gninraW‘.e toof-02taecnef hcae no deyalpsid yltnenimorp dna foorp rehtaew ebllahsngisgninraw A . :srettel llat hcni flah ni etats ylraelc dna sehcni-11xsehcni-5.8 muminim ebllahs ngisehT .slavretni ot gnidrocca enif aot tcejbus si dna devomerebton llahs ecnef sihT - enoZ noitcetorP eerT - GNINRAW“ ”.011.01.8 noitceS CMAP noitaruD.f itilomederofebdetcere ebllahs gnicnef eerT .niniamer dnasnigeb noitcurtsnocro gnidarg ;no lios rokroW.ZPT eht ni dewolla yllacificeps krow rof tpecxe ,tcejorp ehtfo noitcepsni lanif litnu ecalp dnuora krowfo esac eht ni( tsirobrA ytiC rotsirobra tcejorp ehtyb lavorppa seriuqer ZPT ehtni ecnabrutsid .skroW cilbuP morf timreP kroWteertS a eriuqer yaw fo thgircilbup eht nihtiw snoitavacxE.)seerT teertS noitcurtsnoc gniruD.g .1 .dnikyna fo tcapmi morfdetcetorpeb llahs etis tcejorpeht gnahrevotaht seert 'srobhgien llA .2 seert denwo ylcilbup yna fo ytlanepsulp tnemecalper ro riapereht rof elbisnopser eb llahs tnacilppa ehT otlAolaP ehtfo 070.40.8 noitceS ottnausrup ,noitcurtsnocfo esruocehtgnirud degamad erataht .edoC lapicinuM .3 :deniaterebot seert lla ot ylppa serusaem noitavreserp eertgniwollofehT .a .ZPT eht nihtiw dettimrepeb llahs tnempiuqe ro selcihev ,liospot ,lairetam fo egarots oN .b .deretla eb ton llahs aera yponac eert eht dnuora dna rednudnuorgehT .c .lavivrus erusne ot yrassecen sa deniatniam dnadetarea ,detagirri ebllahsdeniater ebot seerT NOITCES FO DNE otlA olaP fo ytiC tnemtrapeD eerT snoitarepO skroW cilbuP 30349 AC ,otlA olaP 05201 xoB OP 3595-694/056 9829-258/056 :XAF gro.otlAolaPfoytiC@noitcetorpeert fo noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS eerT dengis htiw gnola mrof siht XAF ro liaM .mrof siht fo noitrop reppu etelpmoC :snoitcurtsnI tnacilppA .tnacilppa yfiton dna tcepsni lliw ffatS eerT skroWcilbuP .tpeD skroW cilbuP ot tnemetatS erusolcsiD :ETAD NOITACILPPA TEERTS FO NOITACOL/SSERDDA :DETCETORP EB OT SEERT :EMAN S’TNACILPPA :SSERDDA S’TNACILPPA ENOHPELET S’TNACILPPA :SREBMUN XAF & ffatSeerT ytiC yb tuo dellif eb ot noitcessihT evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .1 yletauqeda era )se(sserdda noitcetorp fo epyt ehT .detcetorp :si desu woleb 2# ot og ,ON fI * :yb detcepsnI :noitcepsnI fo etaD SEY *ON evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .2 era sserdda TON tcetorPeerT.tS/SD/eerT/SPO/DWP:S 6071/5 yletauqeda gniwollof ehT .detcetorp :deriuqer era snoitacifidom deriuqer ehtwoh etacidnI detacinummoc erewsnoitacifidom .tnacilppa eht ot noitcepsnI tneuqesbuS dnuof erewsserdda evoba ta seert teertS :detcetorp yletauqeda eb ot .esac fo noitisopsid eht woleb ”setoN“ ni etacidni ,ON fI * :yb detcespnI :noitcepsnI fo etaD SEY *ON :setoN ,seiceps yb seert teerts ytiC tsiL noitcetorp eert fo epyt dna noitidnoc ,etis erewserutcip fi eton oslA .dellatsni .yrassecen fi teehs fo kcab esU .nekat .ecnaussi timrep gnidliub ro noitilomed rof tnacilppA ot teehs devorppa nruteR itcetorPeerTotlAolaPfoytitCadetacolerasnoitcurtsnInosu.ac.otla-olap.ytic.www//:pttlhmth.launam-lacinhcet/seert/ ---GNINRAW--- enoZnoitcetorPeerT tuohtiwdevomerebtonllahsgnicnefsihT )3595-694-056(lavorppatsirobrAytiC sinoissimreptuohtiwlavomeR *yadrepenif005$aottcejbus 011.01.8noitceSedoClapicinuMotlAolaP* :hcraeSdecnavdA cipoTyBesworB emoHtnemnorivnEytinummoC&gninnalP emoH ytiC-seerTdenwo yletavirP-seerTdenwo eerTehttuobA ecnanidrO 01.8eltiT seerTegatireH smroF launaMlacinhceTeerT sQAF sUtcatnoC secruoseR launaMlacinhceTeerT oTesahcrup launaMlacinhceTeerTeht noitidEtsriF1002,enuJ :noitcesybweiV stnetnoCfoelbaT )BK78,FDP( esopruPdnatnetnI )BM50.1,FDP( noitcudortnI-launaMfoesU )BM50.1,FDP( 0.1noitceS-snoitinifeD )BK69,FDP( 0.2noitceS-noitcurtsnoCgniruDseerTfonoitcetorP )BK952,FDP( 0.3noitceS-seerTfognitnalP&tnemecalpeR,lavomeR )BK711,FDP( 0.4noitceS-seerTsuodrazaH )BK501,FDP( 0.5noitceS-senilediuGecnanetniaMeerT )BK011,FDP( 0.6noitceS-stropeReerT )BK48,FDP( :snoitcesLLAweiV launaMlacinhceTeerT-lluF )BM48.1,FDP( SECIDNEPPA tnemeganaM&noitavreserPeerT,01.8retpahCedoClapicinuMotlAolaP.A snoitalugeR ytiCeerT:B-ASU mroFnoitaulavEdrazaHASI:C )ecruosecnerefeR(seicepSdetceleSrofsnrettaPeruliaFtnerehnIfotsiL:D senilediuGgninurPeerTASI:E )BM58.1,FDP( 1.331ZISNA,sdradnatSytefaSeraCeerT:F -)ecruosecnerefeR(4991 003AISNA,sdradnatSecnamrofrePgninurP:G -)ecruosecnerefeR(5991 :H 505&405margaiD,sliateDgnitnalPeerT tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT:I snoitcurtsnInoitcetorPeerTdradnatSotlAolaP:J 1-T ProjectDataType II Tree Protection Type I Tree Protection Type III Tree Protection Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater). Restricted activity area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.15(E). Restricted trenching area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public Works Operations. Call 650-496-5953. TPZ either 10 x Tree Diameter or 10-feet, whichever is greater Any proposed trench in TPZ requires approval See TTM 2.20 C-D for instructions 6-foot high chain link fence, typical (to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations) Tree fencing is required and shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins. Any inadvertant sidewalk or curb replacement or trenching requires approval Rev By Date City of Palo Alto Standard Dwg No. Approved by: Dave Dockter Date PE No. 2006 Scale: NTS 605 Tree Protection During Construction 1RWH6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV 3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679  IRUPSURYLGHG 1RWH2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFH RIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\ DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW 2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing overlaid with 2-inch Thick Wooden Slats Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) Warning Warning Warning 8.5x11-inch Warning Signs one each side Fencing must provide public passage while protecting all other land in TPZ. For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31 Fence distance to outer branches or T P Z 12/14/92 Restricted use for trees in sidewalk cutout tree wells only For all Ordinance Protected and Designated trees, as detailed in the site specific tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the applicant’s project arborist as diagramed on the plans. Y ard Side walk Parkway Strip Street D.D.01 08/04/04 02 D.D.08/10/06 0 DWH Warning SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MANDATORY PAMC 8.10 PROTECTED TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE PROJECT SITE ARBORIST IS PERFORMING REQUIRED TREE INSPECTION AND SITE MONITORING. PROVIDE WRITTEN MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE REVIEW STAFF BEGINNING 14 DAYS AFTER BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. BUILDING PERMIT DATE: ______________________ _______ DATE OF 1ST TREE ACTIVITY REPORT: ___ _____________ CITY STAFF: ___________________________ ___________ REPORTING DETAILS OF THE MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO SHEET T-1 FORMAT, VERIFY THAT ALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE IMPLIMENTED AND WILL INCLUDE ALL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY, SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED, WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ROOT ZONE. NON-COMPLIANCE IS SUBJECT TO VIOLATION OF PAMC 8.10.080. REFERENCE: PALO ALTO TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL, SECTION 2.00 AND ADDENDUM 11. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Conclusion The inventory contains 26 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered Large Protected and seven fruit trees are Exempt. Fourteen trees are in good condition, ten fair, and two in poor shape. Eight trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarily fruit trees. Two trees have fair suitability and the remaining sixteen (mostly oaks) have good suitability for retention. There are six trees within the footprint of the proposed driveway and two in or near the proposed building sites. From what was provided there will be at least six trees lost due to the driveway configuration. Tree protection for this project would consist of a Type I scheme around all the trees to be retained with a maximum encroachment radius of six times the trunk diameter distance or at the drip line. A total of 26 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $53,920.00 using the Trunk Formula Method.
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 10 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Recommendations 1. Update the survey to show the current existing conditions and the locations of the trees and their trunks including those along the drainage. 2. Place tree numbers and tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plans including the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Create a separate plan sheet that includes all protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.” 3. Place tree protection fence along the service road near the drainage outside the tree dip lines, around #132, and adjacent to #122, #124, #125, #128and #133. 4. Provide a landscape plan that accounts for the loss in tree canopy to include in tabular form the required replacements in accordance with the Town’s Tree Canopy Replacement Standard. 5. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. 6. Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ. 7. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 8. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 11 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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. Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas. Smiley. Managing trees during construction, second edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2016. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 9th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 10th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2018. Print. ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. Western Chapter ISA Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture1998. Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, ISA. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment: International Society of Arboriculture, 2017. Print Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 12 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Glossary of Terms Basic Tree Cost: The cost of replacement for a perfect specimen of a particular species and cross sectional area prior to location and condition depreciation. Cost Approach: An indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. 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 Plant Appraisal, 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 defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. The outer extent of the tree crown. Form: describes a plant’s habit, shape or silhouette defined by its genetics, environment, or management. Health: Assessment is based on the overall appearance of the tree, its leaf and twig growth, and the presence and severity of insects or disease. 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. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 13 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Structural evaluation: focused on the crown, trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots and the site conditions contributing to conditions and/or defects that may contribute to failure. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined 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. Trunk Formula Method: Method to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Based on developing a representative unit cost for replacement with the same or comparable species of the same size and in the same place, subject to depreciation for various factors. Contrast with replacement cost method. Volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial property. Unlike trees that are brought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private grounds. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 14 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Appendix A: Site Plan Site plan not to scale. Tree in Red “highly” impacted and those in Blue “low”. X—X—X = Approximate TPZ Fence. 
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 15 26 X 129 131 132 128 127 133134 135 123 124122 121 110 130 111 112 113 114 120 119 118 117 116 115 125 126 X—X—X—X—X— X — X X—X—X—X—X—X—XX—X—X—X—X—X—XX—XX—XX—X X—X 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables Table 2: Tree Inventory and Assessment Summary Tree Species #Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Health Structure Form Condition Suitability Expected Impact Rounded Value Large Protected /Exempt apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 110 8 15 Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor High $470.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 111 6, 5 15 Good Fair Fair Fair Fair High $750.00 apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 112 7, 7 15 Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor High $710.00 Exempt holly oak (Quercus ilex) 113 13 30 Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Low $2,340.00 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 114 14, 9 30 Good Fair Good Fair Good Low 2700 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 115 14 35 Good Good Good Good Good Low $1,380.00 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 116 13, 15 35 Good Fair Good Fair Good Low $2,090.00 Large Protected wild plum (Prunus sp.) 117 8 25 Good Fair Good Good Poor Low $620.00 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.) 118 8 25 Good Fair Good Good Poor Low $620.00 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.) 119 6 25 Good Fair Good Good Poor Low 390 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.) 120 8, 4, 3 25 Good Fair Good Good Poor Low $770.00 Exempt Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 16 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 121 18.5 35 Good Good Good Good Good Low $5,400.00 apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 122 8, 8 15 Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Low $1,700.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 123 10, 9 35 Good Fair Good Fair Good Low $1,820.00 holly oak (Quercus ilex) 124 8, 6 25 Good Fair Good Fair Good Low $1,420.00 holly oak (Quercus ilex) 125 5 20 Good Good Good Good Good Low $620.00 holly oak (Quercus ilex) 126 6, 4, 4 20 Good Poor Good Fair Good Low $940.00 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 127 14 30 Good Good Good Good Good Low 3140 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 128 11 30 Good Good Good Good Good Low 1990 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 129 11, 9 25 Good Fair Good Good Good High $3,140.00 stone pine (Pinus pinea) 130 9 15 Good Good Good Good Poor High $880.00 toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) 131 7, 7, 7 25 Good Fair Fair Fair Good High $2,150.00 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 132 8, 5, 5 30 Good Fair Good Fair Good Low 1120 Tree Species #Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Health Structure Form Condition Suitability Expected Impact Rounded Value Large Protected /Exempt Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 17 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 133 27 55 Good Fair Good Good Good Low 11300 Large Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 134 9, 9 25 Good Fair Good Good Good Low 2730 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 135 13 25 Good Good Good Good Good Low 2730 Tree Species #Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Health Structure Form Condition Suitability Expected Impact Rounded Value Large Protected /Exempt Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 18 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Appendix C: Photographs C1: Trees near hammerhead Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 19 26 #130 #131 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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, II, III 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). 
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 20 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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 dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6. Retain the services of 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. 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. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 21 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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 torn. 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 in writing according to the most recent ANSI A-300A Standards and Limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering 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 of 22 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 23 26 Warning Tree Protection Zone This Fence Shall Not Be Removed And Is Subject To Penalty According To Town Code 29.10.1025 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 E2: Spanish 
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 24 26 Cuidado Zona De Arbol Pretejido Esta valla no podrán ser sacados Y está sujeta a sanción en función de Código Ciudad del 29.101025 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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 of 25 26 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 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 findings 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 has 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 2019, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 26 26 Attachment C: Geotechnical Investigation REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California for Sandra Anderson c/o Robert O. Hughes The Building Works 2730 Union Street, Suite B San Jose, CA 95124 Project No. 184950 July 2018 1 7 0 2 0 Melody Lane Tel 408.353.5528 Los Gatos, California 95033 Fax 802.448.1025 www.milstonegeo.com bsm@milstonegeo.com 1 7 0 2 0 Melody Lane Tel 408.353.5528 Los Gatos, California 95033 Fax 802.448.1025 www.milstonegeo.com bsm@milstonegeo.com June 12, 2019 Project No. 195040 Sandra Anderson c/o Robert O. Hughes The Building Works 2730 Union Street, Suite B San Jose, CA 95124 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation RE: Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Dear Ms. Anderson: Milstone Geotechnical has completed a geotechnical investigation for the above referenced site, in accordance with your authorization. The accompanying report presents the results of the investigation with conclusions and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. Based on the work performed for this investigation, we are pleased to report that, from a geotechnical perspective, the site is suitable for the proposed development if properly designed and constructed. It has been a pleasure providing professional services to you on this project and I look forward to continued service. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or require additional assistance, please phone. Sincerely, MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Barry S. Milstone, G.E. 2111 Principal Geotechnical Engineer 6/12/19 Anderson Geotechnical Investigation page i GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope of Investigation ............................................................................................. 1 SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2 Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................................... 2 Seismicity .................................................................................................................................... 2 Anticipated Ground Surface Acceleration ................................................................................... 3 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4 Site Setting ................................................................................................................................... 4 Surface Topography .................................................................................................................... 4 Surface Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Development ................................................................................................................ 4 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 4 Subsurface Investigation .............................................................................................................. 4 Subsurface Materials ................................................................................................................... 5 GROUND WATER ............................................................................................................................. 6 SLOPE STABILITY ........................................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 8 Expansive and Creep Prone Soil.................................................................................................. 9 Seismic Shaking .......................................................................................................................... 9 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 10 Grading ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Building Foundations ................................................................................................................ 13 Retaining Walls ......................................................................................................................... 15 Swimming Pool ......................................................................................................................... 17 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................................................... 18 Moisture Control ........................................................................................................................ 19 Surface Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 20 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Erosion Protection ..................................................................................................................... 21 6/12/19 Anderson Geotechnical Investigation page ii TECHNICAL REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 22 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION .............................................................................................. 22 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 23 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Site Location Map .................................................................................. follows page 1 Figure 2. Site Plan and Exploration Map ............................................................... follows page 4 Figure 3. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section A-A’ ........................................... follows page 5 Figure 4. Static Stability Analysis – 10 Critical Surfaces ...................................... follows page 8 Figure 5. Seismic Stability Analysis – 10 Critical Surfaces .................................. follows page 8 APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Small-Diameter Borehole Investigation Description Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MG1 through MG4 APPENDIX B - LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Summary of Laboratory Test Results Unconfined Compression Atterberg Limits Constant Volume Swell GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of a geotechnical investigation related to the construction of two new single-family residences in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1). This investigation was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated March 8, 2019. Project Description Based on communications with, Robert Hughes, project manager, is our understanding that the project will involve the construction of two new, single- level, single-family residences without basements on adjacent, currently undeveloped, parcels. It is anticipated that site development will include grading to establish building pads, access driveways and parking areas, and landscape and hardscape improvements including possible swimming pools and pool houses. It is our understanding that the properties will be serviced by the municipal sanitary sewer system. Purpose and Scope of Investigation The investigation was predicated on the data and conclusions presented in a Engineering Geologic Investigation1 performed by Steven Connelly, CEG, with whom we collaborated during the undertaking of our investigation. The purposes of the investigation were to characterize the geotechnical conditions of the proposed development areas and provide specific recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed improvements. The scope of services undertaken for this investigation included the following tasks: • Compilation and review of available published and unpublished engineering and geologic documents relevant to site development; • Visual site reconnaissance to note pertinent geotechnical site conditions, identify potential borehole locations, and mark the site for utility notification of intended drilling; • Consultation with the project geologist and examination of four (4) of the exploratory test pits; • Drilling, logging, in-situ testing, and sampling of four (4) small- diameter exploratory boreholes; 1 Connelly, Steven F., CEG, 5/18/19, Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Residences, APN 527-20-003, 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos, California. NorthPROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California June 2019 195040 Drawn byDateScale Project No. 1 inch = 2,000 feet SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE NO. BSM Base map derived from USGS, 2018, Los Gatos 7.5' Quadrangle 1 LANDS OF ANDERSON 400 SURMONT DRIVE MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Page 2 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL • Laboratory testing of representative subsurface materials to verify field classifications and determine index properties and pertinent engineering characteristics • Analysis of the resulting data and development of geotechnical design criteria; • Preparation of this report and the accompanying illustrations describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE GEOLOGY Geologic Setting Site geology, including geologic and seismic settings, faulting, and landsliding, have recently been investigated and reported by Steven Connelly1, project geologist. The investigation included review of previous nearby geologic studies and pertinent geologic documents, analysis of aerial photographs, visual reconnaissance, logging of six (6) exploratory test pits, and review of data derived during the current investigation. The reader is referred to the referenced report for complete description of the investigation and discussion of their findings. Based on published map review, air photo analysis, geologic reconnaissance, and logging of exploratory test pits, Connelly reports that a potentially active fault crosses the southwest corner or the property. Consequently, he identifies a recommended building setback. The proposed building sites are located outside of the recommended setback. Furthermore, Connelly indicates that Evidence of landsliding or other geologic hazards that would restrict the proposed development were not encountered on the property. Based on the results of his investigation, Connelly opines that “the weathered bedrock underlying the property should provide good support for the proposed residences”, and that “the potential hazard from fault rupture, landsliding, liquefaction, ground subsidence, lateral spreading, tsunamis, seiches, or flooding to the proposed residences, is very low to minimal, provided construction does not occur within the recommended building setback zone.” Seismicity Connelly indicates that moderate to strong ground shaking is likely to occur at the site due to movement on one of the range front faults such as the Blossom Hill fault. Additionally, he indicates the possibility of secondary fissures or ground cracks that could damage the property. Page 3 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Based on the most recent earthquake forecasts published by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities2, there is estimated to be a 72 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2014 and 2044. The property is expected to experience violent ground shaking during large earthquakes on the nearby segment of the San Andreas fault, similar to the level experienced in the 1906 earthquake. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, the USGS3 has classified the subject area to be within a Site Class C shaking hazard zone. This is generally consistent with a shear wave velocity of 471 meters per second (m/s) reported by Hartzell and others for similar deposits approximately 6,000 feet to the east. Anticipated Ground Surface Acceleration The property is expected to experience violent ground shaking during large earthquakes on the nearby segment of the San Andreas fault, similar to the level experienced in the 1906 earthquake. The peak ground acceleration, with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, is estimated to be 0.52g using the probabilistic parameters provided by the California OSHPD4. As a minimum, the proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards for static and seismic design. More specific seismic design criteria are presented in the Geotechnical Design Criteria section. It should be noted that there is a paucity of data available for near field sites, such as the subject site, and that it is possible that actual ground surface accelerations will exceed the current estimates. 2 Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/. 3 United States Geological Survey, undated, Soil type and shaking hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/soiltype/. 4 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2008, Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org. Page 4 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS Site Setting The subject property is situated on a northeast-facing hillside located in the foothills near the base of the northeast flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately two (2) miles east of the Los Gatos town center (Figure 1). The adjacent, approximately 1.3-acre, east-west oriented, generally elongated rectangular shaped lots constitute the northernmost parcels of a three (3) lot subdivision. The properties are accessed by a private south-trending extension of Surmont Drive approximately 1,200 feet south of Blossom Hill Road. Surface Topography Site topography (Figure 2) is defined by gentle, north plunging spur ridge that descends from an elevation of 423 feet near the center of the southern property line to 355 at the northwest corner and 345 at the northeast corner. Within the proposed development areas, the ground surfaces slope at inclinations of about 20 percent. Surface Drainage The development area drains by uncontrolled sheet flow to the northwest and northeast from the central portions of the lots. Existing Development The site of the proposed improvements is current undeveloped. Historic aerial photographs indicate that the properties previously functioned as orchards. Vegetation The development areas are covered with local grasses and weeds. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Investigation Milstone Geotechnical investigated the subsurface conditions of the site by examining Connelly1 test pits 1 through 4 and by drilling, logging, in-situ testing, and sampling of four (4) small-diameter exploratory boreholes to depths of 15.5 and 20.0 feet using a track-mounted drill rig. The purpose of the subsurface investigation was to supplement data presented by Connelly1, characterize the geotechnical subsurface conditions of the site, and obtain representative undisturbed samples for testing. The field investigation is discussed in more detail in Appendix A. Representative soil samples were transported to the laboratory to verify field descriptions and perform index testing. Laboratory test results are summarized following the material descriptions. Subsurface exploration locations are depicted on Figure 2. Graphical logs of the small-diameter boreholes are presented in Appendix A of this report. Our interpretations of the available subsurface information at the proposed Drawn by: BSM SITE PLAN AND EXPLORATION MAP FIGURE NO. Date:Scale:Project No. 1 inch = 40 feet MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL 195040 PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California June 2019 Fault setback (Connelly) 2 MG3 MG2 MG1 Page 5 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL building site is depicted on the Idealized Subsurface Cross Section A-A’ (Figure 3). Subsurface Materials Beneath a blanket of surficial and colluvial clay soils, the exploratory boreholes encountered interbedded weathered Santa Clara formation materials These findings are similar to the subsurface conditions exposed by Connelly1 and are characteristic of the locally mapped Quaternary age Santa Clara Formation materials described by McLaughlin and others5.. The subsurface materials are described in more detail below in order of increasing age. More detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface materials are presented in the exploratory borehole logs (Appendix A). Colluvial Soil The site is blanketed by one to three (1 to 3) feet of colluvial soil consisting, predominantly, of dark brown and dark grayish brown, firm to stiff, damp to moist, medium to high plasticity, sandy clay with up to 20 percent fine- to coarse-grained sand and abundant rootlets within the upper 12 inches. Four (4) penetration tests demonstrated an average standard penetration blowcount of 14 blows per foot (bpf). One (1) pocket penetrometer testing in the surficial clay suggest an unconfined compressive strength in excess of 3.2 tons per square foot (tsf). One (1) undisturbed sample of the clay obtained near the interface with the underlying Santa Clara formation exhibited a dry density of 108.9 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a corresponding moisture content of 10.4 percent. A laboratory determined liquid limit of 69 and plasticity index of 46 indicate high plasticity with a significant potential for shrink-swell behavior resulting from moisture fluctuations. A constant-volume swell test demonstrated a swell pressure of 3,417 pounds per square foot (psf) required to limit vertical swelling of an air-dried sample to 0.3 percent when flooded. 5 McLaughlin, R. J., Clark, J.C., Brabb, E. E., Helley, E. J. and Colón, C. J., 2001, Geologic maps and structure sections of the southwestern Santa Clara Valley and southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, California: U.S Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-2373. Standard Penetration Blowcount 400 380 360 340 420 Approximate Elevation (feet) NOTES: Surface topography and locations of proposed building sites derived from 3/13/19 Lot Layout Plan prepared by TS Civil Engineering. Locations of exploratory test pits derived from 5/18/19 Connelly Geologic Report. Locations of exploratory boreholes determined by tape and compass methods.Approximate Elevation (feet) A’A Drawn by: BSM IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL SECTION A-A’FIGURE NO. Date:Scale:Project No. 1 inch = 20 feet MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL 195040 3 N25W GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION A-A’ MG2 9 19 25 33 25 18 23 22 32 25 MG3 13 25 47 33/6" 21 39 39 42MG4 15 16 37 33/6" 20 27 31 42 MG1 17 28 40 28 45 19 25 45 47 39 PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California June 2019 Proposed Building Site Proposed Building Site Pit 2 Pit 1 400 380 360 340 420 Property Line Property Line Property Line Weathered Santa Clara Formation Colluvium Page 6 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Santa Clara Formation The encountered Santa Clara Formation materials consist, predominantly, of interbedded, medium dense to very dense, moist, silty to clayey gravel and silty to clayey fine- to coarse-grained sand and weathered siltstone. These materials generally demonstrate standard penetration test (SPT) blowcounts ranging from 22 to in excess of 50 bpf with an average of 31 bpf. The upper approximately two to four (2 to 4) feet of these materials exhibits advanced weathering with blowcounts averaging 20 bpf. The dry density and moisture content of 16 undisturbed samples of the weathered Santa Clara formation average 112 pcf and 15 percent, respectively. Four (4) unconfined compression tests yielded unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 4,833 to 9,318 psf. The lower bound compressive strength of 4,833 psf was adopted for purposes of analysis and design. Empirical strength relationships based on material composition, dry density, and standard penetration blowcount suggest an undrained angle of about 36 degrees for the more highly weathered materials at the shallower elevations of the unit. GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered in any of the four (4) boreholes advanced for this investigation to a maximum depth of 20 feet. It should be noted that ground water conditions at other locations and times, or during different weather conditions might differ from those encountered in our test boreholes. Nevertheless, based on the results of our subsurface investigation and collected data, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed improvements will not be adversely affected by ground water if constructed during the dry season. SLOPE STABILITY Most of the subject lots are located within a State of California designated seismic hazard zone with respect to potential earthquake induced landsliding. Presumably, this determination is driven by the slope inclinations. Slope stability analyses were performed to assess the stability of the subject slope during static and seismic loading conditions. Page 7 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Methodology Slope stability was evaluated using SLIDE6, a limit equilibrium computer program developed by Rocscience, Inc. An idealized slope model was developed using site geometry, subsurface stratigraphy, ground water conditions, engineering properties of the site soils, and anticipated seismic loading conditions as described previously in this report. Thousands of potential failure surfaces were evaluated with the SLIDE program using Bishop’s and Spencer’s methods with continued model refinement to result in the lowest factor of safety. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of forces resisting failure to those that could drive failure. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered to be the minimum acceptable factor of safety under static conditions. Geometry The analyzed surface topography was developed from the topographic survey prepared by TS Civil Engineering. Soil Properties The subsurface material contacts were interpreted from the exploratory borehole advanced for this investigation. The following table summarizes the soil strength properties used in the stability analyses. The bases for these soil properties are described elsewhere in this report. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the potential impacts of increases soil and weathered bedrock saturation. Soil Properties for Stability Analyses Moist Density (pcf) Shear Strength (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Colluvial Soil 124 1,000 - Weathered Santa Clara Fm. 128 - 36 / 0 6 Rocscience, Inc., SLIDE version 5.044. Page 8 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Seismic Loading The subject slope was subjected to a screening analysis based on the previously described ground acceleration determined for a 10 percent probability of exceedance during a 50-year period. Using a five (5)-centimeter displacement criteria, a reduction factor of 0.48 was applied to the probabilistically determined seismic coefficient to yield a seismic coefficient of 0.25g for use in the analyses. Ground Water Ground water was not encountered to the maximum explored depth (20 feet) during this investigation and no indications of seasonally high ground water, such as mottling or precipitate deposits, were observed in any of the boreholes. Consequently, no ground water was considered in the analysis. Analysis and Results This analysis yielded a static factor of safety against failure of 3.87 (Figure 4) and a pseudostatic factor of safety of 1.62 (Figure 5) under the considered seismic loading conditions. Only negligible decreases in the factors of safety were observed when considering up to 10 pcf increases in moist densities resulting from potential increased saturation. Consequently, with respect to static and seismic stability, the potential for slope instability during the economic life of the structure is considered to be low. DISCUSSIONS and CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of this investigation and our review of previous site geologic investigations, it is our opinion that the geotechnical conditions of the site are suitable for the proposed improvements provided that the geotechnical design criteria presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction. We conclude that the primary geotechnical factors affecting the design and construction of the proposed improvements are the hillside setting, relatively weak and creep-prone near-surface soil, expansive near-surface soils, and the potential for significant ground shaking caused by an earthquake on the nearby active San Andreas and Berrocal fault systems. The following discussions summarize our findings and conclusions regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed improvements as determined from the presented data. Specific geotechnical design parameters are presented in a subsequent section. Expansive and Creep Prone Soil Field observations and laboratory test data indicate that up to about three (3) feet of the surficial soils consist of moderately to highly expansive clay that is Drawn by: STATIC STABILITY - 10 Critical Surfaces MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL FIGURE NO. Date:Scale:Project No. BSM1 inch = 20 feet 4PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California June 2019 195040 PROPOSED ANDERSON RESIDENCES Static Stability Analysis FS - 3.87 Proposed Building Site Proposed Building Site Project No. 195040 Proposed Building Site Proposed Building Site Page 9 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL subject to shrink-swell behavior resulting from anticipated seasonal moisture fluctuations. The existence of expansive soils on the site's moderately steep slopes also produce a phenomenon referred to as soil creep. Seasonal expansion and contraction of the site soils creates a condition where slow progressive downslope movement of the clayey soils occurs. The geotechnical recommendations provided below address the potential impacts of expansive soils through avoidance and/or replacement. Seismic Shaking The site is expected to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes along active faults located within the region and on the property during the design life of the project. Based on anticipated ground shaking, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.53g is predicted by probabilistic methods. However, much can be done both to prepare for a large earthquake and to mitigate some of its consequences. Excellent discussions of simple procedures to make a residence stronger and safer during a major earthquake can be found in "Peace of Mind in Earthquake Country" by Peter Yanev7, at the Association of Bay Area Government earthquake information website8, and in the United States Geologic Survey “Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country” handbook9. As a minimum, the proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards for static and seismic design. 7 Yanev, Peter and Andrew Thompson, 2009, Peace of Mind in Earthquake Country: How to Save Your Home, Business, and Life, Chronical Books. 8 Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Earthquakes and Hazard Maps/Info, http://quake.abag.ca.gov/. 9 US Geologic Survey, 2005, Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Co untry – Your Handbook for the San Francisco Bay Region, General Information Product 15, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15/. Page 10 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA The following recommendations are presented as guidelines for subsequent stages of development. These recommendations shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed subdivision improvements. Final detailing of concrete elements and reinforcing steel is to be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the provided geotechnical criteria. To assure that the intent of these recommendations is included in the project plans and specifications, we request an opportunity to review the plans prior to initiation of construction. It has been our experience that the permit process is often expedited when we review the plans prior to submittal. References to ASTM test designations are intended to indicate the most recent version at the time of construction. Grading Due to the site topography, it is anticipated that development of the building pads could involve total cuts and/or fills up to about 10 feet. Based on the experience of borehole drilling, it is expected that proposed site excavations can be performed with conventional earthmoving equipment. Clearing and Site Preparation All areas to be graded should be cleared of vegetation and organic laden soil. Stripped materials should be removed from the improvement area for proper disposal. Depressions created by the removal of debris that extends below the proposed finished subgrade should be backfilled with engineered fill as described below. Disturbed soil subgrades to receive fill should be excavated to expose firm soil and should be scarified to a depth of six (6) inches, moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Subgrade Improvement Due to the relatively limited thickness of surficial soils, it is recommended that all expansive clays underlying improvement be removed from the site for proper disposal. Subgrade improvement should extend laterally a minimum of two (2) feet beyond the limits of proposed surface improvements. The bases of all excavations shall be in firm material as approved by the project geotechnical engineer, scarified to a depth of six (6) inches, moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture content of about two (2) percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 and a maximum of 95 Page 11 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL percent relative compaction based on the ASTM D 1557 test method. Where required to achieve design subgrade elevations, the excavated materials are to be replaced with approved, non-expansive, treated on- site or non-expansive import fill that is placed and compacted as described below. Material for Fill Any fill to be placed at the site should not contain rocks or lumps greater than four (4) inches in greatest dimension and should not contain greater than 15 percent (by dry weight) larger than two-and- one-half (2.5) inches. Fill material within three (3) feet of the ground surface should have a maximum plasticity index of 12. Minimum 50-pound samples of materials to be used as engineered fill should be submitted to the project geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to placement. It is anticipated that much of the Santa Clara Formation materials encountered at depth will be suitable for use as engineered fill Aggregate Base for Pavements Aggregate base materials for pavement sections should consist of material conforming to the requirements for Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base, be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill Placement and Compaction On-site native expansive soil used as fill in landscaping areas should be moisture conditioned to at least two (2) percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Non-expansive import material used as fill should be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum, spread in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight (8) inches in loose thickness, and compacted with an approved mechanical compactor to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Page 12 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL The upper 12 inches of fill in landscape areas may be compacted to a minimum of 85 percent to promote growth of vegetation. Final grading of the road should provide a minimum two (2) percent inboard slope to promote drainage. Cut Slope Design Permanent cut slopes in competent Santa Clara Formation materials should not exceed inclinations of two to one (2 to 1) horizontal to vertical. Permanent cut slopes in surficial materials including soil and colluvium should not exceed inclinations of three-to-one (3 to 1) horizontal to vertical. Short-term temporary cuts should not exceed inclinations of one to one (1 to 1) horizontal to vertical without shoring. Fill Slope Design Permanent engineered fill slopes should not exceed an inclination of two-to-one (2 to 1) horizontal to vertical. Fill slope inclinations may be increased with the use of geogrid reinforcement. At your request, we can provide design and construction criteria for geogrid-reinforced fill slopes. Fill slopes should be provided with a keyway founded in competent weathered Santa Clara Formation materials located below the surficial soil and colluvium and be sloped inboard a minimum of two (2) percent. The depth of keyways should be determined in the field by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. For preliminary budgeting purposes, it is anticipated that keyways will extend a minimum of 18 inches into competent materials. Subdrains should be placed in fill slopes exceeding five (5) feet in height. The subdrains should be trenched a minimum of three (3) feet deep into placed fill and consist of a minimum four (4)-inch diameter, perforated, Schedule 40, PVC pipe (or approved functional equivalent) surrounded by approved, filtered drainrock. The necessity, final design, and construction of subdrains should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer prior to construction. Page 13 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Previous Excavations Five (5) exploratory test pit was excavated within the properties by Connelly1. It is presumed that the excavation was loosely backfilled with only moderate compactive effort. It is recommended that any test pits located within the proposed improvement areas and driveways be located, re-excavated, and filled in accordance with the design criteria presented above for Fill Placement and Compaction if it is located within five (5) feet of proposed improvements. Building Foundations Because of the hillside setting, presence of expansive and relatively weak near surface soils, variability of foundation soils, and anticipated seismic shaking, it is recommended that the structures be constructed as a drilled, cast-in-place, friction pier and grade beam foundations that are isolated from expansive subgrade soils with the use of void forms. All foundation piers should be interconnected by the grade beams or tie beams. Maximum total and differential settlement of structures supported on drilled pier and grade beam foundations is estimated to be one-half (1/2) inch. The foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following design criteria. Final design of foundation configuration and reinforcement to be determined by a qualified structural engineer. Minimum Pier Diameter 16 inches. Minimum Pier Depth Eight (8) feet into competent weathered bedrock that is estimated to be encountered within about three (3) feet below the existing ground surface. Minimum Pier Spacing 3 pier diameters, center to center. Maximum Pier Spacing 10 feet. Page 14 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Creep Loading Piers and grade beams located on slopes should be designed to resist creep loading acting within three feet of the ground surfaces calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 85 pcf/f acting across two (2) pier diameters. Allowable Shaft Friction In competent weathered Santa Clara Formation materials: 700 psf in compression; 560 psf in uplift resistance. Neglect shaft friction within three (3) feet of existing ground surface. Increase by 33% for transient loads such as wind or seismic. Lateral Resistance 350 pounds per cubic foot per foot (pcf/f) equivalent fluid pressure (in competent weathered claystone and conglomerate). Apply resistance over two (2) pier diameters. Neglect lateral resistance within three (3) feet of the existing ground surface. Increase by 33% for seismic or wind loads. Minimum Pier Reinforcement Four (4) - vertical No. 4 bars (two uphill and two downhill) with No. 3 spirals or ties at maximum 12-inch spacing. Reinforcement to be provided with a minimum of three (3) inches concrete cover. Reinforcing cages to be constructed with sufficient clearance to allow introduction of tremie pipe to the bottom of pier excavation. Void Forms Grade beams that do not extend through the surficial clay should be isolated from the clay with an approved, minimum six (6)-inch thick, collapsible void form that is functionally equivalent to SureVoid. Construction Pier holes should be free of standing water and cleared of all loose debris prior to pouring of concrete. If standing water collects in the pier excavations, the water should be pumped out or the concrete should be placed by the tremie method with the concrete displacing the water from the bottom up. If casing is required to maintain excavation stability, the casings shall be removed during placement of the concrete so that the concrete will cure in contact with native soil. Page 15 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Uncased holes that encounter groundwater should be poured within 24 hours of drilling. All pier excavations should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. Concrete over-pour (“mushrooming”) of piers and grade beams should be prevented with the use of “sono-tubes” where required. Retaining Walls Due to the sloping ground conditions, it is anticipated that retaining walls, either as partial rear walls to the structures or as site retaining walls, will be required to establish level building pads. Retaining walls should be supported by pier-and-grade-beam foundations as described previously for building foundations. Residence retaining walls should be constructed integrally with the mat foundations. Retaining walls are to be designed to support the total of all applicable loads in accordance with the following geotechnical criteria: Lateral Loading Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf/f) Surficial Clay Weathered Bedrock Select Fill* Restrained Level 80 55 55 Up to 3H:1V 85 60 60 Unrestrained Level 60 35 35 Up to 3H:1V 65 40 40 * Retaining walls with select non-expansive backfill extending at least three (3) feet beyond the wall may be designed using “Select Fill” loading criteria. Seismic Surcharge As described by Lew and others10, the evaluation of seismic earth pressures for unrestrained walls less than 12 feet tall is not necessary provided the walls are designed for a factor of safety of at least 1.5. However, the current CBC requires that all walls in excess of six (6) feet be designed to support lateral seismic loads. Restrained retaining walls exceeding six (6) feet in height shall be designed to resist a seismic surcharge calculated as a uniform lateral pressure of 19H psf, where H is the height of the wall. Retaining walls that 10 Lew, L., Sitar, N., Al Atik, L., Pourzanjani, M., and Hudson, M.B., 2010. “Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements”, SEAOC 2010 Convention Proceedings. Page 16 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL can accommodate up to two (2) inches of lateral displacement during seismic loading may be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 12.5H psf, where H is the height of the wall. Traffic Surcharge Retaining walls that will support traffic loading are to be designed to support an additional uniform surcharge load of 80 psf along the upper five (5) feet of wall. Wall Drainage The provided design pressures assume that the retaining walls will be fully drained. Positive drainage to daylight must be provided behind all retaining walls exceeding 18 inches in height. The drain should consist of a minimum 18-inch wide vertical blanket of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material or clean, crushed, durable one-half- to three-quarter- (1/2- to 3/4-) inch drainrock that is completely enveloped by approved non-woven filter fabric. The upper 12 inches of retaining wall backfill should consist of compacted, low permeability material separated from the drainrock by a double layer of filter fabric. A minimum four (4)-inch diameter, rigid (SDR 35 ABS, or functional equivalent) perforated pipe should be placed near the base of the drainage material on a minimum one (1)-inch thick drainrock layer with at least four (4) inches of drainage material on each side. The pipe should be sloped to drain at a minimum gradient of one (1) percent toward a suitably sited and constructed energy dissipation device to be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. The drainpipe should be provided with appropriate cleanouts. Alternatively, drainage of the retaining walls may be accomplished by placing a prefabricated drainage panel (such as “Miradrain G100N”) between the wall and backfill with fabric facing outward. The drainage panel should extend down to a four (4)-inch diameter, rigid, perforated pipe embedded in a minimum 12-inch wide by 18-inch high blanket of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material at the base of the wall. The manufacturer’s specifications regarding any proposed prefabricated drainage panel should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to verify that it is appropriate for the intended use. Page 17 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Wall Backfill Retaining wall drainrock and backfill placement and compaction should conform to the requirements for engineered fill and be compacted with appropriate equipment and in a manner to prevent excessive loading to adjacent walls or damage to waterproofing or drainage systems. Waterproofing membranes should be inspected for integrity during backfill placement and compaction. Swimming Pools Swimming pools should be founded on approved, competent, weathered Santa Clara Formation materials that are encountered below the surficial clays. Shell Pressure The swimming pool shell should be designed to withstand exterior lateral pressures as described above for retaining walls. Base Drainage The pool bottom should be underlain by a minimum six (6)-inch thick gravel drainage blanket and a suitable pressure relief valve designed to protect the unfilled pool in the event of high groundwater. We should be provided an opportunity to examine the pool excavation prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Seismic Design Criteria The site is expected to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes along active faults located within the region during the design life of the project. Peak probable horizontal ground accelerations of 0.53g have been predicted by probabilistic methods. As a minimum, the structure should be designed to resist lateral loads resulting from ground shaking as provided in the current California Building Code (CBC) or other accepted design methods. Based on the observed site conditions, we conclude the following design parameters to be appropriate for design using the 2016 California Building Code design method: Page 18 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Seismic Design Parameters PARAMETER VALUE Site Class C SS (0.2s Spectral Response Acc.) Default Site Class B 2.382 S1 (1.0s Spectral Response Acc.) Default Site Class B 0.904 SMS (0.2s Spectral Response Acc.) Site Class C 2.382 SM1 (1.0s Spectral Response Acc.) Site Class C 1.175 SDS (0.2s Spectral Response Acc.) Site Class C 1.588 SD1 (1.0s Spectral Response Acc.) Site Class C 0.783 Fa (Site Class C) 1.0 Fv (Site Class C) 1.3 For additional guidance on reducing the risks associated with living in seismically active areas, owners may wish to consult “Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country” 11 (available on-line at the US Geological Survey), which references additional useful documents. Concrete Slabs-on-Grade The subgrades for concrete slabs-on-grade should be non-yielding and compacted to the requirements previously stated for engineered fill. Subgrades for interior slabs on grade should be removed and replaced with a uniform thickness of properly compacted non-expansive import or on-site- derived fill as discussed in the grading section of this report. Exterior slabs in areas underlain by expansive soils should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 24 inches for replacement with engineered fill. The slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a minimum of six (6) inches of compacted Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base, a minimum of five (5) inches thick, and reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 bars on 18-inch spacings in both directions. The baserock may count toward the total “non-expansive” thickness as described above. Slabs should be provided with minimum eight (8)-inch by eight (8)-inch thickened edges. Slab thickness, steel reinforcement, load-transfer devices, and crack control features should be determined by the structural engineer. 11 United States Geological Survey, 2005, Putting down roots in earthquake country, General Information Product 15, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15/. Page 19 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Exterior slabs should be structurally isolated from adjacent structures although a sleeved dowel connection may be used at entrances to limit differential vertical displacement. Exterior slab moisture and potential efflorescence can be limited with a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum 10-mil thick waterproof membrane a described in the Moisture Control section. Moisture Control It is recommended that the project engage the services of a moisture control specialist to design, review, and oversee the installation of moisture and vapor protection systems. Additionally, it is essential that such systems be installed by qualified and experienced personnel. The following design and construction considerations are offered as a minimum standard. To minimize moisture infiltration and potential efflorescence, the blind sides of floors and retaining walls should be sealed with a continuous water/vapor barrier such as high-density polyethylene (functionally equivalent to Tremco’s Paraseal LG or Stego Industries’ StegoWrap for horizontal surfaces and GCP’s Bithuthene for vertical surfaces). The integrity of the moisture barrier is to be maintained at below-ground utility penetrations and at foundation piers grade beams. All below-ground cold joints and basement slab control joints should be provided with continuous waterstops flanged at both ends. Installation, lapping, and sealing of waterproofing membranes should be performed in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations. It is recommended that corners, such as at wall/footing joints, be provided with a cant strip or sloping infill to reduce the potential for damage to the overlying waterproofing membranes. Vertical vapor barriers should be protected from drainrock and backfill with a rigid panel or prefabricated drainage panel. The top edges of vapor barriers applied to vertical surfaces should be secured with manufacture-recommended termination bars. Page 20 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Surface Drainage Positive surface drainage, with a minimum slope five (5) percent, should be provided away from the structures for a minimum distance of 10 feet as mandated by the current California Building Code. Where this is not possible due to topographic considerations, alternate approaches such as lined surface swales or low permeability surface treatments should be considered to limit the introduction of surface runoff to the building foundation. Cut slope retaining walls should be provided with a lined swale that diverts upslope surface runoff to an appropriate storm water collection and dissipation system. Hard surfaces, such as perimeter walkways may be provided with a minimum one-and-one-half (1.5) percent cross slope. All roof sections should be provided with roof gutters connected via downspouts to minimum four (4)-inch diameter, non-perforated, rigid, smooth-wall drain- pipes that have a minimum slope of one (1) percent to discharge at approved downgradient locations. The use of 90-degree angled connections should be strictly avoided in favor of long sweep-90 connections or combinations of maximum 45-degree angled connections. Drain lines should be provided with appropriate and sufficient cleanouts and isolated from subsurface drainage facilities. Final siting of on-site storm drain discharge facilities, such as infiltration trenches or energy dissipaters, should avoid areas immediately downslope of proposed improvements and should be determined in the field by the project architect, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer. The use of drought tolerant landscaping is encouraged to limit irrigation requirements. Utilities Underground utility pipes and conduits should be bedded with approved free- draining sand or quarry-fines. Trenches should be backfilled with compacted on-site or import fill material that does not contain rocks or lumps greater than three (3) inches in size. The backfill should be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum, placed in maximum six (6)-inch horizontal layers and compacted by mechanical means to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. The upper 24 inches of fill below exterior surface improvements (such as paved areas) should be backfilled with non-expansive soil and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry Page 21 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL density. Compaction of trench backfill by flooding, jetting, or other non- mechanical means shall not be permitted. Sloping trenches should be provided with minimum 12-inch thick, low permeability cutoff walls (such as clay or controlled density pumpable fill (CDF)) at maximum lateral intervals of 25 feet to limit the migration of bedding soils. Erosion Protection Project contractors should observe Best Management Practices during construction operations to protect areas downslope from construction activities and limit generation and offsite transport of sediment throughout the duration of construction. At a minimum, erosion protection should consist of properly installed fiber rolls (bio-wattles) or erosion fencing below the downslope limits of grading. Additionally, stripped slope areas should be provided with appropriate erosion protection methods prior to the rainy season. Page 22 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL TECHNICAL REVIEW This report should be reviewed by the project architect, engineers, and potential contractors prior to the next stage of development. A copy of this report should also be provided to the general contractor for reference during construction. Any questions or discrepancies should be brought to the attention of a representative of Milstone Geotechnical prior to the start of design and construction. We request an opportunity to review the final plans, design calculations, and specifications prior to construction to confirm that our recommendations have been incorporated and, if necessary, to provide supplemental recommendations. It has been our experience that the permit process may be expedited if we review the plans prior to submittal GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION Site grading, subgrade improvement, mat subgrade preparation, moisture barrier installation, drainage control installations, and placement of engineered fill and backfill should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer (prior to placement of steel and concrete) to verify that the encountered site conditions are the same as those anticipated by this investigation and to verify conformance with our recommendations. A minimum of three (3) working-days notification prior to construction activities requiring inspection services is required. The cost of these services will be charged on a time-and-expenses basis. Geotechnical plan review and construction observation are conducted to reduce - not eliminate - the risk of problems arising during construction, and provision of the service does not create a warranty or guarantee of any type. In all cases, contractors shall retain responsibility for the quality and completeness of their work, for adhering to the plans, specifications, and recommendations on which their work is based, and for contacting the appropriate parties in a timely manner regarding construction activities that require inspection or observation services. It is suggested that an on-site pre-construction meeting be conducted with the owner, designer, geotechnical engineer, general contractor, and appropriate subcontractors (such as excavation and grading) prior to the start of construction to establish project expectations and communication protocol. Page 23 Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, California Proj. No. 195040 6/12/19 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS These services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time this report was written. The investigation was performed, and this report prepared, for the exclusive use of the client, and for specific application to proposed site development as outlined in the body of the report. No third-party shall have the right to rely on the findings, opinions, or recommendations rendered in connection with this investigation without the written consent of Milstone Geotechnical. No warranty, express or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with this work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. This report is issued with the understanding that the owners choose the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures and savings involved with the chosen construction alternatives. The recommendations and design criteria presented in this report are contingent upon a representative of Milstone Geotechnical being retained to review the final plans and specifications and to provide geotechnical construction observation services for all earthwork and construction operations that are addressed by this report. Unanticipated soils and geologic conditions are commonly encountered during construction and cannot be fully determined from existing exposures. If conditions encountered in the field are different than those anticipated by this report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to the recommendations. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or of their representative to see that all parties to this project including designers, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, etc. are made aware of this report and to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The recommendations contained herein are valid for one year, after which time they must be reviewed by a representative of Milstone Geotechnical to determine whether they are still applicable. APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Description of Subsurface Investigation Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MG1 through MG4 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION DESCRIPTION Our subsurface investigation involved drilling, logging, and sampling of two (2) small diameter exploratory boreholes to verify and supplement subsurface data presented by Steven ConnellyError! Bookmark not defined.. The boreholes were advanced by Britton Exploration, under the direction of Milstone Geotechnical, using a track-mounted CME45 drill rig with a six (6.0)-inch diameter solid-stem auger. The boreholes were drilled to depths of 15.5 and 20.0 on May 6, 2019. Following completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with loosely tamped soil cuttings to the ground surface. Subsequently, obtained samples were transported to the laboratory to verify field classification and perform index and strength testing. Borehole locations are depicted on Figure 3 located in the body of the report. Graphical logs of the boreholes and a key to soil classification follows in this appendix. The encountered earth materials were continuously logged and described in the field by a registered geotechnical engineer. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at various depths with a three (3.0)-inch-outside-diameter, two-and-one-half (2.5)-inch-inside-diameter, split-barrel (Modified California) sampler with a series of six (6)-inch-long, thin walled brass liners. Resistance blowcounts were obtained with the samplers by repeatedly dropping a 140-pound auto-hammer through a free-fall distance of 30 inches using an automatic hammer. The samplers were driven 18 inches (or to apparent refusal) and the number of blows recorded for each six (6) inches of penetration. The blows per foot recorded on the borehole logs represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of penetration corrected to represent standard penetration blowcounts with Modified California sampler results corrected to represent Standard Penetration test blowcounts. The borehole logs and related information show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and it is not implied that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Note: Blow-counts reported for samplers other than a Standard Penetration SplitSpoon Sampler were obtained by empirically converting the number ofblows required to drive the sampler through the last12 inches ofan 18-inch penetration to the equivalentnumber ofblows using a Standard Penetration SplitS poon Sampler. Note:The borehole logs depictour interpretation ofthe subsurface conditions atthe dates and locations indicated. Itis notwarranted thatthey are representative ofsubsurface conditions atother times and locations. The lines separating strata on the boring logs representapproximate boundaries only. Actualtransitions may be gradual. CRITERIA FOR AS SIGNING GROUP S YMBOLS AND GROUP NAMES S OIL CLASSIFICATION GRAPHIC SYMBOL USCS GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE SANDS MORE THAN HALF COARS E FRACTION IS S MALLER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE CLEAN GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS WITH MORE THAN 12% FINES CLEAN S ANDS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH MORE THAN 12% FIINES SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50% INORGANIC INORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER GW GP GM GC SW SP SM S C ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Well graded gravel Poorly graded gravel Silty gravel Clayey gravel Poorly graded sand Well graded sand Silty sand Clayey sand Low plasticity silt Low plasticity clay,Lean clay High plasticity silt,Elastic silt High plasticity clay,Fatclay Medium to high plasticity organic siltor clay Peat ABBREVIATIONS AD:Auger Drilling MC:Modified California Sampler T1:Tube Sample (undisturbed) B1:Grab Sample (disturbed) SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES Low plasticity organic silt, Low plasticity oganic clay MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL SPT:Casagrande Sampler 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOG OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE Remarks: Project Location Drilling Equipment Drilling Contractor Project Elev. Hole Diameter Surface Project Number Page 1 of Logged By Date 1 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL MG1 18 RLF6 inches weededBritton Exploration Track-mounted CME45 MC18/18 17 T1 SM Clayey SAND Gravel: Very dark gray (10YR3/1); loose; damp; abundant rootlets. T2 ~420 feet COLLUVIAL AND RESIDUAL SOIL AD Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet. No ground water encountered. Borehole backfilled with tamped cuttings. AD AD Silty GRAVEL with Sand: Yellowish brown (10YR5/6) with variable gravel colors; ~70% rounded to subrounded gravel to 2-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~10% medium plasticity fines; dense; moist. Slst GM SPT18/18 19 B1 MC12/18 28 T3 T4 AD SPT18/18 25 B2 MC18/18 40 T5 T6 SPT18/18 45 B3 MC18/18 28 T7 T8 AD SPT18/18 47 B4 MC18/18 45 T9 T10 SPT18/18 39 B5 >4.5 >4.5 SANTA CLARA FORMATION SC Weathered CLAYSTONE: Light yellowish brown and pale yellow (10YR6/3,7/4); severely weathered; weak; soft; carveable; moist. Slightly clayey, very moist. Clayey matrix. GC GC Clst Clst Clayey GRAVEL: Light yellowish brown and brownish yellow (10YR6/4,6/1);~70% medium to severely weathered gravel to 2-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~10% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. Clayey GRAVEL: Dark yellowish brown with very dark grayish brown (10YR4/6,3/2);~70% medium to severely weathered gravel to 1.5-inch size; ~15% medium to coarse grained sand; ~15% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist to wet. Sandy SILTSTONE: Yellowish brown (10YR5/6); severely weathered; weak; soft; friable; with very fine grained sand; very moist. Silty SAND: with Gravel: Yellowish brown (10YR5/6);~30% weathered sandstone and siltone gravel to 1-inch size; ~60% fine to coarse grained sand; ~10% low plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. Weathered CLAYSTONE: Grayish brown (10YR5/2) with carbonate stained veins; severely weathered; weak; soft; friable; moist. 5/6/19 184950Proposed Anderson Residences 400 Surmont, CA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOG OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE Remarks: Project Location Drilling Equipment Drilling Contractor Project Elev. Hole Diameter Surface Project Number Page 1 of Logged By Date 1 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL MG2 18 RLF 5/6/19 6 inches weeded 184950Proposed Anderson Residences Britton Exploration Track-mounted CME45 MC9/18 9 T1 CH Sandy CLAY: Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2); fine to coarse grained sand; medium to high plasticity fines; damp; abundant rootlets. T2 ~403 feet 400 Surmont, CA AD Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet. No ground water encountered. Borehole backfilled with tamped cuttings. AD AD Sandy CLAY: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6); ~40% very fine to fine grained sand; ~60% low to medium plasticity fines; very stiff; very moist.GC/ SC CL SPT12/18 18 MC15/18 19 T3 T4 AD SPT15/18 23 B2 MC12/18 25 T5 T6 SPT18/18 22 B3 MC15/18 33 T7 T8 AD SPT18/18 32 B4 MC18/18 25 T9 T10 SPT18/18 25 B5 >4.5 >4.5 Clayey SAND with Gravel: Yellow brown with brownish yellow and dark brown and dark yellowish brown (10YR5/6,6/8,4/6); ~5% weathered gravel to 3/4-inch size; ~60% fine to coarse grained sand; ~35% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. SANTA CLARA FORMATION CH Slts B1 Mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/4); clayey; very moist. Clayey GRAVEL: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6); ~50% rounded gravel to 1/2-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~30% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist; abundant calcium carbonate. GC COLLUVIAL AND RESIDUAL SOIL 3.0 2.5 >4.5 >4.5 >4.5 4.5 >4.5 Weathered SILTSTONE: Yellowish brown (10YR5/6); severely weathered; weak; soft; slightly clayey; trace very fine grained sand; very moist. Clayey GRAVEL to Clay SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6);~40% subangular to subrounded gravel to 1.5-inch size; ~40% fine to coarse grained sand; ~20% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; very moist. Sandy CLAY: Dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4); trace gravel to 1/2-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~80% medium to high plasticity fines; very stiff; very moist. SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOG OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE Remarks: Project Location Drilling Equipment Drilling Contractor Project Elev. Hole Diameter Surface Project Number Page 1 of Logged By Date 1 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL MG3 18 RLF 5/6/19 6 inches weeded 184950Proposed Anderson Residences Britton Exploration Track-mounted CME45 MC18/18 13 T1 SM T2 ~394 feet22700 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, CA COLLUVIAL AND RESIDUAL SOIL AD Borehole terminated at 15.5 feet. No ground water encountered. Borehole backfilled with tamped cuttings. AD AD SPT18/18 21 B1 MC12/18 25 T3 T4 AD SPT18/18 39 B2 MC18/18 47 T5 T6 SPT18/18 39 B3 MC12/12 33/6"T7 T8 SPT18/18 42 B4 >4.5 SANTA CLARA FORMATION CH Slightly clayey, very moist. Silty to Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: Light yellowish brown and brownish yellow (10YR5/6,6/8); ~50% moderately weathered gravel to 1.5-inch size; ~30% fine to coarse grained sand; ~20% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. Sandy CLAY with Gravel: Dark brown (10YR3/3); gravel to 2-inch size; fine to coarse grained sand; medium to high plasticity fines; damp; abundant rootlets. Sandy CLAY: Dark yellowish brown with yellowish brown specs (10YR3/4,5/8); ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~80% medium to high plasticity fines; hard; moist. CH ~60-70% gravel to 2-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand. Yellowish brown (10YR5/6); dense. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOG OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE Remarks: Project Location Drilling Equipment Drilling Contractor Project Elev. Hole Diameter Surface Project Number Page 1 of Logged By Date 1 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL MG4 18 RLF 5/6/19 6 inches weeded 184950Proposed Anderson Residences Britton Exploration Track-mounted CME45 MC18/18 15 T1 SC/ GC T2 ~374 feet 22700 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, CA COLLUVIAL AND RESIDUAL SOIL AD Borehole terminated at 15.5 feet. No ground water encountered. Borehole backfilled with tamped cuttings. AD AD SPT18/18 20 B1 MC12/18 16 T3 T4 AD SPT18/18 27 B2 MC18/18 37 T5 T6 SPT18/18 31 B3 MC12/12 33/6"T7 T8 SPT18/18 42 B4 3.25 SANTA CLARA FORMATION CH Clayey GRAVEL: Dark yellowish brown and yellowish brown (10YR4/6,5/6); ~60% moderately weathered gravel to 1.5-inch size; ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~20% medium plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. Sandy CLAY with Gravel: Dark brown (10YR3/3); gravel to 2-inch size; fine to coarse grained sand; medium to high plasticity fines; soft; damp; abundant rootlets. Sandy CLAY with Gravel: Dark yellowish brown with yellowish brown specs (10YR4/4); ~20% fine to coarse grained sand; ~80% medium to high plasticity fines; very stiff; very moist. CH Gravel to at least 2.5-inch size.GC Clay SAND to clayey GRAVEL: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4,4/6); ~40% gravel to 1-inch size; ~40% fine to coarse grained sand; ~20% medium to high plasticity fines; medium dense; moist. APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Summary of Laboratory Test Results Unconfined Compression Atterberg Limits Constant Volume Swell Summary of Laboratory Test Results Proposed Surmont Residences 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Unconfined Atterberg Constant Borehole/ Earth Moisture Dry Compressive Limits Volume Sample No. Depth Material Content Density Strength (LL / PI) Swell Pressure (ft) (%) (pcf) (psf) (% / %) (psf) MG1/T2 2.0 GC 10.4 108.9 - - - MG1/T4 6.0 CH-CL 22.3 103.2 7,017 - - MG1/T5 9.5 SC 24.1 95.6 5,334 - - MG1/T8 14.0 CH 10.3 119.0 - 3,417 MG1/T10 18.0 SC/CH 8.0 126.9 - - - MG2/T2 2.0 CH-CL - - - - - MG2/T4 6.0 CH 22.8 104.5 - - - MG2/T6 10.0 SC 22.9 101.3 4,883 - - MG2/T8 14.0 CH-CL 19.1 110.5 9,318 - - MG2/T9 17.5 CH/GC 22.5 101.1 - - - MG3/T2 2.0 CH-CL 11.5 111.0 - - - MG3/T4 6.0 CH 14.2 110.0 - - - MG3/T6 10.0 SC 8.6 121.0 - - - MG3/T8 13.5 CH-CL 11.4 103.9 - - - MG4/B1 0.5 CH-CL 22.9 - - 69 / 46 - MG4/T2 2.0 CH-CL 14.3 118.7 - - - MG4/T4 6.0 CH 13.9 119.6 - - - MG4/T6 10.0 SC 8.9 124.4 - - - MG4/T7 13.0 CH-CL 10.0 119.8 - - - CLIENT: Milstone Geotechnical FISHER GEOTECHNICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Axial Load (psf) Axial Strain (%) Unconfined Compression Test Results Surmont Boring MG1, T4 @ 6.0' Claystone, Yel Brn, Very Severely Weathered, Soft Dry Density = 103.2 pcf Moisture Content = 22.3% qu= 7,017 psf @ 2.0% Failure plane: ≈ 69° CLIENT: Milstone Geotechnical FISHER GEOTECHNICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Axial Load (psf) Axial Strain (%) Unconfined Compression Test Results Surmont Boring MG1, T5 @ 9.5' Claystone, Mottled Dk Yel Brn, Very Severely Weathered, Soft Dry Density = 95.6 pcf Moisture Content = 24.1% qu= 5,334 psf @ 4.1% Failure plane: ≈ n/a° Brittle Failure on fractures w/ Carbonate CLIENT: Milstone Geotechnical FISHER GEOTECHNICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Axial Load (psf) Axial Strain (%) Unconfined Compression Test Results Surmont Boring MG2, T6 @ 10.0' Siltstone, Dk Yel Brn, Very Severely Weathered, Soft Dry Density = 101.3 pcf Moisture Content = 22.9% qu= 4,833 psf @ 3.1% Failure plane: ≈ 70° CLIENT: Milstone Geotechnical FISHER GEOTECHNICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Axial Load (psf) Axial Strain (%) Unconfined Compression Test Results Surmont Boring MG2, T8 @ 14.0' Siltstone, Dk Yel Brn, Very Severely Weathered, Soft Dry Density = 110.5 pcf Moisture Content = 19.1% qu= 9,318 psf @ 4.0% Failure plane: ≈ n/a° FISHER GEOTECHNICAL Project Name: Project Location: Los Gatos, CA 95033 Sample ID: Liquid Limit Determination #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Weight of Wet Soils + Pan:6.00 8.10 7.20 6.10 6.00 Weight of Dry Soils + Pan:5.10 6.00 5.80 4.80 4.70 Weight of Pan:3.70 2.90 3.70 2.90 2.90 Weight of Dry Soils:1.40 3.10 2.10 1.90 1.80 Weight of Moisture:0.90 2.10 1.40 1.30 1.30 % Moisture:64.3 % 67.7 % 66.7 % 68.4 % 72.2 % Number of Blows, N:41 33 31 24 19 69.34 %69 Plastic Limit Average:23.54 %24 Plasticity Index, IP:45.81 %46 Plastic Limit Determination #1 23.9 #3 #4 #5 #6 Weight of Wet Soils + Pan:8.10 8.90 Weight of Dry Soils + Pan:7.10 7.90 Weight of Pan:2.90 3.60 Weight of Dry Soils:4.20 4.30 Weight of Moisture:1.00 1.00 % Moisture:23.8 % 23.3 % 13.0 % 13.5 % 14.0 % 14.5 % 15.0 % 15.5 % 16.0 % 16.5 % 17.0 % 17.5 % 18.0 % 18.5 % 19.0 % 19.5 % 20.0 % 20.5 % Liquid Limit@ 25 Blows: Milstone Geotechnical Barry Milstone Surmont 400 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos MG4, B1@ 0-1.0' Sandy Fat Clay (CH), dk yel brn/dk brnVisual Description: Client Name: Client Address: Client Contact: Report Date: Date Received: Atterberg Limits (whole no.) 17020 Melody Lane 5/20/19 5/6/19 Passing No. 40 portion tested CH Reference: Test Classification: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 10100% MoistureNumber of Blows, "N" Liquid Limit MH or OH "A" Line CL-ML CL or OL CH or OH "U" Line 0.00 % 10.00 % 20.00 % 30.00 % 40.00 % 50.00 % 60.00 % 70.00 % 80.00 % 0.00 %10.00 %20.00 %30.00 %40.00 %50.00 %60.00 %70.00 %80.00 %90.00 %100.00 %110.00 %Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit Plasticity Chart ML or OL CLIENT: Milstone Geotechnical FISHER GEOTECHNICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 Compression (-) / Swell (+) (percent) Vertical Swell Pressure (psf) SWELL TEST RESULTS (CONSTANT VOLUME) SURMONT PROJECT 195050, BORING MG2 @ 2.0' Sample T2 Dk Brn Sandy Fat Clay (CH) Sample under initial air-dry load of 150 psf. Sample flooded at "constant volume" and restrained from expansion by proving ring and platen. Maximum swell pressure = 3,417 psf with 0.3% vertical swell occurring due to deformation of proving ring. Test Method 1" high x 2.42" dia. sample air dried in 2.42" ring under 150 psf load to 0.99" x 2.35" dia. Sample then weighed and placed into 2.35" ring for testing. 150 PSF load reinstated. Once stabilized, swell test undertaken. Data Initial: Dry Density 104.2 pcf, MC 20.3%, S 86.3% Air Dried: Dry Density 111.6 pcf, MC 14.5%, S 74.2% After Test: Dry Density 111.3 pcf, MC 20.3%, S 100% Gs (assumed)=2.75 Attachment D: Geologic Report ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCES APN 527-260-003 400 SURMONT DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Ms. Sandra K. Anderson ℅ Mr. Bob Hughes 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 2019 ! STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Ms. Sandra K. Anderson ℅ Mr. Bob Hughes 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Subject: ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Proposed Residences APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Dear Ms. Anderson, At your request, I have prepared this Engineering Geologic Investigation for the proposed residences to be constructed on your property, APN 527-20-003, located at 400 Surmont Drive in Los Gatos, California. I understand that you intend to subdivide the property and construct two new residences on Parcels 1 and 2, as approximately shown on plans provided for my review. The accompanying report presents my findings regarding the geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards influencing the proposed development. I am pleased to have been of service to you on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this report. Very truly yours, Steven F. Connelly Certified Engineering Geologist 1607 Copies: 7 - Addressee 1 - Milstone Geotechnical 
 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology ______________________________________________________________________________ 1169 Avenida Benito, San Jose, CA 95131 www.stevenfconnelly.com Phone (408) 392-9999 Cell (408) 398-9339 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCES APN 527-20-003 400 SURMONT DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA This report presents the results of an Engineering Geologic Investigation for the proposed residences to be constructed on the property, APN 527-20-003, located at 400 Surmont Drive in Los Gatos, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). I understand that 2 new lots will be subdivided from the property and that new homes are planned, as approximately shown on Figure 9, Site Geologic Map. The property is located within the Blossom Hill area of Los Gatos, as shown on Figure 2, Regional Topographic Map. Several northwest-trending thrust faults have been mapped to the southwest of the property, as shown on Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map. The property is also located within hillside terrain susceptible to potential landsliding. Most of the property lies within a State Seismic Hazard Zone for potential earthquake-induced landsliding, as shown on Figure 5, State Seismic Hazard Zone Map. Consequently, the Town of Los Gatos requires geologic investigation to assess potential geologic hazards for the proposed residences. The purpose of this Engineering Geologic Investigation is to identify existing geologic conditions and potential geologic, fault, landslide, or seismic hazards on the subject property, and to provide appropriate recommendations for the proposed residences. The scope of this investigation included review of pertinent geologic maps and literature; review of previous nearby investigations; communications with Dr. Robert Wright, the Reviewing Geologist for the Town of Los Gatos; consultation with the project Geotechnical Engineer, Mr. Barry Milstone of Milstone Geotechnical; analysis of historical aerial photographs; a site reconnaissance and mapping; excavation and logging of five test pits on the property; engineering geologic analysis; drafting and preparation of this report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Ms. Sandra K. Anderson, and project architects and engineers for the proposed new construction. This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in the nature or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing by Certified Engineering Geologist 1607. 
 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !1 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Photo 1: 2009 aerial photograph showing the subject property. Site Conditions The proposed new parcels are roughly rectangular-shaped lots located to the southeast of the end of Surmont Drive, as shown on Photo 1 above. The parcels are situated within the Los Gatos foothills along the northeast flank of the northwest-trending Santa Cruz Mountain Range, as shown on Figure 2, Regional Topographic Map. The parcels and proposed homesites are inclined gently towards the northeast, as shown on Figure 9, Site Geologic Map and Figure 15, Geologic Cross-Section A-A’. A driveway to the existing upper home site bounds the western margin of the proposed new parcels. The parcels are vegetated by grass, scattered oak trees, and brush. Geology Bailey and Everhart (1964) initially mapped geology and fault traces in the site vicinity. Their mapping has been reproduced in a geologic map compiled by McLaughlin and others (2001), as shown on Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map. An un-named northwest- STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !2 SITE N SITE N APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 trending fault is mapped about 200 feet to the southwest of the site. The active Blossom Hill, Shannon, and Berrocal faults are mapped further to the southwest. Monterey Shale bedrock is identified underlying the property and site vicinity. Santa Clara Formation is mapped capping the Monterey Shale to the east and west. Holocene alluvial fan deposits are mapped to the north. The middle Miocene age (11 to 16 million years old) Monterey Shale in the site vicinity consists mainly of well-bedded siliceous mudstone, shale, and porcelanite, with minor interbeds of sandstone and dolomite (Stanley and others, 2002). The Monterey Shale is a marine sedimentary unit deposited in a continental shelf environment. The late Pliocene to middle Pleistocene age (3.4 million to 100,000 years old) Santa Clara Formation consists of poorly lithified conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. The sediments were deposited in various fluvial and lacustrine environments (Cummings, 1968; McLaughlin and others, 1999). The Santa Clara Formation was deposited over the Monterey Shale along an angular unconformity. Holocene age (less than 11,000 years old) alluvial fan deposits are composed of unsorted boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and soil deposited by recent stream activity. The faults mapped in the site vicinity are part of a northwest-trending belt of faults that lie sub-parallel to the San Andreas fault along the southwest margin of the Santa Clara Valley. The belt of faults is referred to as the Range Front Fault System, which includes the Sargent, Berrocal, Shannon, Blossom Hill, and Monta Vista faults and other faults that may exist beneath the valley fill to the northeast. The range front faults generally accommodate both dip-slip and lateral movement. Based on geologic, geophysical, and seismic data, these faults are considered to be the locus of about 3 to 4 kilometers of uplift and an undetermined amount of lateral slip within the last 5 million years (McLaughlin and others, 1999). Nolan Associates (2002) identified similar geologic relationships on a geologic hazards map produced for the Town of Los Gatos, as shown on Figure 4, Town Geologic Hazards Map. Landslide deposits are not mapped on the property or immediate site vicinity. The California Geological Survey (2002) has mapped most of the subject property within a State Seismic Hazard Zone, susceptible to potential seismically-induced landsliding, as shown on Figure 5, State Seismic Hazard Zone Map. The hazard zone mapping for the subject property appears to be based on slope inclinations and not on any particular mapped landslide deposit. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !3 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Seismicity The greater San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by Geologists and Seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Several major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction (see Figure 1) which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 700 miles along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Greenville, and San Gregorio Fault Zones. According to Blake (2000), the San Andreas fault is located about 6 miles southwest of the subject site. The Calaveras and Hayward faults are located about 14 miles and 16 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The San Gregorio fault is located about 22 miles to the west and the Greenville fault about 28 miles to the northeast. These faults are considered to be active (Hart and Bryant, 1997), having had surface displacement within Holocene time (the last 11,000 years). As previously discussed, an un-named fault has been mapped about 200 feet to the southwest of the property, as shown on Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map and Figure 4, Town Geologic Hazards Map. The County of Santa Clara (2004) includes this fault within a County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as shown on Figure 6, County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Map. The Blossom Hill fault was identified by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. (2003) as an active fault, and is located about 1200 feet to the southwest. Hitchcock and others (1994) mapped several scarps and lineations possibly related to the range front faults in the site vicinity. Topographic saddles and vegetation lineaments were mapped to the northwest and southwest of the property, as shown on Figure 7, Map of Geomorphic Surfaces. Geomorphic and seismic data, as well as surficial deformation documented following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, suggests that faults within the Range Front Fault System may be currently active. Schmidt and others (1995) identified damage to pavement and pipes associated with the Loma Prieta Earthquake, as shown on Figure 8, Map of 1989 Coseismic Deformation. Extensive damage was noted in the immediate site vicinity. The range front faults may be independent seismic hazards, as evidenced by a recent earthquakes along the Monta Vista fault. Activity may also occur as triggered slip in response to large events on the nearby San Andreas fault. Hitchcock and others (1994) STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !4 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 suggest that a M6.5 earthquake in 1865 may have been centered on the Monta Vista or Shannon faults. Kovach and Beroza (1993) indicate that a M7.1 earthquake could potentially be generated by rupture along the entire length of the Range Front Fault System. Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. (2003) documented evidence of recent fault activity along the Blossom Hill fault with up to about 3 feet of displacement within the last 600 years. Air Photo Review The following stereographic pairs of black & white aerial photographs were examined to observe site conditions and to aid in identifying potential fault or landslide hazards. Several GoogleEarth air photo images from 1993 to present were also examined. Date Photo Identification Type Scale 6-9-56 CIV-6R-72 & 73 B&W 1:20,000 5-16-65 SCL-10-106 & 107 B&W 1:12,000 Photo 2: Aerial photograph from 1965 showing the subject property as part of a large fruit orchard. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !5 SITE N APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 The subject property is clearly visible in the photos reviewed, as shown on Photo 2 above. The proposed parcels are located along the nose of a broad gently-inclined north-trending ridgeline along the northeast flank of the Los Gatos foothills. The existing residence on the upper southern portion of the property was constructed sometime prior to the 1956 photo date. A northwest-trending linear depression or saddle is evident in the air photos about 200 feet to the southwest of the property. The saddle is coincident with the un-named fault mapped on Figures 3, 4, and 6. Evidence of recent landsliding or faulting, in the form of fresh scarps, ground cracking, soil lineations, or disturbed vegetation, however, is not apparent on the subject property in the air photos reviewed. Debris flow tracks or debris flow source areas were not observed upslope of the property. Previous Investigation Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. (2003) completed a Fault Investigation for a proposed home site on Greenridge Terrace about 4000 feet to the west of the subject property. The Blossom Hill fault was observed thrusting Monterey Formation rocks over younger rocks of the Santa Clara Formation. Evidence of recent fault activity was observed along the Blossom Hill fault and the proposed building site was found to be unsuitable for the proposed home construction. Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. (2016) completed an Engineering Geologic Investigation for a proposed home site on Belgatos Lane on the adjacent property to the east of the subject property. Monterey Shale was encountered underlying the uphill southern portion of the property. Santa Clara Formation in depositional contact with the Monterey Shale was found mantling the lower northern portion of the property. Evidence of active faulting or landsliding was not encountered and the proposed building site was found to be suitable for the proposed home construction. FIELD INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance Several site reconnaissances were completed of the subject property during the course of the field investigation. The proposed building sites are located on a broad gently-inclined north-trending ridgeline. Large mature oak trees are located adjacent to the western side of the proposed building sites. Bedrock exposures do not occur on the property. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !6 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Evidence of recent landsliding or faulting, in the form of fresh scarps, ground cracking, soil lineations, or disturbed vegetation, was not apparent on the subject property during the site reconnaissances. Photo 3: View of backhoe excavating Test Pit 1. Subsurface Investigation As part of this investigation, four test pits were initially excavated on the property, in the approximate locations shown on Figure 9, using a track-mounted excavator (see Photo 3 above). When Test Pit 4 encountered anomalous materials, a fifth test pit was excavated to investigate geologic relationships. Test Pit 2 was later lengthened and deepened as part of further investigation. Detailed logs of the materials encountered in Test Pits 1 through 5 are shown on Figures 10 through 14, Logs of Test Pits 1 through 5. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the excavations. Test Pits 1 and 3 encountered about 2 to 3 feet of colluvial soil composed of brown, firm, highly plastic, silty clay with some sand and sub-rounded gravel clasts. Weathered bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation composed of yellowish brown, dense to very dense, poorly cemented, gravelly silty sand was observed at depth below the colluvial soil. Test Pit 2 also encountered about 2.5 feet of colluvial soil underlain by weathered bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. The gravelly silty sand was interbedded with grayish brown claystone and bedding was folded into syncline, as shown on Figure 11. A bedding attitude of N55W 53S was measured in the claystone. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !7 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Test Pit 4 encountered about 1 to 2 feet of colluvial soil composed of brown, loose to firm, medium plasticity, silty clay with some sand and gravel. Weathered bedrock of the Monterey Shale (see Photo 4 above) was encountered in the northern half of Test Pit 4, composed of pale brown, moderately dense to dense, closely-bedded, siltstone containing gypsum veins and crystals deposited parallel to bedding. A bedding attitude of N84W 70N was measured in the siltstone. Weathered bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation (see Photo 5 above) was encountered in the southern portion of Test Pit 4, composed of interbedded, gravelly sandy silt and claystone. The Santa Clara Formation is in depositional contact with Monterey Shale as a slightly undulating unconformity. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !8 Photo 4: View of Monterey Shale exposed in Test Pit 4. Photo 5: View of Santa Clara Formation exposed in Test Pit 4. APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Photo 6: View of the western wall of Test Pit 4. Closely-bedded Monterey Shale Tm is exposed to the right of the photo. Strong brown-colored fault gouge is apparent just to the right of the soil pick. Santa Clara Formation sediment QTsc overlying Monterey Shale is exposed to the left of the soil pick. A prominent fault defined by a 4 to 6-inch-wide layer of fault gouge composed of strong brown, highly plastic, clay separates the Monterey Shale in the northern portion of Test Pit 4 from the Santa Clara Formation and Monterey Shale in the southern end of the pit (see Photo 6 above and Photo 7 below). The fault plane is oriented parallel to bedding in the Monterey Shale and is bounded at its base by white carbonate veins and carbonate deposits up to 3 inch thick. The fault gouge thins and flattens out in the uphill direction as depicted on Figure 13. The fault thrusts older Monterey Shale rocks over younger Santa Clara Formation rocks in an uphill direction, antithetical to the common range front thrust dynamics in the site vicinity. Test Pit 5 was excavated adjacent to Test Pit 4 in an attempt to further document the fault and determine its lateral continuity. About 1 foot of colluvial soil overlying weathered bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation was encountered in Test Pit 5. The Santa Clara Formation is in depositional contact with Monterey Shale in Test Pit 5 as a slightly undulating unconformity, similar to observations in the southern end of Test Pit 4. The Monterey Shale strikes N86E and dips 59N, similar to bedding attitudes measured in Test STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !9 Tm Tm QTsc Fault Gouge APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Photo 7: View of the eastern wall of Test Pit 4. Closely-bedded Monterey Shale Tm is exposed to the left of the photo. Strong brown-colored fault gouge defines a thrust fault that thrusts older Monterey Shale over younger Santa Clara Formation sediment QTsc in the right of the photo. Pit 4. A fault defined as a slightly-undulating, thin, clay surface was observed in Test Pit 5 along the projected trend of the fault observed in Test Pit 4. The fault trends N74W and plunges 56N. The fault appears to thrust the Santa Clara Formation and Monterey Shale materials towards the south over a different unit of the Santa Clara Formation containing boulders up to 1 foot in diameter. Test Pit 2 was re-excavated, deepened, and lengthened, as shown on Figure 11 to determine if the fault observed in Test Pits 4 and 5 extends further towards the southeast. The fault was not observed in Test Pit 2, however, beds within the Santa Clara Formation were folded into a syncline, possibly as a result of fault deformation. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !10 Tm QTscFault Gouge APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Discussion Depositional contacts, where younger Santa Clara Formation rocks overlie older Monterey Shale, were observed in Test Pits 4 and 5. The subsurface relationships are depicted on Figure 15, Geologic Cross-Section B-B’. These contacts appear to be similar to the depositional contact shown by McLaughlin and others (2001) to the east of the property on Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map. The fault encountered in Test Pits 4 and 5 appears to be a “back thrust”, as depicted on Figure 15, Geologic Cross-Section B-B’. Older rocks of the Monterey Shale are thrust over younger rocks of the Santa Clara Formation. The fault, however, plunges towards the north, unlike relationships encountered along the Blossom Hill fault nearby (Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 2003), where Monterey Shale is thrust along southwest-dipping faults over the Santa Clara Formation. Mr. James Baker, C.E.G., visited the property on April 18, 2019, observed the relationships in Test Pits 4 and 5, and concurred that the fault relationship appears to be a back thrust. Mr. Bob McLaughlin, USGS emeritus, also agreed in email communications that the fault was likely a back thrust, where a fault block undergoes tensional release as a result of thrusting occurring along a related downslope underlying thrust fault. A diagram of back thrusts and related range front thrust faults is shown below, based on a publication on fold and thrust belt kinematics by Poblet and Lisle (2011). It should be noted that this relationship suggests that there is an unidentified and unmapped thrust fault occurring downslope and to the north of the subject property. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !11 Range Front Thrust Faults Back Thrusts ••••••••• APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 The fault observed in Test Pits 4 and 5 appears to have possibly broken the ground surface and, in my opinion, should be considered potentially active. Ground rupture, however, was not observed in Test Pit 2. Consequently, I recommend a building setback zone, as depicted on Figure 9, Site Geologic Map, from the potentially active fault. Evidence of recent landsliding was not observed in the surface topography on the subject property, during the site reconnaissance, during the review of air photos or published maps and literature, or subsurface investigation. Consequently, in my opinion, the building sites for the proposed residences, are suitable for the proposed new construction, provided the residences are constructed outside of my recommended building setback zone and according to the recommendations of the project Soil Engineer, Mr. Barry Milstone of Milstone Geotechnical. FINDINGS Based upon the results of this Engineering Geologic Investigation, a potentially active fault crosses the southwest corner of the subject property. Consequently, a building set back zone is recommended as depicted on Figure 9, Site Geologic Map. Evidence of landsliding or other geologic hazards was not encountered that would restrict construction of the proposed residences on the subject property. In my opinion, the weathered bedrock underlying the property should provide good support for the proposed residences. It is my opinion that the potential hazard from fault rupture, landsliding, liquefaction, ground subsidence, lateral spreading, tsunamis, seiches, or flooding to the proposed residences, is very low to minimal, provided construction does not occur within the recommended building setback zone. Seismic Hazards Based upon the results of this Engineering Geologic Investigation, a potentially active fault passes through the subject property, as approximately shown on Figure 9, Site Geologic Map. Habitable construction should avoid the recommended building setback zone shown on Figure 9. An un-named fault has been mapped about 200 feet to the southwest and the active Blossom Hill fault is located about 1400 feet to the southwest. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed residences will be subjected to moderate to strong shaking from a major earthquake on the Blossom Hill fault, or one of the other active or potentially active faults in the Bay Area during the design life of the structures. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !12 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 During such an earthquake, the danger from primary fault offset through the proposed building sites is low, but moderate to strong ground shaking is likely to occur. Based on a deterministic analysis of preliminary data for selected California faults by Blake (2000), one of the range front faults such as the Blossom Hill fault presents the most significant seismic shaking hazard to the sites. Using a fault attenuation relationship by Idriss (1994), a peak site acceleration of 0.73 g and a Modified Mercalli shaking intensity of XI are predicted for the property from a possible 6.7 Mw earthquake on one of the range front faults. Historically, Blake (2000) indicates that the property experienced a site acceleration of 0.38 g and a Modified Mercalli shaking intensity of X due to the 6.3 Mw 1865 Earthquake. The 1865 Earthquake was possibly associated with an earthquake in the Range-Front Fault System along a fault such as the Blossom Hill fault. A site acceleration of 0.24 g and a Modified Mercalli shaking intensity of IX occurred on the property during the recent 7.0 Mw 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake centered about 14 miles south of the site. The property experienced 0.16 g from the 1906 Earthquake on the San Andreas fault, located about 45 miles to the northwest. Properly designed buildings using the California Building Code (California Building and Standards Commission, 2007) and sound engineering practices should mitigate the damaging effects of ground shaking. As a minimum, the proposed residences should be designed using current building code requirements. It is possible that secondary fissures or ground cracks may damage the subject property during an earthquake on one of the range front faults or San Andreas fault. Extensive secondary ground cracks unrelated to primary fault offset occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. According to Schmidt and others (1995), minor to severe damage occurred to several residences nearby (see Figure 8) as a result of secondary fault movement. These fissures or ground cracks were commonly focused on ridge top locations and were associated with weaker shale interbeds (Cotton and others, 1990), preexisting landslides, or intense ground shaking (Hart and others, 1990). The U.S. Geological Survey (2008) recently cited a 63 percent probability that a Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake, similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, will occur on one of the active faults in the San Francisco Bay Region by the year 2032. A 21 percent probability was attributed specifically to the nearby San Andreas fault that a large STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !13 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 earthquake will occur along its trace by the year 2032, as shown on Figure 16, Earthquake Probability Map. In addition, Dr. David Schwartz of the U.S.G.S. has cited a 9 percent probability for an earthquake on one of the range-front faults such as the Blossom Hill fault, by the year 2032 in a recent lecture (oral communication). Landsliding Based upon my review of air photos, site reconnaissance, and subsurface investigation, the property and proposed building sites are underlain by resistant weathered bedrock at shallow depth, as approximately depicted on Figure 15, Geologic Cross-Section A-A’. In my opinion, the resistant weathered bedrock should provide adequate support for the proposed residences. In my opinion, the potential for deep-seated landsliding on the property is very low. Evidence of recent active landsliding was not observed on or adjacent to the property. In addition, in my opinion, the hazard due to potential earthquake-induced landsliding to the property is very low. Springs or seeps were not observed on the property during my review of air photos, site reconnaissance, or subsurface investigation. These groundwater sources, commonly associated with landslides or contributing to potential landsliding were not observed. The proposed residences will be located on gently-inclined terrain and sources for potential debris flow landslides were not observed upslope during my review of air photos. Consequently, the hazard to the proposed building sites from debris flow landsliding is, in my opinion, considered negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction most commonly occurs during earthquake shaking in loose fine sands and silty sands associated with a high ground water table. Based on the subsurface investigation, the property is underlain by stiff soils and weathered bedrock at shallow depth that are not susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is therefore, in my opinion, unlikely to occur on the property. The California Geological Survey (2002) indicates that the property is located in an area with a very low susceptibility to liquefaction (see Figure 5, State Seismic Hazard Zones Map). STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !14 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Ground Subsidence Ground subsidence may occur when poorly-consolidated soils densify as a result of earthquake shaking. Since the proposed building sites are underlain by stiff soils and resistant weathered bedrock at relatively shallow depth, the hazard due to ground subsidence is, in my opinion, considered negligible. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading may occur when a weak layer of material, such as a sensitive silt or clay, loses its shear strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Overlying blocks of competent material may be translated laterally towards a free face. Since the proposed building sites are underlain by stiff soils and resistant weathered bedrock at shallow depth, the hazard due to lateral spreading is, in my opinion, considered negligible. Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding The subject property is located in an inland area removed from the hazard of inundation by tsunamis (Ritter and Dupre, 1972). The Association of Bay Area Governments (1980b) indicates that the subject property is located in an area free from the hazard of seiches and flooding caused by dam failure. ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !15 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 A list of References, Table, and Figures are attached and complete this report: Table Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale........................................................................................... I Figure Site Location Map................................................................................................................. 1 Regional Topographic Map.................................................................................................. 2 Regional Geologic Map........................................................................................................ 3 Town Geologic Hazards Map............................................................................................... 4 State Seismic Hazard Zone Map......................................................................................... 5 County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Map............................................................................ 6 Map of Geomorphic Surfaces.............................................................................................. 7 Map of 1989 Coseismic Deformation………………………………………………………. 8 Site Geologic Map…………………………………………………………….……………… 9 Log of Test Pit 1……………………………………………………………….……………… 10 Log of Test Pit 2……………………………………………………………….……………… 11 Log of Test Pit 3………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Log of Test Pit 4………………………………………………………………………………. 13 Log of Test Pit 5………………………………………………………………………………. 14 Geologic Cross-Section A-A’................................................................................................ 15 Earthquake Probability Map................................................................................................ 16 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments, 1980a, Map of Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco Bay Region, Map Scale 1:250,000. Association of Bay Area Governments, 1980b, Dam Failure Inundation Areas, San Francisco Bay Region, Map Scale 1:250,000. Bailey, E.H., and Everhart, D.L., 1964, Geology and Quicksilver Deposits, New Almaden District, Santa Clara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 360. Blake, Thomas, F., 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, Windows 95/98 Version. Blake, Thomas, F., 2000, EQSEARCH, Version 3.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalog, Windows 95/98 Version. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !16 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 California Building and Standards Commission, June 2007, 2007 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2006 International Building Code. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. California Geological Survey, 2002, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Los Gatos Quadrangle, Map Scale 1:24,000. Cotton, W.R., Fowler, W.L., and Van Velsor, J.E., 1990, Coseismic Bedding Plane Faults and Ground Fissures Associated with the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 17 October 1989, in "The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz Mountains), California, Earthquake of 17 October 1989", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 104. County of Santa Clara, October 2004, Geological Hazard Zones Digital Database. Cummings, J.C., 1968, The Santa Clara Formation and possible post-Pliocene slip on the San Andreas fault in central California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, A., eds., Proceedings of conference on geologic problems of San Andreas fault system: Stanford University Publications in Geological Sciences, v. 6, p. 191-207. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Hart, E.W., Bryant, W.A., Wills, C.J., and Treiman, J.A., 1990, The Search for Fault Rupture and Significance of Ridgetop Fissures, Santa Cruz Mountains, in "The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz Mountains), California, Earthquake of 17 October 1989", California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 104 Hitchcock, Christopher S., Kelson, Keith I., and Thompson, Stephen C., 1994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-187. ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, volumes 1 and 2. Idriss, I.M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communication to T.F. Blake. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !17 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Kovach, R.L., and Beroza, G.C., 1993, Seismic potential from reverse faulting on the San Francisco Peninsula: Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, v. 83, p. 597-602. McLaughlin, R.J., Langenheim, V.E., Schmidt, K.M., Jachens, R.C., Stanley, R.G., Jayko, A.S. McDougall, Tinsley, J.C., and Valin, Z.C., 1999, Neogene contraction between the San Andreas fault and the Santa Clara Valley, San Francisco Bay region, California: International Geology Review, v. 41, p. 1-30. McLaughlin, R.J., Clark, J.C., Brabb, E.E., Helley, E.J., and Colon, C.J., 2001, Geologic Maps and Structure Sections of the southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2373. Nolan Associates, revised 11/21/02, Geologic Map for the Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update. Poblet, J., and Lisle, R.J., 2011, Kinematic Evolution and Structural Styles of Fold-and- Thrust Belts, Special Publication 349, Geological Society of London, Special Publication. RBF Consulting, July 2000, Geologic Hazards Map, Town of Los Gatos, California. Richter, C.F., 1957, Elementary Seismology, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman Co. Ritter, J.R. and Dupre, W.R., 1972, Map Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-480. Schmidt, K.M., Ellen, S.D., Haugerud, R.A., Peterson, D.M., and Phelps, G.A., 1995, Breaks in pavement and pipes as indicators of range-front faulting resulting from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near the southwest margin of the Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-820. Southern California Earthquake Center, June 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California. Stanley, R.G., Jachens, R.C., Lillis, P.G., McLaughlin, R.J., Kvenvolden, K.A., Hostettler, F.D., McDougall, K.A., Magoon, L.B., 2002, Subsurface and petroleum geology of the southwestern Santa Clara Valley (“Silicon Valley”), California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1663. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !18 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., April 17, 2003, Fault Investigation, Schaadt Property, APN 527-15-002, Greenridge Terrace, Los Gatos, California. Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., December 9, 2016, Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Residence, APN 527-26-009, 303 Belgatos Lane, Los Gatos, California. Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., September 2003, Holocene Activity of a Range-Front Fault in the Southern San Francisco Bay Area, Abstract, in Proceedings of 46th Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 2003. Terratech, Inc., 1990, Concentrated Damage from the Loma Prieta Earthquake in the Monta Vista Fault Study Area, Santa Clara County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities, http:// earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/.
 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !19 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California May 18, 2019 Project #1909 TABLE I - MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE I Not felt. Marginal and long-period affects of large earthquakes. II Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake. IV Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of a jolt like a ball striking walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frames creak. V Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. VI Felt by all. May frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken, knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visible, or heard to rustle). VII Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving along sand and gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. VIII Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundation if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. IX General panic. Masonry destroyed or seriously damaged. (Damage to foundations.) Frame structures, if not bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Buried pipes broken. Conspicuous ground cracks. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters. X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks to canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly. XI Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. XII Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. Source: Richter, C.F., Elementary Seismology, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman Co., 1957. Note: To avoid ambiguity, the quality of masonry, brick, or other material is specified by the following lettering system. (This has no connection with the conventional classes A, B, and C construction.) Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.; designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry B. Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses, like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed to resist horizontal forces. Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally. STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Page !20 S a n A n d r e a s F a u l tHa yw a r d F a u l t Calave ras Fau l t Greenv i l le Fau l tSan G rego r io Fau l t Project #Approximate Scale Date Figure 1 NN 1 Inch = 10 Miles Site Location Map STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 1909 5/18/19 Source: U.S.G.S. and PG&E, 2000 SITE APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Regional Geologic Map Project #Scale Date Figure 319095/18/191 Inch = 2000 Feet STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology N EXPLANATION APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Source: McLaughlin and others, 2001 Landslide deposit, arrows in direction of movement Geologic Contact, dashed where approx., dotted where concealed Fault Trace, dashed where approx., dotted where concealed, queried where uncertain Thrust or Reverse Fault Strike and Dip of Bedding Strike and Dip of Foliation Alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) Alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) Landslide deposits, undivided (Holocene and Pleistocene) Santa Clara Formation (Pleistocene and Pliocene) Unnamed sandstone (mid Miocene or younger) Monterey Shale (mid and lower Miocene) Temblor Sandstone (mid Miocene to Oligocene?) Serpentinized ultramafic rocks (Jurassic) Melange of the Central belt (Upper Cretaceous) Foraminiferal limestone (Upper and Lower Cretaceous) Volcanic rocks (Lower Cretaceous) Sandstone (Upper and or Lower Cretaceous) Bl o s s o m H i l l Fa u l t SITE SITE N Source: Nolan Associates, revised 11/21/02 Town Geologic Hazards Map Project #Scale Date Figure 419095/18/191 Inch = 1000 Feet STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology EXPLANATION ?Contact, dasted where approximate, dotted where concealed Fault, dashed where approximate, dotted where concealed, queried where uncertain, U and D denote up and downthrouwn blocks Thrust fault, barbs on upper plate Synclinal axis Landslide headscarp Landslide mass, arrows indicate direction of movement U D ? ? Modern fluvial deposits Landslide deposits Undifferentiated alluvium Youngest fluvial terrace deposits Youngest alluvial fan deposits Older fluvial terrace deposits Older alluvial fan deposits Qfl Qls Qal Qt Qf Qto Qfo Tmm Tmv Tmt Jos sc flp fcp fvp fsrp fsm fcm fvm fsrm Limestone Chert Basalt Melange Metasandstone Radiolarian chert Basalt Melange Siliceous, mercury bearing carbonates Serpentinite Dacitic tuff, tuff breccia, and intrusive rocks Temblor Sandstone Monterey Shale Santa Clara FormationQtsc APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Project # Scale Date Figure 55/18/191 Inch = 1000 Feet STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology N Base: California Geological Survey, 2002 State Seismic Hazard Zone Map 1909 Liquefaction Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation would be required Earthquake-Induced Landslides Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation would be required. EXPLANATION SITE APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California SITE Bl o s s o m H i l l F a u l t Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Fault Trace Fault-Related Lineations Landslide Zone Liquefaction Zone Earthquake-Induced Landslide Hazard Zone Project #Scale Date Figure 6 N 1 Inch = 400 Feet County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Map STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 1909 5/18/19 Base: County of Santa Clara, 2004 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California EXPLANATION SITE Map of Geomorphic Surfaces Project #Scale Date Figure 719095/18/191 Inch = 1000 Feet STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering GeologyN Explanation Hitchcock and others, 1994 Surface Type fp active floodplain t fluvial surface lv levee p pediment developed on Qtsc Relative Age u undifferentiated 5 youngest 4 3 2 1 oldest Drainage Basin p Permanente Creek s Stevens Creek r Regnart Creek c Calabazas Creek st Saratoga Creek a Aquinas Creek lg Los Gatos Creek rs Ross Creek Lineaments v vegetation s saddle sc scarp t tonal fct faceted spur cd closed depression ld linear depression lf linear front Surficial deposits/bedrock Qls landslide deposits Qal Undifferentiated stream alluvium Qlv Levee deposits Qtsc Santa Clara gravel pQ Undifferentiated bedrock Key Qt4p Surface type Drainage Basin Relative age APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Map of 1989 Coseismic Deformation Project #Scale Date Figure 819095/18/191 Inch = 1 Mile STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology N Source: Schmidt and others, 1995 Categories of Damage COSEISMIC PAVEMENT BREAKS IN ASPHALT Linear zone of complex rupture; denotes area of severe damage Fresh break or buckle suggestive of contractional deformation Fresh break with unspecified sense of deformation IN CONCRETE Fresh contractional break in channel lining of Los Gatos Creek Fresh break or buckle suggestive of contractional deformation Apparently fresh break with unspecified sense of deformation Break with unspecified sense of deformation IN BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE EXTENSIONAL RUPTURE IN BOTH PAVEMENT AND SOIL OTHER BREAKS In both pipe and pavement Pavement break that pre-dates the earthquake Combination of pre-earthquake and coseismic break in pavement Contractional deformation that post-dates the earthquake OTHER SYMBOLS Fault COSEISMIC PIPE BREAKS Underground water line Underground natural-gas distribution line Above-ground natural-gas distribution line More than one type of pipe SITE APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Project # 1909 FigureDateScale 5/18/19 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 9 Site Geologic Map 1 Inch = 40 Feet QTsc QTsc QTsc Base: Lot Layout Plan by TS Civil Engineering, dated 3/13/19 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Pit 1 Pit 3 Pit 2 Tm A/AB =Tm 53 A/A Geologic Cross-Section Strike and Dip of BeddingSanta Clara FormationQTsc Tm Monterey Formation Depositional Contact46 EXPLANATION Test PitPit 1 56 Trend and Plunge of Fault Fault Trace ? ? QTsc Proposed Building Site Proposed Building Site Reco m m e n d e d Buildi n g S e t b a c k Z o n e Pit 4 B 74 70 Fault 56 Pit 5 59 Project # Scale Date Figure 101909 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 5/18/19 Log of Test Pit 1 1 Inch = 5 Feet Logged by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 4/11/19 N5W Depth (Feet) 0 5 10 gradational contact relatively sharp contact Symbols very sharp contact strike and dip of bedding or trend and plunge of shear surface N35W 9SW brown, 10YR5/3, silty clay, moist, firm, highly plastic, some sand and subrounded gravel, some rootlets, CH (Colluvial Soil) 1 2 1 2 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California 15 QTsc yellowish brown, 10YR5/4, gravelly silty sand, slightly moist, dense to very dense with some subrounded cobbles and boulders, poorly cemented, poorly bedded (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) Project # 1909 1 Inch = 5 Feet Figure Date Scale 5/18/19 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology Log of Test Pit 2 11Logged by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 5/2/19 Depth (Feet) 0 5 10 gradational contact relatively sharp contact 15 N6E QTsc N55W 53S along faint bedding 1 2 3 QTsc APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California 1 2 2 3 3 •synclinal fold within faintly bedded imbricated gravels and sand 3 brown, 10YR5/3, silty clay, moist, firm, highly plastic, some sand and subrounded gravel, some rootlets, CH (Colluvial Soil) 1 2 yellowish brown, 10YR5/4, gravelly silty sand, slightly moist, dense to very dense with some subrounded cobbles and boulders up to 8 inches, trace clasts of Monterey shale, poorly cemented, poorly bedded (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) grayish brown, 10YR5/2, claystone (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) QTsc Project # Scale Date Figure 121909 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 5/xx/19 Log of Test Pit 3 1 Inch = 5 Feet Logged by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 4/11/19 N10E Depth (Feet) 0 5 10 gradational contact relatively sharp contact Symbols very sharp contact strike and dip of bedding or trend and plunge of shear surface N35W 9SW brown, 10YR5/3, silty clay, moist, firm, highly plastic, some sand and subrounded gravel, some rootlets, CH (Colluvial Soil) 1 2 1 2 APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California QTsc yellowish brown, 10YR5/4, gravelly silty sand, slightly moist, dense to very dense with some subrounded cobbles and boulders, poorly cemented, poorly bedded (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) 3 QTsc Project # 1909 1 Inch = 5 Feet Figure Date Scale 5/18/19 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology Log of Test Pit 4 13Logged by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 4/18/19 Depth (Feet) 0 5 10 gradational contact relatively sharp contact 15 4 N22W QTsc Tm N83W 74N along bedding QTsc APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California N84W 70N along bedding 1 2 1 unconformity slightly undulating depositional contact •subangular cobbles and small boulders concentrated along base of unit • Tm N74W 56N along bedding 2 fault gouge, parallel to bedding 4-6 inches wide, composed of highly plastic, strong brown, very stiff to hard, clay with white carbonate veins and deposits up to 3 inches thick along the bottom of the fault plane •5 1 pale brown, 2.5Y7/3, siltstone, with yellow staining, moderately dense to dense, closely- bedded, some gypsum veins parallel to bedding (Weathered Bedrock, Monterey Shale) brown, 10YR4/3, clayey silt, with some sand and gravel, slightly moist to moist, loose to firm, some rootlets, medium plasticity (Colluvial Soil) 2 grayish brown, 10YR5/2, claystone (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) 4 brownish yellow, 10YR6/6, gravelly sandy silt, with subrounded gravel and cobbles of sandstone, chert, volcanic rocks, and coarse-grained sandstone, with lenses of sandy silt, slightly moist, moderately hard to hard, friable (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) 5 3 light yellowish brown, 10YR6/4, gravelly sandy silt, sligthly moist, very stiff to hard, trace rootlets (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) Project # 1909 1 Inch = 5 Feet Figure Date Scale 5/18/19 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology Log of Test Pit 5 14Logged by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., 4/18/19 Depth (Feet) 0 5 10 gradational contact relatively sharp contact 15 1 2 3 pale brown, 2.5Y7/3, siltstone, with yellow staining, moderately dense to dense, closely- bedded, some gypsum veins parallel to bedding (Weathered Bedrock, Monterey Shale) 4 5 N19W QTsc Tm N76W 56N along fault 5 QTsc APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California N86E 59N along bedding 1 2 1 2 3 unconformity slightly undulating depositional contact •top of Tm is slightly weathered and stained black with manganese brown, 10YR4/3, clayey silt, with some sand and gravel, slightly moist to moist, loose to firm, some rootlets, medium plasticity (Colluvial Soil) brownish yellow, 10YR6/6, gravelly sandy silt, with subrounded gravel and cobbles of sandstone, chert, volcanic rocks, and coarse-grained sandstone, with lenses of sandy silt, slightly moist, moderately hard to hard, friable (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) subangular cobbles and small boulders with black manganese staining concentrated along base of unit, some composed of Monterey Shale ••brownish yellow, 10YR6/6, gravelly sandy silt, with subrounded gravel, cobbles, and boulders up to 1 foot in diameter of sandstone, chert, volcanic rocks, and coarse- grained sandstone, with lenses of sandy silt, slightly moist, moderately hard to hard, friable (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) 4 grayish brown, 10YR5/2, claystone (Weathered Bedrock, Santa Clara Formation) fault, slightly undulating thin clay surface • Project # 1909 FigureDateScale 5/18/19 STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 151 Inch = 40 Feet Geologic Cross-Section A-A’APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California Slope profiles based on Lot Layout Plan by TS Civil Engineering, dated 3/13/19 B N2E B’ Santa Cl a r a Formatio n Monterey Shale Pit 1 Depositi o n al C o n t a c t & Unco n f o r mi t y Elevation (Feet) 400 360 320 Pit 4 Tm QTsc ? ? Tm QTsc Depositional C o n t a c t & Unconform i t y soil Recommended Building Setback Zone Back Thrust Fault Elevation (Feet) 420 380 340 A N25W A’ Santa Clara Formation Pit 1 Pit 2 QTsc QTscProposed Building Site Proposed Building Site soil 280 580 880 680 17 1 1 80 101 101 101 21% 3% 6% 7% 3% 31% probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquakes from 2007 to 2036. 63% 1%CALAVERAS FAULTRODGERS CR E E K FAU L T CONCORD–GREENVALLEY FAULTHAYWARDFAU L T GREENVILLE FAULTGREENVILLEMT. D I A B L O T H R U S T F A U L TMT. D I A B L O T H R U S T F A U L T CALAVERAS FAULT FAULTCONCORD–GREEN VALLEY FAULTSANANDREASFAULTP a c i f i cOceanSAN GREGOR IO FAULTRODGERS CRE EK FAU L T HAYWARDFAU L T Monterey BaySanFranc i s c o Ba y Probability of magnitude 6.7 or greater quakes before 2036 on the indicated fault Expanding urban areas Increasing probability along fault segments 0 0 20 KILOMETERS 20 MILES NN % San Francisco Half Moon Bay Pacifica Oakland Sacramento Stockton DanvilleDanville Antioch Palo Alto San Mateo Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Livermore PleasantonHayward Tracy Santa Cruz Watsonville GilroyGilroy Monterey Salinas San Jose Santa Rosa Petaluma NovNovato San Rafael Napa Sonoma Vallejo EXTENT OF RUPTURE IN LOMA PR IE TA QUAKEEXTENT O F RUPTURE IN LOMA PR IETA QUAKE Project # Scale Date Figure 16As Shown Earthquake Probability Map STEVEN F. CONNELLY, C.E.G. Consulting in Engineering Geology Consulting in Engineering Geology 1909 5/18/19 URL http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/ SITE APN 527-20-003 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, California ‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1100 Oakland, California 94612-3066 USA T: (510) 663-4100 F: (510) 663-4141 www.woodplc.com November 5, 2019 Project 0084492620 Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Associate Engineer Town of Los Gatos 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Peer Review – 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos, California Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Anderson Residences, 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos California, prepared by Milstone Geotechnical (MG), dated June 12, 2019. Engineering Geologic Investigation Proposed Residences, 400 Surmont Drive, prepared by Steven F. Connelly C.E.G (SC), dated May 18, 2019. Plans TS Civil Engineering Inc., 5 Sheets, dated 4/29/19 and 8/21/19. Dear Mr. Weisz: At you request, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. preformed a peer review of the subject documents. In addition to reviewing the subject documents we review pertinent published and unpublished documents. We are familiar with the area but have not visited the site. The proposed project consists of the construction of two new single-level, single-family residence, one each on adjoining undeveloped parcels off Surmont Drive in the Hillside area northeast of Downtown. Reference 2 addresses the geologic and seismic conditions at the site and the potential geologic hazards. As discussed in Reference 2, no mapped faults traverse the parcels or are in close proximity. The closest mapped fault is a northwest-southeast trending trace of the Shannon fault zone located about 200 southwest. Monterey Shale bedrock is mapped underlying the parcels. The parcels are located in a zone of potential earthquake-induced landsliding on the State Seismic Hazards Zones Map, but no landslides are mapped on the parcels. SC considers the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding and ground deformation to be low. Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Town of Los Gatos November 5, 2019 Page 2 Five test pits were excavated on the parcels to evaluate subsurface conditions. Highly plastic colluvium up to about 3 feet thick was encountered in the test pits. Santa Clara Formation bedrock was encountered in all the test pits. Monterey Shale bedrock was encountered in Test Pits 4 and 5. In Test Pit 4 (Figure 13), the Monterey Shale was mapped as thrust over the Santa Clara Formation along a fault. In Test Pit 5 (Figure14), the Santa Clara was mapped as in depositional contact overlying the Monterey Shale, but a fault was mapped cutting the Santa Clara Formation elsewhere in the test pit. The relationships in Test Pits 4 and 5 are interpreted to define a northwest-southeast trending depositional contact between the Monterey Shale and overlying Santa Clara Formation, and a west-northwest-south-southeast trending, northeast-dipping thrust fault in the southwest corner of the Parcels (Figure 9). The mapped relationships indicate that Monterey Shale underlies the southwest corner of the parcels, and Santa Cara Formation underlies the remainder of the parcels, including the proposed building sites. SC could not determine the age of faulting and concluded that the fault should be considered to be potentially active. Reference 2 recommends a building setback from the fault. In our judgment, the building setback should be a minimum of 50 feet from the fault, which is greater than the setback recommended in Reference 2. During construction, SC should carefully observe and document all grading for evidence of faulting and, if any is found, provide supplemental setback recommendations. The owner should be aware that in the event a fault is found closer to a residence under construction than 50 feet, the building may have to be redesigned or relocated. The parcels will be subjected to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other large faults in the region. Seismic design criteria per the current CBC (2016) apply to the proposed project; Reference 2 cites the 2007. In general, the geotechnical recommendations appear reasonable for the proposed projects. However, we have the following observations and comments which should be corrected and re-submitted for our review: 1. For seismic slope stability analyses MG used a Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.53 based on a probabilistic approach. However, the current California Building Code (2016 CBC), §1803.5.12, requires that a Peak Ground Acceleration be determined in accordance with §11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. ASCE 7-10 indicates that the “peak ground acceleration adjusted for site effects (PGAM) is used in this standard for evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and other soil related issues.” Thus, the “PGAM” should be used for seismic slope stability and deformation evaluations. The PGAM is most-appropriately calculated using the SEAOC/OSHPD web application, which was used by MG for other seismic parameters, to be about 0.855 for a Site Class C at the project site, or about 1.64 times larger than the PGA value of 0.52 used by MG for their slope stability evaluation. Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Town of Los Gatos November 5, 2019 Page 3 Therefore, we recommend MG re-evaluate the PGAM as required by the 2016 CBC, and then re-perform the seismic earth pressures, and the slope stability and deformation analyses, based on this revised PGAM. The evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations should then be modified as appropriate. 2. MG indicates they have applied a reduction factor of 0.48 to the PGA to achieve a deformation of 5 cm or less. We request MG cite the method used for this calculation, and the parameters used with the selected method. We have the following comments that may be appropriate to respond to but do not need to be re-submitted for our review: 1. There appears to be a repeated typographical error in the presentation of “Equivalent Fluid Pressure as units of “pcf/f”. We assume this is intended to be either “pcf” (pounds per cubic foot), or possibly “psf/f” (pounds per square foot per foot, as presented in the building code). 2. Page 12 of the MG report appropriately indicates fill placed on a slope should be provided with a keyway into the slope. However, Drawing Sheet C-2, detail “Typical Section, Shared Access Road,” shows fill on a slope without a keyway. We assume fill will be keyed into the slope as recommended by MG. MG should submit a revised / supplements report to the Town for our review which adequately addresses at least Comments 1 and 2 above We trust that his provides you with the information you require at this time. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Supplemental review of this project by Wood is required. A supplemental deposit may be required before further review is performed. Sincerely, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Robert H. Wright, Ph.D., PG, CEG Principal Engineering Geologist Jim French, PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer rhw/jf/smm \\oad-fs1\doc_safe\8000s\8449.000\8449.262_400 surmont drive\wood_8449262_peer review ltr_400 surmont drive_110519.docx Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1100 Oakland, California 94612-3066 USA T: (510) 663-4100 F: (510) 663-4141 www.woodplc.com ‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries At you request, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. preformed a peer review of the supplemental documents listed above. We previously reviewed the initial documents and submitted our comments in our letter dated November 5, 2019. The recent documents have been submitted in response to the comments in our November 5, 2019 letter. We repeat the content of our November 5, 2019 letter for completeness, and provide our comments on the responses provided to our observation and comments in that letter. January 28, 2020 Project 0084492620 Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Associate Engineer Town of Los Gatos 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Second Peer Review – 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos, California Reference Documents: 1. Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Anderson Residences, 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos California, prepared by Milstone Geotechnical (MG), dated June 12, 2019. 2. Engineering Geologic Investigation: Proposed Residences, 400 Surmont Drive, prepared by Steven F. Connelly C.E.G (SC), dated May 18, 2019. 3. Plans: TS Civil Engineering Inc., 5 Sheets, dated April 29, 2019 and August 21, 2019. Supplemental Reference Documents 4. Response to Geotechnical Peer Review: Proposed Anderson Residences; 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos, California; Prepared by Milstone Geotechnical (MG), dated November 19, 2019. 5. 400 Surmont Drive [E-mail]: Prepared by Milstone Geotechnical (MG), dated December 20, 2019. 6. Plan Review: Proposed Residence, Parcel 2 APN 527-20-003; Prepared by Steven F. Connelly C.E.G. (SC) dated November 21, 2019. 7. Plans: TS Civil Engineering Inc.: Sheet C-2 dated May 23, 2019 [dated December 11, 2019, but latest revision date is May 23, 2019], and Sheet C-3 dated April 29, 2019. Dear Mr. Weisz: Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Town of Los Gatos January 28, 2020 Page 2 The proposed project consists of the construction of two new single-level, single-family residence, one each on adjoining undeveloped parcels off Surmont Drive in the Hillside area northeast of Downtown. Reference 2 addresses the geologic and seismic conditions at the site and the potential geologic hazards. As discussed in Reference 2, no mapped faults traverse the parcels or are in close proximity. The closest mapped fault is a northwest-southeast trending trace of the Shannon fault zone located about 200 southwest. Monterey Shale bedrock is mapped underlying the parcels. The parcels are located in a zone of potential earthquake-induced land sliding on the State Seismic Hazards Zones Map, but no landslides are mapped on the parcels. SC considers the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding and ground deformation to be low. Five test pits were excavated on the parcels to evaluate subsurface conditions. Highly plastic colluvium up to about 3 feet thick was encountered in the test pits. Santa Clara Formation bedrock was encountered in all the test pits. Monterey Shale bedrock was encountered in Test Pits 4 and 5. In Test Pit 4 (Figure 13), the Monterey Shale was mapped as thrust over the Santa Clara Formation along a fault. In Test Pit 5 (Figure 14), the Santa Clara was mapped as in depositional contact overlying the Monterey Shale, but a fault was mapped cutting the Santa Clara Formation elsewhere in the test pit. The relationships in Test Pits 4 and 5 are interpreted to define a northwest-southeast trending depositional contact between the Monterey Shale and overlying Santa Clara Formation, and a west- northwest-south-southeast trending, northeast-dipping thrust fault in the southwest corner of the Parcels (Figure 9). The mapped relationships indicate that Monterey Shale underlies the southwest corner of the parcels, and Santa Cara Formation underlies the remainder of the parcels, including the proposed building sites. SC could not determine the age of faulting and concluded that the fault should be considered to be potentially active. Reference 2 recommends a building setback from the fault. In our judgment, the building setback should be a minimum of 50 feet from the fault, which is greater than the setback recommended in Reference 2. During construction, SC should carefully observe and document all grading for evidence of faulting and, if any is found, provide supplemental setback recommendations. The owner should be aware that in the event a fault is found closer to a residence under construction than 50 feet, the building may have to be redesigned or relocated. The most recent Plans show that the proposed residence is a minimum of 50 feet from the fault. The parcels will be subjected to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other large faults in the region. Seismic design criteria per the current CBC (2016) apply to the proposed project; Reference 2 cites the 2007 CBC. Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Town of Los Gatos January 28, 2020 Page 3 In general, the geotechnical recommendations appear reasonable for the proposed projects. However, we have the following observations and comments which should be corrected and re-submitted for our review: 1. For seismic slope stability analyses MG used a Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.53 based on a probabilistic approach. However, the current California Building Code (2016 CBC), §1803.5.12, requires that a Peak Ground Acceleration be determined in accordance with §11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. ASCE 7-10 indicates that the “peak ground acceleration adjusted for site effects (PGAM) is used in this standard for evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and other soil related issues.” Thus, the “PGAM” should be used for seismic slope stability and deformation evaluations. The PGAM is most-appropriately calculated using the SEAOC/OSHPD web application, which was used by MG for other seismic parameters, to be about 0.855 for a Site Class C at the project site, or about 1.64 times larger than the PGA value of 0.52 used by MG for their slope stability evaluation. Therefore, we recommend MG re-evaluate the PGAM as required by the 2016 CBC, and then re- perform the seismic earth pressures, and the slope stability and deformation analyses, based on this revised PGAM. The evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations should then be modified as appropriate. The MG responses in Ref. 4 regarding the PGAM and related seismic slope stability and deformation considerations are reasonable and appropriate, and no further response is needed with respect to this topic. However, Ref. 4 did not address our previous request to evaluate whether the modified PGAM would affect their recommendations regarding seismic earth pressures. We therefore request MG evaluate whether, in light of the revised PGAM, the previous seismic earth pressures are still appropriate or if they should be revised. 2. MG indicates they have applied a reduction factor of 0.48 to the PGA to achieve a deformation of 5 cm or less. We request MG cite the method used for this calculation, and the parameters used with the selected method. The MG responses in Ref. 4 regarding the seismic coefficient are reasonable and appropriate, and no further response is needed with respect to these. We have the following comments that may be appropriate to respond to but do not need to be re- submitted for our review: 1. There appears to be a repeated typographical error in the presentation of “Equivalent Fluid Pressure as units of “pcf/f”. We assume this is intended to be either “pcf” (pounds per cubic foot), or possibly “psf/f” (pounds per square foot per foot, as presented in the building code). The MG response in Ref. 4 regarding this comment is reasonable and appropriate, and no further response is needed Mr. Mike Weisz, PE Town of Los Gatos January 28, 2020 Page 4 2. Page 12 of the MG report appropriately indicates fill placed on a slope should be provided with a keyway into the slope. However, Drawing Sheet C-2, detail “Typical Section, Shared Access Road,” shows fill on a slope without a keyway. We assume fill will be keyed into the slope as recommended by MG. No change has been made to Sheet C-2. As stated previously, we assume fill will be keyed into the slope as recommended by MG, and that someone will be responsible that this recommendation is implemented. RECOMMENDATIONS As stated above, we request MG evaluate whether, in light of the revised PGAM, the previous seismic earth pressures are still appropriate or if they should be revised. MG should review the final Plans to confirm that the Plans incorporate the geotechnical engineering design recommendations and submit a Plan Review letter to the Town prior to the issuance of permits. We suggest they comment at that time on the keying of fill into the slope, as they have recommended on page 12 of Ref. 1. MG should provide observation and testing of the geotechnical elements of the project during construction. SC should observe grading and trenching for the project to confirm that a fault(s) is not encountered within 50 feet of the residence. An “as-built” letter should be submitted to the Town prior to project Final. We trust that his provides you with the information you require at this time. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. No further review by Wood is required for this project unless major changes are made. Sincerely, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Robert H. Wright, Ph.D., PG, CEG Principal Engineering Geologist James B. French, PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer rhw/jf/smm \\oad-fs1\deptdata\project\8000s\8449\8449.262_400 surmont drive\012320 rqst\wood_8449262_peer review ltr_400 surmont drive_jan 28, 2020.docx EXHIBIT 5 DIAGRAM107-08-2022400 SURMONTSTUDIO THREE DESIGN638 University AvenueLos Gatos. CA 95032t 408.292.3252 DIAGRAM 207-08-2022400 SURMONTSTUDIO THREE DESIGN638 University AvenueLos Gatos. CA 95032t 408.292.3252 April 29, 2022    Additional Justification (Excerpts for TS Civil Engineering)    Town of Los Gatos HDS & G  Parcel 1  1. Height of the lowest finished floor exceeds 3’ above existing grade along the north  elevation (roughly 5’ ‐ Sheets A3.1, A3.4, A4.2).  One of the most frequent complaints of aging American homeowners is “too many  stairs.” The Parcel 1 residence was anticipated as one‐story and thus it has a wider  footprint than a more visible two‐story design. The house footprint sits across  approximately 12’ of vertical grade differential while internal floor level changes absorb  with approximately 5’ of height with short stairways from the garage to the external  deck on the east. We have done our best to minimize the external grading that would be  visible around the residence perimeter with the use of terraced walls at the rear yard  and natural undulating slopes below the house. Along the north wall, we have included  shallow fill slopes to mask the underfloor area and only 40’ of the 100’ length is at 5’  above existing grade. The complex matrix of grading depth, building height, and  terraced retaining walls results in this exception which is the least significant within that  hierarchy. An exception is respectfully requested.  2. Cut to the rear of the residence for the yard area appears to be roughly 8’ per sheet  A3.2 and A4.4.  We do believe that the allowed terraced wall detail within the HDS&G depicts an 8’ cut  at the face of the first wall, to which we comply. However, again, given the multiple  depth of grading constraints noted above, the terraced wall area has been compressed  horizontally to minimize the amount and depth of grading to provide for a minimum  safe perimeter pathway width of 6’. This allows for fire department ladder placement  and a “wetband” of landscape for fire suppression. Finally, the highest top of retaining  wall is at the roof eave level and as such, any and all of the rear yard grading is fully  masked by the residence from off‐site views. An exception is requested.  3. 8’ cut for detached garage (C‐8)  The architect has creatively redesigned the breezeway to the Town specifications for  length and width and added half walls and railings to qualify the garage as “attached.”  Consequently, the allowed excavation is 8’ deep. No exception is required.  4. Roughly 9’ cut behind the residence shown on Section D‐D of Sheet C‐8 (and 5’ but  above retaining wall – cut needs to measure down to base of retaining wall).  This is previously discussed in item 2 above where an exception is requested.  5. 6’ cut for detached garage (section C‐C of C‐8), and earthwork summary shows 8’.  The garage is attached and a max cut of 8’ is allowed. The plan and table have been  revised to show 7’ proposed cut.  Parcel 1 ‐ Table 1  Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills  Site Element Allowed  Cut*  Proposed  Cut  Allowed  Fill*  Proposed  Fill  House and attached garage 8'** 8’ 3' ‐  Driveways* 4' 5’ 3' 4’  Other (decks, yards) * 4' 6’ 3' ‐  * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence shall be limited  to 6 feet.  ** Excludes below grade square footage pursuant to Section 29.40.072 of the Town Code.    6. Earthwork summary:  a. 5’cut for access road  We contend that the 4’ cut maximum is no longer valid now that as of April 2021, Santa  Clara County Fire has significantly upsized their turnaround requirements and now  requires the entire approach at 5% slope. The previous standard was that the “L‐ shape”  of the turnaround was restricted to 5% slope and the approach driveway could be up  to 20% slope. These standards surprisingly evolve with changes in personnel at Fire.  They are also apparently the result of strict enforcements by CALFIRE of PRC 4290.  Additionally, this is an access road that is subject to the policies for “design flexibility”  within the Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan and not governed by the HDS&G standards for  driveways. The depth of cut non‐conformance is limited to 160 SF at the interface of  the lower FDT with the Parcel 2 driveway and does not result in a prominent visual scar  on the hillsides. An exception is requested.  b. 4’fill for driveway  This occurs at the driveway where it intersects the parking area for the Parcel 1 garage.  Note that we previously reduced the driveway width at this location due to a 5’ fill. We  really can’t squeeze this any further, but have provided an undulating slope at the base  of the retaining wall to mask this fill, resulting in a net wall height of 3’. An exception is  requested.  c. 8’cut for detached garage  Pursuant to architectural revisions to the breezeway, the garage is now attached to the  house.  d. 6’cut for rear yard  This is again the terraced wall condition with minimized fire ladder perimeter access  around the rear of the house. The area that is non‐compliant is 70’ x 3’ at the extreme  southeast corner behind the house, which is virtually invisible to anyone. Exception  requested.    Parcel 2  1. Height of lowest finished floor exceeds 3’ above existing grade along the north elevation  (roughly 6.5’ – Sheet A3.1, A3.2, A3.4, A4.1)  Again, similar to Parcel 1, a one‐story residence has a slightly larger footprint but is  obviously at least 10’‐12’ shorter than a two‐story residence design. So it is a matter of  balance of visibility versus grading. To paraphrase the words of former Los Gatos Mayor,  Randy Attoway, “I’d rather see a one time grading impact from foundation excavation  for a week rather than stare at a 35’ tall building for more than 60 years.” Such is the  case here as to underfloor clearance that is merely 5’ where 3’ maximum is  recommended. We have marked 40’ of that length with a trapezoidal shaped short 3’  tall fill retaining wall below the house. There is a 30’ length that is non‐compliant in a  location that is invisible to any downslope neighborhood.  2. Cut to the rear of the residence (appears to be roughly 9’ per Sheet A4.1 and A4.2)  While we are allowed an 8’ cut at the rear of the residence we could have buried the  rear of the house against a retaining wall. This would have compromised the floor plan  and the window placement on the rear wall. Extensive moisture protection for the a  large retaining wall would also have been required. We might have created a long light  well 10’ away from the house but that would result in a sterile concrete area devoid of  any landscaping. We also looked at adding a third wall to the two terraced walls, but this  proved to be more excavation to merely reduce the wall height. Our current proposal of  two terraced walls with a fire ladder platform and landscape wetband around the  residence is preferred for fire safety and aesthetics. The area of non‐compliance  is merely 70’ long by 7’ wide at the invisible southeast corner of the residence. An  exception is requested.  3. 6’ retaining wall to the east of the garage (C‐9)  The attached garage is buried 8’ at the southeast corner and this is merely a 20’ long  transition from the 8’ garage wall to the 4’ yard wall. Exception requested for this minor  variation.  4. 4’ fill for driveway (Section A‐A on C‐9)  This is required to balance the cut and fill across the massive 3600 SF Fire Department  Turnaround which is the size of a 7‐11 Convenience Store parking lot. We have done our  best to mask the fill with that same trapezoidal wall used at the high crawl space. This is  merely an area of 100 SF. Exception requested.  5. Roughly 9’ cut behind the residence shown on Section B‐b of sheet C‐9 (and 5’ but  above retaining wall – cut needs to shown down to the base of retaining wall)  Same as 2 above.  6. Earthwork Summary:  a. 5’ cut for driveway (this item was justified in the response letter, but this information  needs to be included in the Letter of Justification).  See prior item I Parcel 1‐6.a  b. 5’ fill for turnaround  This fire department turnaround sits diagonally across 80’ of slope varying from existing  ground elevation of 396 to 412 or 16’ vertical. The strict 5% maximum slope imposed by  Fire would reconcile only 80 x 5% = 4’ of the 16’ differential. We can absorb 7’ of the  remaining 12’ which results in a 5’ fill on the downhill side of the FDT. The size and slope  of the FDT are non‐negotiable and you cannot help but wonder if Fire intends to  dispatch the ladder truck to this site. However, with the current wildfire hazard caused  by the worst 22 year drought period in the last 1200 years in California, there is no  reason to skimp on fire protection standards. Exception requested.  c. 5’ cut for rear yard  See previous discussion above.    Driveway + Grading  The HDS&G allows for 5’ high retaining walls, but only cuts of 4’ and fills of 3’. That has always  seemed peculiar. In any event, we are requesting grading exceptions to Table 1 as follow:      Lot 2 driveway cut depth exceeds 4’ due to the need to minimize overall grading. The 20% slope  aids the reduction of grading, but the over 4’cut can’t be avoided over 5’ wide by a 35’ length  (from 368 to 374) at the 3’ shoulder at the face of wall. This area is for drainage control and  landscaping, Landscaping at walls is dictated by the HDS&G ‐ Retaining Wall section.                  We dispute that the cut depth at the rear yard is non‐compliant as the grading exactly matches  the HDS&G terraced wall detail pasted below:     The maximum fill depth of the Parcel 2 garage is 1.5’ which is less than 3’. Any grading  associated with the fire department turnarounds are simply off‐limits for criticism as the 2004  HDS&G have not been updated since Santa Clara County Fire enlarged their FDT’s on April 27,  2121. An 80’ long turnaround within a 20% ground slope sits on a 16’ grade differential. If the  new surface is to be 5% that is merely a drop of 4’, leaving 12’ to reconcile. If the garage is cut  8’ and the FDT slopes only 4’, then there is an unresolved grade differential remaining of 4’,  which is non‐compliant if filled. In summary, the FDT’s are now massive flat areas within hillside  settings. We suggest that FDT’s should be allowed the same cut and fill standards.    Driveway  All visible grading at the access road and driveways are curvilinear and contoured to blend with  the natural terrain. This is utilizing retaining walls under 5’ tall. Lot 1 has undulating fill slopes,  masking the underfloor area at the house. All slopes will be treated with erosion control and  native grasses per the landscape plan. The only proposed slopes that might appear  “manufactured” are in the invisible rear yards.    Access Road and Fire Department Hammerhead  Town Council direction at the CDAC Meeting in January 2019 suggested that an independent  access road of limited width in‐lieu of a public street would be preferable. We have followed  that direction by designing a common access road serving only the two new lots. We have  avoided impacts on the drainage swale and with the allowed narrowing to 12’ of pavement at  the end of Surmont Drive, we have now avoided impact on the juniper bushes (within the  public right of way) at the Cosentino frontage at 200 Surmont Drive.    The amount of pavement is 50% of that which may have been required for a 30’ wide public  street. the 20% slope conforms perfectly for the initial 100’ length of road to the fire  department turnaround (FDT) with cuts and fills limited to 1’ and 2’ as directed by the Town  HDS&G and LGHSP.  The FDT has fills of only 1’ (3’ allowed) and 3.9 cut at the southwest corner where 4’ is allowed  in compliance with the HDS&G.    Parcel 1 ‐‐ Driveway  This driveway is only 130’ long from the FDT to the garage parking turnaround. Fills are limited  to 3’ maximum depth and 5’ retaining wall. The turnaround is a full FDT with a slope of merely  1.5%.    Parcel 1 ‐‐ Garage & Residence  The parcel 1 garage has a maximum cut of 8’ in the southeast corner. The front northwest  corner complies to grade with just 1’ of fill. The parcel 1 residence is oriented parallel to the  existing contours (that vary from 373 to 384, or 11’ differential). The floor plan steps up 5’ from  porch to master bedroom with two terraced 4’ walls in the rear yard that resolve the remaining  6’ vertical of the 11’ differential. Fills on Lot 1 are limited to a pasting on masking slopes at the  entry and northeast decks to mask the underfloor clearance of 5’. The slope heights are merely  6’ tall and will be naturally undulated.    Lot 2 ‐‐ Driveway Grading  Again, this driveway is under 300’ long at 170’ from the shared FDT. The Santa Clara County Fire  Marshal ‐ Rob Campbell, has specifically allowed a 20% longitudinal slope due to the fully  compliant FDT’s at either end of the driveway. The driveway meanders at 20% across the face  of a natural 25% slope, cuts are limited to 4’ in depth and fills are 4’ deep. 70’ and 80’ long  retaining walls of varying heights from 1.5’ to maximum 5’ for fill retention are designed on the  north side of the driveway. These walls are virtually invisible to any public views from Surmont  Drive and the neighborhood. Minimizing the wall length to 50’ maximum is not warranted.    The Lot 2 residence is also oriented parallel to the contours (straddling the 401 to 414 contours,  or 13’ differential). The pad and floor levels in the residence absorbs 5’ of the grade change,  while two rear yard terraced walls of 3.5’ height (and slope between) absorb the other 8’ of  grade differential. The Lot 2 garage has a 7.5’ cut where 8’ is allowed and is a daylight design  with front slab at existing grade (of 406.5).    The lot building sites and driveway routes were the initial consideration prior to lot design. The  30% slope line or LRDA has framed to possible building sites. The residences were oriented with  their long axis slightly northwesterly and parallel to the existing terrain with minimized width in  the north to south direction. As is always the case, the local fire department turnarounds  generate the bulk of grading volume and elevation differential due to typical width of 40’ in  25% terrain, which results in a 10’ grade differential. Everyday vehicle access platform slopes  5% maximum which only resolves 2’ of the grade differential, while the remaining 8’ requires  retaining walls and graded slopes.    HDS&G Section III‐A‐7 (grading techniques).  The exposed cut and fill slopes of the driveway shoulders will appear as natural due to the  meandering alignment of the driveways. Retaining walls, where utilized, are under 5’ height  and can be masked with undulating backfill as shown on plans. The fire truck wheel loads  warrant retaining walls for slope stability purposes. The rear yard retaining walls are utilitarian  and visible to only the homeowner. However, there are no aesthetic issues with these walls  since they will be fully landscaped and not locally or regionally visible.          This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2. Minor Swale at Terminus of Surmont Drive 3.Drainage Headwall EXHIBIT 6 4. Consentino Residence   5. Looking West Along LOT 1 - Consentino   6. Power Pole at LOT 1   7. Power Pole at LOT 1   8. Surmont Drive Looking North 9. Neighbor at Surmont Ct.   10. 9.5’ Wide Driveway to 400 Surmont Residence on Designated Remainder Parcel   11. Residence on Designated Remainder   12. New Access Driveway Location 13. Town Barricade at Storm Headwall 14. 400 Surmont Driveway 15. Driveway to Uphill Neighbor 16. Uphill Westerly Neighbor: 401 Surmont Dr., Los Gatos, CA 95032 17. From Lot Looking Westerly 18. Parcel 1 19. Parcel 1 Looking South 20. Parcel 2 Looking East 21. Parcel 2 Looking East 22. Parcel 1 at Consentino Fence This Page Intentionally Left Blank 638 University AvenueLos Gatos. California . 95032t 408.292.3252 f 253.399.1125Surmont Drive, Parcel 1 Material paletteStucco, Smooth finish,Benjamin Moore 1078, Hillcrest Tan(or approved equal)LRV 23.89Clay Roof Tile,MCA B330-R, Old Santa Barbara Blend(or approved equal)LRV 15.22Kolbe Windows or Approved EQ.High Park Green Aluminum Clad Exterior, Wood Interior, Cast Stone TrimWood Posts/Columns, Dark Wood StainLRV 8.95Wrought Iron Guardrail(similar design/style)LRV 29.27EXHIBIT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 638 University AvenueLos Gatos. California . 95032t 408.292.3252 f 253.399.1125Surmont Drive, Parcel 2 Material PaletteWood Roof Shingles, Treated LRV 18.95Kolbe Windows or Approved EQ.Black Aluminum Clad Exterior, Wood Interior, Painted Wood trimLRV 2.48Wood Posts/Columns, Medium Wood StainLRV 19.95Wood TrimBenjamin Moore HC-190, BlackLRV 2.48Board + Batten, Horizontal SidingBenjamin Moore HC-168, Chelsea GrayLRV 22.16Metal Standing Seam Roof,Charcoal GrayLRV 18.27Board + BattenHorizontal SidingEXHIBIT 8 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Job No. 16-233 October 21, 2022(revised) Ryan Safty - Associate Planner Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Visibility of Two New Residences 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Dear Ryan: We are submitting this update to the Visibility Analysis to reflect the now-installed story poles . The subject property was included within the area of the 1990 “Comprehensive Open Space Study for Blossom Hill,” as prepared by Tito Patri -- Landscape Architect. The Town Council at that time adopted the “Least Restricted Development Area (LRDA)” delineations and the Environmental Sensitivity criteria for the area encompassed by the study. There has been no subsequent action through the Hillside Specific Plan or the 2004 Hillside Standards & Design Guidelines to modify or rescind those standards. Blossom Hill Open Space Study The study maps show a critically visible ridgeline, an earthquake corridor, and most importantly, Environmental Sensitivity - Level 1 for the two building sites proposed here. The Level 1 designation extends to elevation 500 while the Parcel 2 residence does not exceed a roof ridge of approximately 430’. The sites are fully 70 feet plus below the designated “critically visible slopes.” Sensitivity Level 1 is the least constrained land on a scale of 1 to 10. EXHIBIT 9 Job No. 16-233 Page 2 of 6 October 21, 2022 New Neighboring Residence The relatively new residence at 303 Belgatos was approved in 2017 without any discussion of regional visibility. The viewing platform for East Los Gatos is at the athletic fields at Leigh High School. The Selinda Way location is not even within the Town limits. This platform is 1.5 miles from the site and the mass and scale of the proposed residence can be measured in millimeters due to the excessive distance. The West Los Gatos viewing platforms are half the distance (0.75 miles) from the much steeper hillsides, where potential visibility takes on a completely different scale since new residences are perceived as towering above downtown and on full, detailed display. Please recall the recent story pole installation at 145 Wood Road regarding the overwhelming scale and closeness when viewed from the Penthouse Apartments. Job No. 16-233 Page 3 of 6 October 21, 2022 Story Pole Installation & Viewing Area Visit We enclose the required 50 and 300 mm lens photographs from the Selinda Way viewing area opposite Leigh High School. The story poles for Lot 1 fall below the series of fences at the school and are not visible. The Lot 2 story poles are blocked for 15% by a large palm tree, but otherwise fully visible (just above the chain link fence in the foreground) and diminished scale since the viewing area is 1.5 miles distant from the site. Additionally, we moved 500’ east and west of Selinda and saw no significant difference. Alta Vista Subdivision Backdrop What we did see are large houses within the Alta Vista subdivision on Santa Rosa Drive. The existing Anderson residence and pool house on Parcel 3 of the subdivision can also be seen above the building sites, yet it is quite dark due to the weathered wood exterior. There are light reflections from the windows. The red balloons are highlighted in the enclosed photos. Job No. 16-233 Page 4 of 6 October 21, 2022 Summary The Parcel 2 residence will be visible from the Selinda Way viewing platform except for that portion of the residence with a large palm tree at 255 Bellblossom Way. That palm tree blocks as much as 15% of the length of the residence. The Parcel 1 residence is simply not visible from Selinda Way because it falls fully below the railings of multiple chain link fences at the Leigh High School athletic fields. Job No. 16-233 Page 5 of 6 October 21, 2022 Job No. 16-233 Page 6 of 6 October 21, 2022 It should be noted that somehow the good intentions of the Hillside Specific Plan visibility policies related to only “ridgeline projection” have evolved over 40 years to now require “invisible residences,” The proposed residences are neither unsightly nor obtrusive, and the original staff who developed these policies in the 1980s would be disappointed about the present illogical aberrations. The goals of reasonable architectural aesthetics that complement hillside preservation have become out of balance given the goal of invisibility. Sincerely, TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E. C35527 Principal Engineer July 23, 2021 Mr. Ryan Safty Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 400 Surmont Drive Dear Ryan: I reviewed the drawings, and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located on a large sloping site behind single family homes facing Westhill Drive. Other homes to rear and either side of the site are located quite some distance from the site. The site does not appear to be visible from Westhill Drive. The site is shown on the photos of the site and its surroundings on the following page. EXHIBIT 10 400 Surmont Drive Design Review Comments July 23, 2021 Page 2 Proposed homes in the neighborhood context View to site from end of Surmont Drive Home immediately below the site View from Westhill Drive 400 Surmont Drive Design Review Comments July 23, 2021 Page 3 ISSUES AND CONCERNS The proposed project includes two single family detached homes each designed in its own unique traditional style. The immediate neighborhood of homeS along Westhill Drive are located such that they have little direct influence on the design of these two new homes. Each proposed home is limited to one-story in height, and designed to blend into the natural topography of the site. They are well designed with substantial facade articula- tion and authentic architectural details carried consistently around all sides of the homes - see proposed plans, elevations and sections below and on the following page. PARCEL 1 Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Right Side Elevation Proposed Left Side Elevation Downhill facing Proposed Cross Section 400 Surmont Drive Design Review Comments July 23, 2021 Page 4 PARCEL 2 Proposed Cross Section Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Right Side Elevation Proposed Left Side Elevation Downhill facing 400 Surmont Drive Design Review Comments July 23, 2021 Page 5 I was only able to identify a couple of minor concerns as follows. Parcel 1 Windows Window details are not provided, but viewing the building sections, it does not appear that the windows are adequately recessed for this architectural style without window trim. This would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4. 3.7.4 Design the windows with attention to matching the traditional details of the architectural style • Wood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the window frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the outside face of the wall. The use of stucco covered foam trim is strongly discouraged. • Divided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken up into smaller pieces) are common in many home styles found in Los Gatos. Use either vertical or square proportions for the smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions (i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension) of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat grids to simulate divided lights. Use either true divided lights or one of the newer window systems that have dimensional muntins on both the exterior and interior of the glass along with a spacer muntin between the panes of glass. Use consistently for windows on all sides of the house. Recommendations: Provide an adequate recess for all windows and assure that the size of the window head trim and sills are properly scaled for the size of the home. Two examples of recessed windows are shown in the photos below. 400 Surmont Drive Design Review Comments July 23, 2021 Page 6 Parcel 2 Wall Base Material This will be a judgement call for the architect and applicant, but using board form concrete at the exposed base for the walls may not be best solution for this architectural style. On the downhill elevation where a substantial amount of the wall base is exposed, the result may be visually appear to be a refined wall material sitting on a podium of concrete - see diagram below. I noted that on the Parcel 1 home downhill elevation, the stucco wall surface would extend down the full height of the wall - see comparable downhill elevation below. Recommendations: Reevaluate the Parcel 2 building base materials, details and potential buffer landscaping. Ryan, I have no other recommendations for change. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon EXHIBIT 11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Prepared By: Richard Gessner ASCA - Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA - Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B EXHIBIT 12 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Table of Contents Summary ...............................................................................................................1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................1 Assignment .............................................................................................................1 Limits of the assignment ........................................................................................1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................2 Observations .........................................................................................................2 Tree Inventory .........................................................................................................2 Analysis .................................................................................................................4 Discussion .............................................................................................................5 Condition Rating .....................................................................................................5 Suitability for Preservation ......................................................................................6 Expected Impact Level ...........................................................................................7 Mitigation for Removals ..........................................................................................8 Tree Protection .......................................................................................................9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................9 Recommendations .............................................................................................10 Bibliography ........................................................................................................11 Glossary of Terms ...............................................................................................12 Appendix A: Site Plan and Tree Locations .......................................................14 A1: Site Plan Parcel 1 ...........................................................................................15 A2: Site Plan Parcel 2 ...........................................................................................16 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables ......................................17 Appendix C: Photographs ..................................................................................20 C1: Existing service road and oaks ......................................................................20 C2: Parcel 1 driveway entrance ............................................................................21 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines ...........................................................22 D1: Fence Specifications ......................................................................................22 D2: Trunk Protection Specifications .....................................................................23 Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During Construction ...........................24 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications .................................................24 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions .....................................24 Monitoring ............................................................................................................25 Root Pruning .........................................................................................................25 Boring or Tunneling ...............................................................................................26 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations .................................................................26 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ....................................................................27 E1: English ............................................................................................................27 E2: Spanish ...........................................................................................................28 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions ...................................29 Certification of Performance .............................................................................30 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Summary The inventory contains 39 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) are considered Large Protected, and sixteen fruit trees are Exempt. Eighteen trees are in good condition, eleven fair, nine in poor shape and one is dead. Eighteen trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarily fruit trees. Ten trees have fair suitability for preservation and the remaining eleven have good suitability. Sixteen trees will be highly impacted and are expected to be removed, four moderately affected and nineteen are not near the improvements. Seven of the sixteen trees expected to be highly impacted are Protected (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) while the remaining are Exempt fruit trees. Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposed construction and will require tree protection fence around them to help prevent damage. A total of 39 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $64,260.00 using the Trunk Formula Method. Introduction Background The Town of Los Gatos asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements. Assignment •Provide an arborist’s report including 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. Affix aluminum number tags on the trees for reference on site and on plans. •Provide tree protection specifications, guidelines, and impact ratings for trees that may be affected by the project. •Provide appraised values. Limits of the assignment •The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on May 20, 2019 and February 8, 2022. No tree risk assessments were performed. •Tree heights and canopy diameters are estimates. •The most recent Guide to Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition was published in late 2018 by the ISA. The Guide is not functional at this time due to significant errors in the original printed version and gaps in information regarding regional species characteristics and nursery stock wholesale costs. Therefore the ninth edition and its supplemental publications was used for this assignment with the exception of the “condition ratings” assessment. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 1 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 •The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows (Table 1). 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 the Town of Los Gatos and the property owners as a reference for existing tree conditions to help satisfy planning requirements. Observations The plans provided indicated the proposed location of the driveway to the two lots and the house footprints. The topographic survey provided is not completely accurate and some features are gone and others exist on site not on the survey. Tree Inventory The inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos located on site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. Sec. 29.10.0960. - Scope of protected trees. All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. (Appendix A and B). Los Gatos Town Ordinance 29.10.0970 Exceptions (1) states the following: “A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference). Table 1: Plans Reviewed Checklist Plan Date Sheet Reviewed Source Existing Site Topographic Map or A.L.T.A with tree locations Proposed Site Plan Nov. 2021 A1.3 Parcel 1 and 2 and C2 Layout Yes Studio 3 Design TS Engineering Demolition Plan Construction Staging Grading and Drainage C3 Yes TS Engineering Utility Plan and Hook-up locations Exterior Elevations Landscape Plan Irrigation Plan T-1 Tree Protection Plan Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 2 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 The inventory contains 39 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered Large Protected , and sixteen 1 fruit trees are Exempt . The chart below list the species and their relative quantities (Chart 1). 2 Large protected tree means any oak (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), or Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) which has a 24-inch or 1 greater diameter (75-inch circumference); or any other species of tree with a 48-inch or greater diameter (150-inch circumference). A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference).2 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 3 30 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Analysis Tree appraisal was performed according to the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition, 2000 (CLTA) along with Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004. The trees were appraised using the “Cost Approach” and more specifically the “Trunk Formula Method” (Appendix B). “Trunk Formula Method” is calculated as follows: Basic Tree Cost = (Appraised tree trunk increase X Unit tree cost + Installed tree cost) Appraised Value = (Basic tree cost X Species % X Condition % X Location %). The trunk formula valuations are based on four tree factors; species, size (trunk cross sectional area), condition, and location. There are two steps to determine the overall value. The first step is to determine the “Basic Tree Cost” based on size and species rating which is determined by the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. The second part is to depreciate the value according to the location and condition of the trees. The condition assessment and percentages are defined in the “Condition Rating” section of this report. The condition ratings deviate from the Guide’s condition assessment numerical rating system. The reason for this deviation is the Guide’s assessment criteria fails to account for significant health or structural issues creating high percentages for tree with either significant structural defects or health problems that could ultimately lead to failure or irreversible decline. Location rating is an average of three factors; site, contribution, and placement. Site is determined by the relative property value where the trees are planted. The residential site would be classified as “very high” value with a 90 percent rating compared to similar sites in the area (ISA, 2000). Contribution and placement is determined by the function and aesthetics the trees provide for the site and their location on the property. The percent of contribution and placement can range from 10 to 100 percent depending on the trees influence to the value of the property. These percentages ranged from 0 to 90 percent in my assessment. A total of 39 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $64,260.00 using the Trunk Formula Method (Appendix B). Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 4 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Discussion Condition Rating A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form. The assessment considered both the health and structure for a combined condition rating. •100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. •61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site. •41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. •21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. •6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. •0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail. Eighteen trees are in good condition, eleven fair, nine in poor shape and one is dead (Chart 2). Most of the trees in poor condition are remnant orchard trees. The best specimen in the building area is coast live oak #133. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 5 30 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Suitability for Preservation A tree’s suitability for conservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances, proximity to cutting and filling, proximity to construction or demolition, and potential longevity using a scale of good, fair, or poor (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). Trees with good suitability have good vigor, structural stability, and potential longevity after construction. •Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity. •Fair = Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life spans than those in the good category. •Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and will continue to decline regardless of treatment. The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Eighteen trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarily fruit trees (Chart 3). Ten trees have fair suitability for preservation. The remaining eleven have good suitability and primarily consist of naturally occurring coast live oaks or holly oaks. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 6 30 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Expected Impact Level Impact 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. Sixteen trees will be highly impacted and are expected to be removed, four moderately affected, and nineteen are not near the improvements (Appendix A and B). Seven of the sixteen trees expected to be highly impacted are Protected (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) while the remaining are Exempt fruit trees. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 7 30 Quantity 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Mitigation for Removals The table below indicates the recommended replacement values (Table 3). Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens. Alternatively it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. 1To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size. 2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. 3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieu fees for single family residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council. 4Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions—Hillsides. Table 3: Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree (1) Replacement Requirement (2)(4) Single Family Residential Replacement Option (3)(4)10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon treesMore than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon treesMore than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24 inch box trees or two 36 inch box trees Four 15 gallon trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24 inch box trees; or three 36 inch box trees Not available Greater than 55 feet Ten 24 inch box trees; or five 36 inch box trees Not available Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 8 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches (Appendix D). The most current accepted method for determining the TPZ is to use a formula based on species tolerance, tree age/vigor, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). Preventing mechanical damage to the trunk from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle or using vertical timbers. Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposed construction and will require tree protection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are four trees in close proximity to these including #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as a group with #131 and #132. Tree #133 will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. The remaining three trees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal. Conclusion The inventory contains 39 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered Large Protected, and sixteen fruit trees are Exempt. Eighteen trees are in good condition, eleven fair, nine in poor shape and one is dead. Most of the trees in poor condition are remnant orchard trees. The best specimen in the building area is coast live oak #133. Eighteen trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarily fruit trees. Ten trees have fair suitability for preservation and the remaining eleven have good suitability. Sixteen trees will be highly impacted and are expected to be removed, four moderately affected and nineteen are not near the improvements. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens.. Seven of the sixteen trees expected to be highly impacted are Protected (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) while the remaining are Exempt fruit trees. Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposed construction and will require tree protection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are four trees in close proximity to #131 and #132 including #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as a group. Tree #133 will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. The remaining three trees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal. A total of 39 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $64,260.00 using the Trunk Formula Method. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 9 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Recommendations 1.Update the site plans and survey to show the current existing conditions and corrected locations (Appendix A) of the trees and their trunks, including those along the drainage and their associated numbers. 2.Place tree numbers and tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plans including the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Create a separate plan sheet that includes all protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.” 3.Place tree protection fence along the service road near the drainage outside the tree dip lines (#113, #114, #115, and #116), around #133 at eighteen feet (18’), and around #332, #133 (#134 and #135) and #894 (#892 and #893) at a radius of ten feet (10’). 4.Provide a landscape plan that accounts for the loss in tree canopy to include in tabular form the required replacements in accordance with the Town’s Tree Canopy Replacement Standard. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens.. 5.All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. 6.Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ. 7.Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 8.Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 10 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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. Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas. Smiley. Managing trees during construction, second edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2016. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 9th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 10th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2018. Print. ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. Western Chapter ISA Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture1998. Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, ISA. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment: International Society of Arboriculture, 2017. Print Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 11 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Glossary of Terms Basic Tree Cost: The cost of replacement for a perfect specimen of a particular species and cross sectional area prior to location and condition depreciation. Cost Approach: An indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. 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 Plant Appraisal, 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 defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. The outer extent of the tree crown. Form: describes a plant’s habit, shape or silhouette defined by its genetics, environment, or management. Health: Assessment is based on the overall appearance of the tree, its leaf and twig growth, and the presence and severity of insects or disease. 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. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 12 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Structural evaluation: focused on the crown, trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots and the site conditions contributing to conditions and/or defects that may contribute to failure. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined 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. Trunk Formula Method: Method to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Based on developing a representative unit cost for replacement with the same or comparable species of the same size and in the same place, subject to depreciation for various factors. Contrast with replacement cost method. Volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial property. Unlike trees that are brought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private grounds. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 13 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix A: Site Plan and Tree Locations Site plan not to scale. Trees with an ‘X’ next to them are highly impacted. The blue dash represents the tree protection fence. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 14 30 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X #119 #120 #346 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 A1: Site Plan Parcel 1 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 15 30 352326('6,7(3/$1 1257+                   “ “ “ (;,67,1**5$ ' (3523(57</,1(     “ 6850217 3$5&(/ 6850217 3$5&(/ 6850217 :(67+,// '5,9(            3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1**5$ ' (“ “ “ “ 6850217'56850217&7 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ 352326('6725< 5(6,'(1&( 352326(' '(7$&+('*$5$*( 6850217'5,9( (;,67,1*6725< 5(6,'(1&( 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ 352326('6725< 5(6,'(1&( 352326(' '(7$&+('*$5$*( :(67+,//'5,9( (;,67,1*6725<5(6,'(1&( :(67+,//'5 “ “  6,'(6(7%$&.  5($56(7%$&. 6,'(6(7%$&. 6,'(6(7%$&.1ƒ :  1ƒ (    ( )58,7 ( 2$. ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( )5,87 ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( 2$. (  2$. ( )58,7 1 '5,9(:$< *$6 0(7(5 (/(&75,&$/ 3$1(/  ; ;; (;,67,1*75((6127,17+($5($2) &2175$&7,21725(0$,1 ;; ;; (;,67,1*75((6127,17+($5($ 2)&216758&7,21725(0$,1 ( )58,7 ( 3,1( (  2$. (  72<21 ( 2$. (  2$. ( )58,7      (  2$. ( 2$. (  3/80 1(:),5( +<'5$17 3529,'(75((3527(&7,9( )(1&,1*3(572:15(4 76 $5%25,675(&200(1'$7,21 ; ; ; ( )58,7;  7<3 7<3 7<3 7<33$5&(/ 6) $&  :,'(,(( (9$(38(66( 36'( 366( ,(((9$(38( 66(36'( 366(6ƒ ( 6ƒ : 1ƒ ( $ 352326('6,7(3/$1 6,7(/,1(678'< 0$66,1*5(/$7,216+,3 6&$/( $6127(' 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ /26*$726 &$/,)251,$  ,17(5,2565(02'(/6$'',7,2161(:&216758&7,2181,9(56,7<$9(/26*$726&$/,)251,$WI678',27+5(('(6,*1 $8*867 -$18$5< 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ $8*867 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/,, 129(0%(5 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/,,, 6,7(/,1(678'<0$66,1*5(/$7,216+,3 6,7(3/$1 6&$/(   *22*/(($57+,0$*(*22*/(($57+,0$*( :(67+,//'5,9( 6850217'5,9(6850217'5,9(3$5&(/6850217'5,9(3$5&(/:(67+,// '5,9( 6850217'5,9(6850217'5,9(3$5&(/6850217'5,9(3$5&(/ 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 A2: Site Plan Parcel 2 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 16 30   5($56(7%$&.6,'(6(7%$&. 6,'(6(7%$&. 6,'(6(7%$&.  )52176(7%$&. 1ƒ (     6ƒ ( ( 2$. ( 2$. (  2$. ( 2$. ( )58,7 ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 3/80 ( 3/80 ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. (  2$. ( 2$. (  2$. (  2$. ( 2$. ( 2$. ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( )58,7 ( 2$. 1 '5,9(:$< 1ƒ (  $&81,76$&81,76 *$6 0(7(5 (/(&75,&$/ 3$1(/    ;          ( 3/80 (  3/80 (  $35,&27 (  2$. (  2$. 3529,'(75((3527(&7,9( )(1&,1*3(572:15(4 76 $5%25,675(&200(1'$7,21 ;; (;,67,1*75((6127 ,17+($5($2) &2175$&7,2172 5(0$,1 ( )58,7 3$5&(/ 6) $& 3$5&(/5(0$,1'(5 6) $&  :,'(6/23(67$%,/,7< 3527(&7,21$5($)25 (;:$7(5&2856(  121(;&/86,9( 5,*+72):$< 25 352326('6,7(3/$1 1257+“ “ “ “ “ “ “ (;,67,1**5$ ' (3523(57</,1(“ 6850217 3$5&(/ 6850217 3$5&(/ 6850217 :(67+,// '5,9(            3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1**5$ ' (6850217'56850217&7 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ 352326('6725< 5(6,'(1&( 352326(' '(7$&+('*$5$*( 6850217'5,9( (;,67,1*6725< 5(6,'(1&( 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ 352326('6725< 5(6,'(1&( 352326(' '(7$&+('*$5$*( :(67+,//'5,9( (;,67,1*6725<5(6,'(1&( :(67+,//'5 “ “ $ 352326('6,7(3/$1 6,7(/,1(678'< 0$66,1*5(/$7,216+,3 6&$/($6127(' 6850217'5,9( 3$5&(/ /26*$726 &$/,)251,$  ,17(5,2565(02'(/6$'',7,2161(:&216758&7,2181,9(56,7<$9(/26*$726&$/,)251,$WI678',27+5(('(6,*1 $8*867 -$18$5< 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ $8*867 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/,, 129(0%(5 3/$11,1*68%0,77$/,,, 6,7(/,1(678'<0$66,1*5(/$7,216+,3 6,7(3/$1 6&$/(   *22*/(($57+,0$*(*22*/(($57+,0$*( :(67+,//'5,9( 6850217'5,9(6850217'5,9(3$5&(/6850217'5,9(3$5&(/ :(67+,// '5,9( 6850217'5,9(6850217'5,9(3$5&(/6850217'5,9(3$5&(/ 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables Table 2: Inventory Summary Tree Species I.D. Number Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Suitability for Preservation Expected Impact Rounded Value Status apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 110 8 10 15 Poor Poor High $470.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 111 6, 5 15 15 Fair Fair High $750.00 Protected apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 112 7, 7 15 15 Poor Poor High $710.00 Exempt holly oak (Quercus ilex)113 13 30 30 Fair Fair Low $2,340.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 114 14, 9 35 30 Fair Fair Low $2,700.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 115 14 35 35 Good Good Low $1,380.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 116 13, 15 35 35 Fair Fair Low $2,090.00 Large Protected wild plum (Prunus sp.)117 8 25 25 Good Poor Low $620.00 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.)118 8 25 25 Good Poor Low $620.00 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.)119 6 25 25 Good Poor Low $390.00 Exempt wild plum (Prunus sp.)120 8, 4, 3 25 25 Good Poor Low $770.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 121 18.5 35 35 Good Good Low $5,400.00 Protected apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 122 8, 8 15 15 Fair Poor Low $1,700.00 Exempt Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 17 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 123 10, 9 35 35 Fair Fair Low $1,820.00 Protected holly oak (Quercus ilex)124 8, 6 25 25 Fair Fair Low $1,420.00 Protected holly oak (Quercus ilex)125 5 20 20 Good Good Low $620.00 Protected holly oak (Quercus ilex)126 6, 4, 4 20 20 Fair Fair Low $940.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 127 14 30 30 Good Good High $3,140.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 128 11 30 30 Good Good High $1,990.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 129 11, 9 25 25 Good Good High $3,140.00 Protected stone pine (Pinus pinea)130 9 25 15 Good Poor High $880.00 Protected toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) 131 7, 7, 7 25 25 Fair Fair Moderate $2,150.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 132 8, 5, 5 30 30 Fair Fair Moderate $1,120.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 133 27 55 55 Good Good Moderate $11,300.00 Large Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 134 9, 9 25 25 Good Good Low $2,730.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 135 13 25 25 Good Good Low $2,730.00 Protected wild plum (Prunus sp.)346 4, 4, 4, 4 10 8 Good Poor Low $930.00 Exempt Tree Species I.D. Number Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Suitability for Preservation Expected Impact Rounded Value Status Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 18 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 506 3, 3, 3, 10 8 Good Poor High $1,100.00 Exempt apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 699 7, 7 10 8 Poor Poor High $710.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 700 6 15 10 Fair Fair High $460.00 Protected apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 892 4, 4, 4, 6 10 8 Dead Poor Low $0.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 893 13 25 15 Good Good Low $2,730.00 Protected coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 894 9 15 10 Good Good Moderate $1,380.00 Protected apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 895 6,4, 3 10 8 Poor Poor High $470.00 Exempt coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 896 6 15 10 Poor Poor High $230.00 Protected apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 897 4 10 8 Poor Poor High $150.00 Exempt apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 898 10 10 8 Poor Poor High $710.00 Exempt apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 899 8 10 8 Poor Poor High $470.00 Exempt apricot (Prunus armeniaca) 900 12 10 8 Poor Poor High $1,000.00 Exempt Tree Species I.D. Number Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Suitability for Preservation Expected Impact Rounded Value Status Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 19 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix C: Photographs C1: Existing service road and oaks Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 20 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 C2: Parcel 1 driveway entrance Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 21 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines D1: Fence Specifications Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 22 30 TREE PROTECTION Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.4'-0"Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. SECTION VIEW KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ‹ OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE Tree protection fence: Fencing shall be comprised of six- foot high chain link mounted on eight- foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground. Minimum 4” thick mulch layer Crown diameter drip line distance equal to the outer most limit of foliage.Notes: •All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. •All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. Notes: The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) may vary in radius from the trunk and may or may not be established at the drip line distance. See arborist’s report and plan sheet for specifications of TPZ radii.6’-0”Modified by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2019 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 D2: Trunk Protection Specifications Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 23 30EVCHARGINGONLYEVCHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.CLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.CLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.327 328 329329327328E1E1E1E5E5AE5CC ?W ?W ?WPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANS GUSHEE STREET PLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSPARKING AND BUILDING BYTEALL MESSER ARCHITECTSEE LIBRARY PLANSPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSLIBRARY LANDSCAPE PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATES L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.BULL CREEK FLOWLINEFUTURELIBRARY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X KIRBY STREETXXXSEE L2.0 MATERIALS PLAN FOR DISCOVERY PARKIMPROVEMENTSSEE L2.0 MATERIALS PLAN FOR DISCOVERY PARKIMPROVEMENTS (E) CHAINLINK FENCE AND GATE TO REMAIN APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (L.O.W.)LEGEND (E) TREE TO BE PROTECTED(E) TREE TO REMAINNOTE:1.SEE C3.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR TREEPROTECTION IN EXISTING RIPARIAN AREA.2.TREE SURVEY PROVIDED BY IFLAND SURVEY, 10/09/18.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL TREES WHICH ARELOCATED WITHIN 10' OF EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT.1L1.0(E) FENCE TO BE REMOVEDARBORIST NOTES:1.ALL TREE MAINTENANCE AND CARE SHALL BEPERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORIST WITH AC-61/D-49 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS LICENSE. TREEMAINTENANCE AND CARE SHALL BE SPECIFIED INWRITING ACCORDING TO AMERICAN NATIONALSTANDARD FOR TREE CARE OPERATIONS: TREE, SHRUBAND OTHER WOODY PLANT MANAGEMENT: STANDARDPRACTICES PARTS 1 THROUGH 10 AND ADHERE TO ANSIZ133.1 SAFETY STANDARDS AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.ALL MAINTENANCE IS TO BE PERFORMED ACCORDINGTO ISA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.2.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 )285,1&+(6 ´ ,1',$0(7(56+$//%(5(029(' WITHOUT APPROVAL. 3.ROOT MANAGEMENT - PRIOR TO REMOVING ROOTS *5($7(57+$17:2,1&+(6 ´ ,1',$0(7(5($&+ TREE SHALL BE EVALUATED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST TO HELP DETERMINE 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 TORN. 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 SHALL BE CUT WITHIN SIX TIMES THE TRUNK DIAMETER DISTANCE IN FEET ON ONE SIDE WITHOUT ARBORIST APPROVAL. 4.TRUNK PROTECTION - PREVENTING MECHANICAL DAMAGE TO THE MAIN STEMS FROM EQUIPMENT OR HAND TOOLS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY WRAPPING THE MAIN STEM WITH STRAW WATTLE. 5.SITE OCCUPANCY - HAVE A QUALIFIED ARBORIST PERFORM A LEVEL 2: BASIC TREE RISK ASSESSMENT AS DESCRIBED IN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, 2017 TO HELP IDENTIFY ANY NEW RISK FACTORS AFTER CONSTRUCTION UPON NEW SITE OCCUPANCY. DEMOLITION AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN L1.0 1"= 20' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBASE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREPROJECT TEAMPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSFELTON LIBRARYDISCOVERY PARKGUSHEE STREETFELTON, CA, 95018REVISION#Date Description STAMP SHEET TITLE Scale: Date: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: PHASE BID SET No. 5579 Ren. 9/30/2020LICENSED A R CHI TECTST A TEOF CA L IF O RNIAAL E N DA CS P 1802 PA / AS NM 04/19/2019 CIVIL ENGINEERMME CIVIL + STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGSAN FRANCISCO / PORTLANDwww.baselandscape.comIRRIGATION DESIGNRMA IRRIGATIONCLIENTSANTA CRUZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS,OPEN SPACE, AND CULTURAL SERVICES 0 feet40 1" = 20' 20 60 80 NORTHSECTION TREE TRUNK š675$: FILLED BURLAP WATTLES TREE PROTECTION WITHOUT FENCE 3/8" = 1'-0"4'-0"ROOT PROTECTION ZONE. SEE SPECS FOR REQUIREMENTS 1 SCHEDULE TREES TO BE PROTECTED: 20 TREES TO BE REMOVED: 0 04-19-20191 Planning Review Comments1 SECTION VIEW TRUNK PROTECTION WITH WATTLES-Y 6’-0” Excavation Trenches: 1. When any roots are cut or torn during construction, it is critical that you sharply cut all the ends of any exposed roots immediately. Failure to do so will leave crushed and torn roots. This leads to decay and inhibits growth of new roots. 2. Pile soil on the side of the trench opposite the tree. If this is not possible, place the soil on a plastic tarp, plywood or a thick bed of mulch. 3. Do not compact the backfill on the trench more than its original firmness. 4. Water the backfill to allow the roots to begin healing. Trenching near a tree can kill as much as 40%-RIWKHWUHH¶V roots. If the tree you are working around is in a confined space and your equipment will be coming close, it is important for you to protect WKHWUXQN:UDSWKHWUHHWUXQNLQROGWLUHVRUSODFH´[´VWXGVDURXQGWKHWUHHDQGURSHRUEDQGWKHPWRJHWKHU ROOT PRUNING DETAIL PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR REFERENCE 2” x 4” or 2” x 2” Dimensional Lumber Sturdy Strap (steel, nylon, or synthetic rope) 2” x 4” ’or 2” x 2” - 6 to 8 Feet Tall Dimensional Lumber Spaced 3” Apart Sturdy Strap (steel, nylon, or synthetic rope) Bridge With 4” - 6” Deep Course Woody Debris or 4” x 4” Dimensional Lumber and 3/4” Plywood or Steel Road Plate. Note: See Local Ordinance Requirements and Arborist’s Report for Additional Protection Specifications and Guidelines. Trunk Protection Vertical Timber Detail 6’ MIN. 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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, II, III 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 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 24 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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 dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. 3.Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. 4.Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5.Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6.Retain the services of 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. 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 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 25 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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 torn. 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 in writing according to the most recent ANSI A-300A Standards and Limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering 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 of 26 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 27 30 Warning Tree Protection Zone This Fence Shall Not Be Removed And Is Subject To Penalty According To Town Code 29.10.1025 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 E2: Spanish Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 28 30 Cuidado Zona De Arbol Pretejido Esta valla no podrán ser sacados Y está sujeta a sanción en función de Código Ciudad del 29.101025 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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 of 29 30 400 Surmont Drive, Los Gatos Tree Inventory and Assessment September 27, 2019 Revised February 11, 2022 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 findings 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 has 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 Copyright © Copyright 2022, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 30 30 This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 13 EXHIBIT 14 S U R M O N T D R JUN. 21ST 9 AMJUN. 21ST 12 PMJUN. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 9 AMDEC. 21ST 12 PMDEC. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 9 AMDEC. 21ST 12 PMJUN. 21ST 3 PMJUN. 21ST 9 AMJUN. 21ST 12 PMPARCEL #1PARCEL #2200 SURMONT DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)198 SURMONT CT.(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)175 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 2-STORYRESIDENCE)183 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 2-STORYRESIDENCE)400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)±63'-3" ±67'-11"A1.1COVER SHEETSCALE: N/A400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL VINDEXVICINITY MAPOwner:Sandra K. Anderson, Trustee400 Surmont DriveLos Gatos, CA 95032C/O Bob Hughes (408) 559-8850PROJECT INFO.Designer:Studio 3 DesignContact: Bess Wiersemabess@studio-three.com638 University AvenueLos Gatos, California 95032ph: (408) 292-3252fax: (253) 399-1125PARCEL MAPPROJECT DATAArchitectural PlansA1.1 Cover SheetA1.2 Tree Preservation Req'ts + GreenPoint ChecklistA1.3 Proposed Site Plan + Site Line StudyT-1 Tree Protection RequirementsA2.1 Proposed Floor PlanA2.2 Proposed Roof PlanA2.3 Proposed Garage Floor + Roof PlansA3.1 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA3.2 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA3.3 Proposed Exterior Elevations (Garage)A3.4 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA4.1 Building SectionsA4.2 Building SectionsA4.3 Building SectionsA4.4 Building SectionsLandscape PlansL1 Cover SheetL2 Frontage + Driveway Proposed Tree +Planting Parcel 1 + 2L3 Parcel 1 Proposed Trees + PlantingL4 Parcel 2 Proposed Trees + PlantingL5 Tree TableCivil PlansC-0 Cover SheetC-1 Tentative Map (Previously Approved)C-2 Access Road Plan + ProfileC-3 Utility PlanC-4 (Not included in this Submission)C-5 Access Road Plan + ProfileC-6 Erosion Control PlanC-7 Erosion Control + Construction DetailsC-8 Parcel 1 Site PlanPROJECT DESCRIPTIONThis project is a new, one-story, single-family residence with an attached garage (connected viapartially enclosed, covered walkway).SHADOW STUDYPROJECT ADDRESS:400 SURMONT DRIVE(CROSS STREET, WESTHILL DRIVE)A.P.N. :527-20-003LOT AREA (FROM COUNTY RECORD)60,752 SF (1.395 AC)ZONING =HR-2.5LAND USE = HILLSIDE RESIDENTIALFLOOD ZONE = ZONE XHISTORIC ZONE = NOFIRE SPRINKLERS = YESOCCUPANCY = R3/U (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING / UTILITY)WUI FIRE AREA =YES (WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE)HAZARD ZONE =COUNTY FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONECONSTRUCTION TYPE= V-BREQUIRED PARKING:2 OFF STREET SPACESSETBACKSALLOWEDFRONT: 30'SIDE (INTERIOR):20'REAR:25'BUILDING HEIGHTALLOWEDPROPOSEDHOUSE:25' - 0" (MAX.) ± 25'-0"FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONGross Lot Size: 60,752 SFAve. Slope: 27.3%Net Lot Size: 60,752 SF x (1-30% + 3% x 7) OR 60,752 x 49% = 29,768 SFReduction of net site area on sloping lotsAverage lot slope: 20.01 - 30%Percentage of net lot area to be deducted (30% = 3% for each 1% of slope over 20%)As Los Gatos IV Development Intensity Table 2, FAR = 19%Allowable Floor Area = 29,768 x 19% = 5,700SFFLOOR AREA RATIOALLOWEDPROPOSEDHABITABLE HOUSE5,700 SF3,683 SFATTIC AREA OVER 7-FEET N/A GARAGE:GARAGE 996 SFCOVERED WALKWAY 106 SFTOTAL5,700 SF 4,785 SFCivil Engineer:TS/Civil EngineeringContact: Terrance J. Szewczykterry@tscivil.com1776 Technology DriveSan Jose, California 95110ph: (408) 452-9300 EXT 220Contractor:The Building WorksContact: Robert O. Hughesbldngworks@aol.com2730 Union Avenue; Suite BSan Jose, California 95124ph: (408) 559-8850fax: (408) 559-3075SCC FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES1.Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and mayinclude specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not beconstrued as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes.Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the BuildingDepartment all applicable construction permits.2. Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- andtwo-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-familydwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasingthe area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new basementsand in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all attached ADUs, additions or alterationsto an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. Please indicate on thecover sheet that an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided and installed per NFPA 13D.3. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Driveways Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weathersurface, a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum outside turningradius of 36-feet and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to the Fire Department StandardDetails Specifications D-1 and CFC Section 503.4. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department enginedriveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in anydirection shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details andSpecifications D-1. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fireapparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).5. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or movedinto or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measuredby an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall beprovided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, equippedthroughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1].6. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fireprotection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors tocontact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of thatpurveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems,and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in anymanner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record.Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with therequirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by theapplicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.7. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbersor approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or roadfronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official,address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Addressnumbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm)high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and thebuilding cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identifythe structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.8. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFCChapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plansubmittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.DEFERRED SUBMITTAL(S)·FIRE HYDRANT (PC 19-2053) - Hydrant installation shall occur prior to the commencementof combustible construction.·AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM - PROVIDED + INSTALLED PER NFPA 13DWATER FLOW LETTERIn accordance with the Town Code Section 6.70.020 and 6.120.020:1. All new single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings, and ADU's(Accessory Dwelling Unit) shall use electricity as the source of energy for its spaceheating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, clothes dryingappliances, and other features for both interior and exterior applications.2. All single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings, and ADU's(Accessory Dwelling Unit) shall be pre-wired for the installation of battery storage. thepre-wiring shall be in accordance with California Building, Residential, and ElectricalCodes and be adequately sized by a licensed professional to accommodate theback-up loads installed in the critical load panel with a minimum of 5 kwh.3. All single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings with privategarages, and ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Unit, shall provide two wired nationalelectrical manufacturers association (NEMA) outlets, each supplied by a separate40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit, and shall be installed specifically forsupplying electrical power to an electric vehicle charger. One outlet shall be installedinside the garage and the other outlet shall be installed outside the garage.REQUIRED PV SYSTEM1. PV System 2.53 kWdc” is a ‘Required PV Systems’ of the Energy Calculations2. A separate building permit is required for the PV system that is required by the EnergyCalculations compliance modeling. The separate PV System permit must be finaledprior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy”.TOWN OF LG ENERGY REACH CODE CODES USEDThe following codes are currently in effect:2019 California Building Code2019 California Residential Code2019 California Electrical Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Energy Code2019 California Fire Code2019 California Existing Building Code2018 International Existing Building Code2019 California Green Building Standards CodeTown of Los Gatos New Energy Reach CodesLandscape Architect:Alyson FlynnLandscape Architect & AssociatesContact: Alyson Flynn50 San Tropez DriveHollister, California 95023ph: (408) 274-4114EXHIBIT 15 a1.2TREE PRESERVATIONINSTRUCTIONS +GREENPOINT CHECKLISTSCALE: N/A400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVTREE PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONSThe Los Gatos Town Code requires a tree removal permit in order to remove any tree designated as a Protected Tree under theTown Code. The Town Code also requires a permit to prune more than 25% of a Protected Tree within a 3-year period, or toremove or cut any branch or root greater than 4 inches in diameter of any Large Protected Tree or Heritage Tree (see definitionsbelow). Property owners may be subject to significant fines and civil actions by the Town if removal or pruning requiring a permit isdone without first obtaining a permit.Protected Tree(s)Protected Trees are defined in the Town Code as any of the following:1.All trees which have a 12 inch or greater diameter on developed residential property.2. All trees which have an 8 inch or greater diameter on developed Hillside residential property3. All trees of the following species which have an 8 inch or greater diameter located on any developed residential property:a- Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)b- Black Oak (Quercus kellogii)c- California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)d- Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)4. All trees which have a 4 inch or greater diameter on vacant or non-residential property.5. All trees which have a 4 inch or greater diameter when removal relates to any development review.6. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development approval, buildingpermit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action.Large Protected Tree(s) or a Heritage Tree (s)A Large Protected Tree is any tree with a diameter of 48 inches or more. In addition, all Oak, California Buckeye, andPacific Madrone with a diameter of 24 inches or more are considered Large Protected Trees.A Heritage Tree is a tree specifically designated by action of the Town Council which possesses exceptional aesthetic,biological, cultural, or historic value to the community.Diameter of a Tree(s)Diameter is measured at a height of 4.5 feet above the average natural grade. For multi-trunked trees, diameter is the sumof all trunk diameters measured at 4.5 feet above the average natural grade.A permit is not required for removal or major pruning of any of the following trees:1. A fruit or nut tree less than 18 inches in diameter.2. Any of the following trees that are less than 24 inches in diameter:·Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)·Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)·Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)·Blue Gum Eucalyptus (E. globulus)·Red Gum Eucalyptus (E. camaldulensis)·Other Eucalyptus (E. spp.)--Hillsides only·Palm (except Phoenix canariensis)·Privet (Ligustrum lucidum)Sec. 29.10.0985. - Determination and conditions of permit.The Director shall determine whether to grant a permit. The Director may consult with other Town departments or outside agencies at his/her discretion. When adevelopment application for any zoning approval, or subdivision of land, including lot line adjustment, is under consideration by the Planning Commission, the determinationon the tree removal permit shall be made concurrently by the Planning Commission with the related matter. The Director or the deciding body shall impose, except whenremoval is permitted if the tree is dead or a Tree Risk Rating of Extreme or High is present, as a condition on which a protected tree removal permit is granted that two (2)or more replacement trees of a species and a size designated by the Director or designee, shall be planted in the following order of preference:(1) Two (2) or more replacement trees, of a species and size designated by the Director, shall be planted on the subject private property. Table 3-1, TreeCanopy-Replacement Standard shall be used as a basis for this requirement. The person requesting the permit shall pay the cost of purchasing and planting thereplacement trees.(2)  If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by the Town Council by resolution shall be paidto the Town Tree Replacement Fund to:a.  Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; orb.  Add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; orc.  Support the Town's urban forestry management program.Notes1  To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size.2  Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with acombination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to theTown Tree Replacement Fund.3  Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under n thousand (10,000) square feetthat are not subject to the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All fifteen-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieufees for single family residential shall be based on twenty-four-inch box tree rates as adopted by Town Council.4  Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity tostructures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native speciesshall be strongly encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and GuidelinesAppendix A and section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions--Hillsides.Replacement with native species is strongly encouraged. Most fruit and nut trees, palm trees, or "nuisance" species (see section 29.10.0970(2) of theTown Code) are generally not considered suitable replacement trees. If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably replanted on the subject property, theTown Arborist may approve a full or partial in-lieu fee payment. Where the payment of in-lieu fees are approved, permits will not be issued until allin-lieu fees are paid in full. If approved by the Town Arborist, in-lieu fees are as follows: 24 inch box tree = $250, 36 inch box tree = $500Dangerous Tree(s)A tree may be removed or severely pruned without a permit when there is an imminent danger to life, property, utilities oressential transportation facilities. Property owners are still required to notify the Town prior to any removal or pruning andmust receive approval from the Town before taking any emergency action. Contact the Parks and Public WorksDepartment at (408) 399-5770 Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or the Police Department at(408) 354-8600 after hours or on weekends to report a dangerous tree and request approval for removal or pruningwithout a permit. Within 72 hours following removal or pruning, photos and a description of the emergency action taken must besubmitted to the Department of Parks and Public Works.Requirements for a Removal or Pruning Permit *The following items are required to apply for a tree removal or pruning permit:1.A completed application signed by the property owner. Applications are available online athttp://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14925 or at the Parks and Public Works Department, Monday through Fridaybetween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.2.Photos and/or a site plan of the tree(s) proposed for removal or pruning (for pruning, proposed cuts should be indicated onphoto).3.A completed tree replacement worksheet (located on the reverse side of the application).4.Inspect trees prior to removal or major pruning to confirm the absence of active bird nests, particularly during thespring/summer nesting season (February 1 through August 31).5.If required by the Town Arborist following initial inspection, a certified or consulting arborist's written report.6.If part of a development application, a copy of the associated tree report.7.If structural damage to a building, major landscape feature or utilities is the basis for the request, a report from a licensedarchitect or engineer may be required describing what modifications to buildings, structures, improvements or utilities would benecessary to mitigate the damages caused by the tree.8.For Large Protected Tree or Heritage Tree removal or pruning permits, notification will be sent to neighboring residents andproperty owners prior to issuance by the Parks and Public Works Department (more information on noticing is provided on page 4of this FAQ).9.Payment of a permit fees, as established by Town resolution. The current fee is $130 for one tree, plus $65 for eachadditional tree included in the same application.*Pruning or root pruning must be supervised by an ISA-certified arborist or an ASCA-Registered Arborist. See Section29.10.1010 of the Town Code for specifications to determine if a pruning permit is required.Tree Protection ZoneThe tree protection zone (TPZ) means the area of a temporary fenced tree enclosure at or beyond the tree's dripline or as specified in a reportprepared by a certified or consulting arborist. The TPZ is a restricted activity zone before and after construction where no soil disturbance ispermitted unless approved and supervised by the certified or consulting arborist.Tree Protection Fencing Requirements*1.Six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts shall be driven into the ground atleast two-feet deep at no more than ten-foot spacing. When stipulated, for existing paving areas that will not be demolished,posts may be supported by concrete base.2.Posted eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign on each tree fence stating: "Warning - Tree Protection Zone - Thisfence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025"3.Labeled photographs of the installed fencing shall be emailed to the project planner prior to issuance of permits.4.Tree protection fencing is required to remain in place throughout construction.*Any protected tree on-site will require replacement according to its appraised value if it is damaged beyond repair as a resultof construction.GREENPOINT CHECKLIST PROPOSED SITE PLANNORTH375.00380.00385.00390.00395.00370.00365.00360.00355.00350.00345.00400.00405.00410.00415.00420.00425.00340.00335.00±16'-2" ±27'-3" ±33'-2"EXISTING GRADEPROPERTY LINE 330.00325.00320.00315.00310.00305.00±18'-912"400 SURMONTPARCEL #2400 SURMONTPARCEL #1200 SURMONT159 WESTHILLDRIVE420.00410.00400.00390.00380.00370.00360.00350.00340.00330.00320.00310.00PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING GRADE±26'-6" ±18'-1" ±26'-5" ±20'-3" S U R M O N T D RS U R M O N TCT400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)200 SURMONT DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)159 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)W E S T H I L L D R±63'-3"±67'-11" 20'-0" SIDE SETBACK 25'-0"REAR SETBACK20'-0" SIDE SETBACK 20'-0" SIDE SETBACK N89°44'26"W531.37'N90°00'00"E488.91'120.00' 14.95'(E) FRUIT(E) 8" OAK(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) FRIUT(E) 8" OAK(E) 8" OAK(E) 10" OAK(E) 10" OAK(E) 10" OAK(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) 12" OAK(E) 14" OAK(E) 14" OAK(E) 6" OAK(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) 10" OAK(E) 11" + 9"OAK(E) FRUIT(N)DRIVEWAYGASMETERELECTRICALPANEL129XXXEXISTING TREES NOT IN THE AREA OFCONSTRUCTION TO REMAINXXXXEXISTING TREES IN THE AREA OFCONSTRUCTION + NOTED WITHAN "X" TO BE REMOVED(E) FRUIT(E) 9" PINE(E) 8" + 5" +5" OAK(E) 7" + 7" +7" TOYON(E) 14" OAK(E) 13" + 15"OAK(E) FRUIT114699130132113(E) 14" + 9"OAK(E) 13" OAK(E) 7" + 7"PLUMNEW FIREHYDRANTPROVIDE TREE PROTECTIVEFENCING PER TOWN REQ'TS +ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONXXX(E) FRUITX1'-0"TYP.1'-0" TYP."P.1'-0"TYP.PARCEL 160,752 SF(1.395 AC)20' WIDE I.E.E,E.V.A.E, P.U.E, S.S.E,P.S.D.E, & P.S.S.E.I.E.E, E.V.A.E, P.U.E,S.S.E, P.S.D.E, & P.S.S.E.S03°51'59"E 790.24'S89°44'26"W 531.37'N00°00'15"E 1328.87'±25'-0"±18'-0"900899898897896895132PROVIDE TREE PROTECTIVEFENCING PER TOWN REQ'TS +ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION700XX506346A1.3PROPOSED SITE PLAN +SITE LINE STUDY/MASSING RELATIONSHIPSCALE: AS NOTED400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVSITE LINE STUDY / MASSING RELATIONSHIPSITE PLANSCALE:116" = 1'-0"GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 1GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 2159 WESTHILL DRIVE200 SURMONT DRIVE400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 2400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 1159 WESTHILLDRIVE200 SURMONT DRIVE400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 1400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 2 SCALE:N/A400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032t 408.292.3252f 253.399.1125STUDIO THREE DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVtTREE PROTECTIONREQUIREMENTSTREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTSTree ProtectionTree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches (Appendix D). Themost current accepted method for determining the TPZ is to use a formula based on species tolerance, treeage/vigor, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016).Preventing mechanical damage to the trunk from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished bywrapping the main stem with straw wattle or using vertical timbers.Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposed construction and will require treeprotection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are four trees in close proximity to theseincluding #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as a group with #131 and #132. Tree #133will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. The remaining threetrees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal.ConclusionThe inventory contains 39 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered LargeProtected, and sixteen fruit trees are Exempt. Eighteen trees are in good condition, eleven fair, nine in poorshape and one is dead. Most of the trees in poor condition are remnant orchard trees. The best specimen inthe building area is coast live oak #133. Eighteen trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarilyfruit trees. Ten trees have fair suitability for preservation and the remaining eleven have good suitability.Sixteen trees will be highly impacted and are expected to be removed, four moderately affected andnineteen are not near the improvements. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129,#130, #700, and #896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens.. Seven of the sixteen treesexpected to be highly impacted are Protected (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) while theremaining are Exempt fruit trees. Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposedconstruction and will require tree protection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are fourtrees in close proximity to #131 and #132 including #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as agroup. Tree #133 will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. Theremaining three trees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal. A total of 39 trees wereappraised for a rounded depreciated value of $64,260.00 using the Trunk Formula Method.Recommendations1.Update the site plans and survey to show the current existing conditions and correctedlocations (Appendix A) of the trees and their trunks, including those along the drainage andtheir associated numbers.2. Place tree numbers and tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plansincluding the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Create a separate plan sheet that includesall protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.”3. Place tree protection fence along the service road near the drainage outside the tree diplines (#113, #114, #115, and #116), around #133 at eighteen feet (18'), and around #332,#133 (#134 and #135) and #894 (#892 and #893) at a radius of ten feet (10').4. Provide a landscape plan that accounts for the loss in tree canopy to include in tabularform the required replacements in accordance with the Town's Tree Canopy ReplacementStandard. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and#896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens..5. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writingaccording to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and OtherWoody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSIZ133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performedaccording to ISA Best Management Practices.6. Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations forarborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees dripline or designated TPZ/CRZ.7. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including thearchitect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of theowner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document.8. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect toverify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances.Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During ConstructionTree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diametergalvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at nomore than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulatedin 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 driplinearea 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 entireplanter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small plantercutout only(such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from theground 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, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading orconstruction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractorshall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a treeprotection fence.4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inchby eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not beremoved and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025.” Text on the signsshould be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).All persons, shall comply with the following precautions1. Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protectionzone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetationto be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage ofconstruction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles withinthe TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment ofthe construction.2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation,grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director.3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials withinthe dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of aprotected tree.4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.5. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arboristfor periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. Theproject arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threatto 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 protectedtree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.MonitoringAny trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree rootsshould be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should bedocumented.The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist afterconstruction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should benoted.Root PruningRoots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches indiameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned byhand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn.Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised bythe project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap orbackfilled within one hour.Boring or TunnelingBoring 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 inchin diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar airor water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directlyunder the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of threefeet deep.Tree Pruning and Removal OperationsAll tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified in writingaccording to the most recent ANSI A-300A Standards and Limitations and performedaccording to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards.Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walkthrough.APPENDIX A, B, D + DETAILS TREE INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT + PROTECTION REPORT400 SURMONT DRIVE, LOS GATOSPREPARED FOR: TOWN OF LOS GATOS, DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019,REVISED FEBRUARY 11, 2022PREPARED BY: MONARCH CONSULTING ARBORISTS, RICHARD GESSNER 42" GASFIREPLACEQUEENQUEENWASHERDRYER DINING ROOMBUTLER'SPANTRYKITCHENNOOKGREAT ROOMMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATHROOMMASTERW.I.C. BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #3LAUNDRYROOMBATH #2PWDRBATHOFFICE/BEDROOM #4ENTRY HALLSITTING/LIVINGROOOMHALL #1HALL #3HALL #2CA KINGBATH #3W.I.C. #2MUD ROOMQUEEN48" GAS RANGE48" REFRIG.PULL OUTPANTRYPULL OUTPANTRYT/CD/W7.5' X 5'ISLAND6' X 6'RAISEDISLAND30"OVENMICROWINEREFRIG.42"FIREPLACESINK W/DISPOSALDNDNDNDNCOVEREDFRONTPORCHPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED FLOOR PLANPARCEL #1SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTREARPATIO/DECKMASTERPATIO/DECKBENCH SEAT TUB W/RAISEDPLATFORM84'-0"(TO ROUGH FRAMING)84'-3"(TO EXTERIOR FINISH)6'-6"18'-0"18'-0"12'-4"22'-0"7'-2"COVERED WALKWAYCOVEREDPORCH #2COVEREDPORCH #3NORTH54'-3" (TO ROUGH FRAMING) 53'-6" (TO EXTERIOR FINISH) 0'-6"3'-0"25'-0"17'-6"8'-3"84'-0"(TO ROUGH FRAMING)6'-6"22'-912"26'-012"17'-212"11'-512"53'-3"(TO ROUGH FRAMING)11'-9"10'-4"31'-2"2A3.11A3.1 4A3.23 A3.2 SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT3'-0"3'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"1'-6" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"1'-0"1'-0"3'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 1'-0"AA4.1BA4.1CA4.2DA4.2 E A4.3 F A4.3 G A4.4 CEILING HT: 14'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 12'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 11'-0"CEILING HT: 11'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT:9'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 13'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 14'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"W/HA/C UNITENTRYFOYER2'-6"3'-0"7'-0"3'-0"2'-6"2'-2"2'-0"2'-4"0'-912"2'-6"5'-212"2'-6"0'-6"1'-5"2'-6"1'-0"2'-6"1'-0"2'-6"1'-5"4'-912"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"2'-0"1'-3"2'-6"0'-512"2'-6"0'-512"1'-512"1'-612"1'-10"2'-0"1'-612"3'-6"15'-0"7'-6" 0'-512" 2'-6" 0'-512" 2'-6"1'-512"3'-0"7'-112" 0'-1112" 2'-8"4'-712"84'-3"(TO EXTERIOR FINISH)3'-8"1'-612"2'-0"2'-0"4'-4"2'-0"1'-812"2'-3"2'-8"0'-512"2'-8"0'-512"2'-8"2'-8"0'-512"2'-8"0'-512"2'-8"1'-9"2'-012"2'-3"3'-512"3'-0"3'-3"13'-1"53'-6"(TO EXTERIOR FINISH)29'-10"13'-6"1'-11"0'-6"1'-0"3'-6"1'-11"0'-6"1'-0"3'-9"3'-0"1'-312"3'-10"1'-612"2'-0"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"3'-1112"0'-912"2'-0"3'-212"1'-1"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"0'-512"3'-0"1'-9"2'-012"6'-212"2'-1"8'-512"4'-0"6'-0"14'-912"6'-212"13'-4"5'-012"7'-0"5'-012"5'-612"6'-1"5'-512"2'-6"9'-212"6'-6"6'-912"13'-2"13'-2"16'-6"8'-1112"4'-312"10'-612"10'-9"5'-1112"3'-8"6'-6"4'-0" 2'-1112"3'-612"1'-11" 7'-10" 4'-512"5'-0"4'-7" 3'-0"1'-6"3'-0"0'-712"2'-11"13'-012"3'-812"7'-112"17'-212"4'-6"7'-6"5'-6"4'-1112"9'-312"8'-012"9'-0"6'-312"2'-6"4'-9"15'-112"2'-0"6'-1112"4'-0"2'-6"12'-3" 7'-512"3'-0"2'-112"1'-0"6'- 1 12" 1'-512"DNDN CEILING HT: 10'-0"STUCCO WALLW/ARCHEDOPENINGS +WROUGHT IRONDNA2.1PROPOSED FLOOR PLANSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTS-TILE ROOFING2A3.14A3.23 A3.2CURB MOUNTEDSKYLIGHTRIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE HIPHIPVALLEYHIP HI P HI PHIPHIP HIPHIPHIPHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYHIPVALLEYHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY4:12 PITCH 4:12 PITCH 4:12PITCH4:12PITCH4:12 PITCH4:12PITCH4:12PITCH4:12PITCH 4:12 PITCH 4:12PITCH4:12PITCH4:12PITCH4:12PITCH4:12PITCH PROPOSED ROOF PLANPARCEL #1NORTHSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT1A3.1 AA4.1BA4.1CA4.2DA4.2 E A4.3 F A4.3 G A4.4S1S2S3S4S6S5±392.75±394.21±396.125±398.58±396.125±394.0±398.25±398.58±394.01'-0"TYP.1'-0"TYP.HIPVALLEY4:12PITCHVALLEYA2.2PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV PROPOSED GARAGE PLANPARCEL #1PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF PLANPARCEL #11A3.3PROPOSEDELECTRICALPANEL LOCATIONPROPOSED GASMETER LOCATION 3-CARGARAGE16080O.H.SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR307010080O.H.SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORUPPER + LOWER CABINETSPROPOSEDRETAINING WALLS2 A3.33A3.34A3.3 20'-0"21'-412"17'-412"22'-1012"S-TILE ROOFINGRIDGEHIPHIPVALLEYRIDGE HIPHIPHI PVALLEYRIDGEHIP4:12 PITCH 4:12 PITCH 4:12PITCH4:12 PITCH4:12PITCH4:12 PITCH NORTHNORTH41'-2"20'-8"20'-6"27'-0" 2'-1012"24'-112"41'-2"21'-4"19'-10"27'-112" 24'-112" 3'-0"1A3.32 A3.33A3.34A3.3 CEILING HT: 9'-6"4950515453521'-0"TYP.1'-0" TYP.±394.67±394.71±394.58RIDGEVALLEY4:12 PITCH COVERED WALKWAYCEILING HT: 10'-0"COVEREDPORCH #2COVEREDPORCH #3CEILING HT: 10'-0"CEILING HT: 10'-0"HI PVALLEY ±18'-0"(FIELD VERIFY)3'-2"1'-8"3'-4"1'-8"3'-4"1'-8"3'-2"1848ARCHEDOPENING1848ARCHEDOPENING1848ARCHEDOPENING1848ARCHEDOPENING1848ARCHEDOPENING1848ARCHEDOPENINGSTUCCO WALLW/ARCHEDOPENINGS +WROUGHT IRONA2.3PROPOSED GARAGEFLOOR + ROOF PLANsSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.322f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV 1 - WEST (FRONT) ELEVATIONPARCEL #1-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)(375.0)PAD+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.PITCH412(380)(385)(390)(375)PAD(370)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.8'-0" 9'-0"S-TILE ROOFINGEXPOSED, SHAPEDRAFTER TAILSWROUGHT IRONGUARDRAIL, 42" HIGHWOOD COLUMNSCOVERED WALKWAYTO GARAGE373.5DASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADING380.5377.5HEAD HEIGHT ±19'-212" HEAD HEIGHT ±15'-712" ±18'-112"PROPOSED FINISHGRADE±396.125±398.58±394.21±396.125(377.5) F.F.(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±23'-712" 3'-6" GUARDRAIL 3'-6" GUARDRAILDASHED LINE INDICATESRETAINING WALLSTUCCO FINISH,PAINTED+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)-4'-0" B.F.F.(376.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)(374.0)PAD+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.6'-6" 8'-0"HEAD HT.PITCH4122- NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #19'-0" 10'-0" HEAD HT. 8'-0" 11'-6" 8'-0"WROUGHT IRONGUARDRAIL, 42" HIGHCURB MOUNTED SKYLIGHTWOOD CORBELSSTUCCO FINISHS-TILE ROOFINGEXPOSED, SHAPEDRAFTER TAILSS-TILE GABLEVENTSWROUGHT IRONOVER WINDOW3'-6"WOOD COLUMNSPORCH POST WOODCORBELS372.00375.003'-6"3'-6"PROPOSED FINISHGRADE±394.0±398.25±398.58±396.125±394.21(375)PAD±19'-212"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±393.21±398.58(378.0)PAD1'-6"2'-0"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD25'-0"25'-0"374.00373.00372.00375.00374.00373.00373.00PROPOSED MATERIALSWINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.GREEN TEA LEAF ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: CAST STONEROOFING MATERIAL: CLAY ROOF TILE, MCA B330-R, OLDSANTA BARBARA BLEND, OR APPROVED EQ.STUCCO: SMOOTH FINISH, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-25, QUINCY TAN, OR APPROVED EQ.WOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: STUCCO FINISH O/CONCRETE(POURED IN PLACE)1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV +0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)-4'-0" B.F.F.(376.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.PITCH412±20'-3"3 - EAST (REAR) ELEVATIONPARCEL #1(380)(385)(390)(375)(370)WOOD CORBELSS-TILE ROOFINGEXPOSED, SHAPEDRAFTER TAILSDOOR ASSEMBLYSTUCCO FINISHGUARDRAIL378.58'-0" 10'-0"MAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE380.40376.50373.0382.50391.00DASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGPROPOSED FINISHGRADE±394.0±394.0(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD(374)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±393.21(374.0)PAD375.00374.00NOTE: EXCEPTIONREQUESTED FOR CUTAMOUNTS SEE CIVILPLANS - SHEET C-8/SECTION D-D+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HTPITCH412PITCH412+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F. PL. HT.4- SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #1S-TILE ROOFINGEXPOSED, SHAPEDRAFTER TAILSCURB MOUNTED SKYLIGHT378.7380.5378.7±19'-1012" 8'-0"PROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED A/C UNITSLOCATIONPROPOSED A/C UNITSLOCATION±396.125±396.125±398.58±398.25±394.0±394.0(378)PAD(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±398.58STUCCO WALL W/ARCHEDOPENINGS + WROUGHT IRONCOVERED WALKWAYTO GARAGEPROPOSED MATERIALSWINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.GREEN TEA LEAF ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: CAST STONEROOFING MATERIAL: CLAY ROOF TILE, MCA B330-R, OLDSANTA BARBARA BLEND, OR APPROVED EQ.STUCCO: SMOOTH FINISH, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-25, QUINCY TAN, OR APPROVED EQ.WOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: STUCCO FINISH O/CONCRETE(POURED IN PLACE)1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.2EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.322f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL V PROPOSEDELECTRICALPANEL LOCATIONPROPOSED GASMETER LOCATION+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT1- GARAGE NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATIONPARCEL #14 - GARAGE EAST (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #13 - GARAGE SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATIONPARCEL #12 - GARAGE WEST (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #1+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.8'-0" HEAD HT.+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.S-TILE ROOFINGO.H. SECTIONALGARAGE DOOREXPOSED, SHAPEDRAFTER TAILSEXTERIOR LIGHTFIXTUREDASHED LINE INDICATESBUILDING BELOW GRADEWROUGHT IRON DETAIL@ WINDOW, TYP.DASHED LINE INDICATESBUILDING BELOW GRADEDASHED LINE INDICATESBUILDING BELOW GRADEPITCH412PITCH412PITCH412PITCH412PROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED FINISHGRADESTUCCO FINISH,PAINTED389.00385.00381.00382.0389.0381.00381.00385.00DASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGPROPOSED FINISHGRADEDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADING±13'-7" ±13'-812" ±13'-7" ±13'-8"±394.58±394.71±394.67±394.71±394.71±394.67±394.71±394.58MAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±394.58COVERED WALKWAYTO GARAGEMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PAD9'-6"MAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEPROPOSED MATERIALSWINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.GREEN TEA LEAF ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: CAST STONEROOFING MATERIAL: CLAY ROOF TILE, MCA B330-R, OLDSANTA BARBARA BLEND, OR APPROVED EQ.STUCCO: SMOOTH FINISH, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-25, QUINCY TAN, OR APPROVED EQ.WOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: STUCCO FINISH O/CONCRETE(POURED IN PLACE)1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.3EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(GARAGE)SCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV -3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)(375.0)PAD+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)+0'-6"TOP OF SLAB(381)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HTSTUCCO WALLW/ARCHEDOPENINGS +WROUGHT IRONPROPOSED MATERIALSWINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.GREEN TEA LEAF ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: CAST STONEROOFING MATERIAL: CLAY ROOF TILE, MCA B330-R, OLDSANTA BARBARA BLEND, OR APPROVED EQ.STUCCO: SMOOTH FINISH, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-25, QUINCY TAN, OR APPROVED EQ.WOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: STUCCO FINISH O/CONCRETE(POURED IN PLACE)1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.4EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV GREATROOMKITCHENOPEN TOSITTING/LIVINGROOMENTRYHALLATTICHALLCOVEREDFRONTPORCHPATIO /DECKA - BUILDING SECTIONCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACEATTIC-4'-0" B.F.F.(376.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD(374)PAD(375)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±23'-712" 3'-11"(378)PAD25'-0"25'-0"SITTING/LIVINGROOMHALLMASTERBEDROOMATTICCOVEREDFRONTPORCHMASTERPATIO /DECKB - BUILDING SECTIONCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACEATTIC+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)±4'-9" ±4'-9"(378)PAD(375)PADCRAWL SPACEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±23'-712" ±20'-712"A4.1BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV MASTERBEDROOMMASTERW.I.C.BEDROOM#2BEDROOM#3HALLW.I.C.BATH #3COVEREDPORCH #2ATTICC - BUILDING SECTIONATTICCRAWL SPACEMASTERPATIO/DECK+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.±4'-1"(378)PADCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±18'-212"(378)PADATTICDININGROOMENTRYHALLSITTING /LIVINGROOMW.I.C.OFFICE /BEDROOM#4D - BUILDING SECTION(380)(385)(390)(375)(370)CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)±5'-612"(375)PAD(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE±23'-712"EXISTING GRADEA4.2BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV ATTICBUTLER'SPANTRYPWDRBATHHALLHALLMUDROOME - BUILDING SECTION(380)(385)(390)(375)(370)ATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE±23'-712"EXISTING GRADE±6'-6"(375)PADATTICBEDROOM#2HALLKITCHENNOOKF - BUILDING SECTION(380)(385)(390)(375)(370)CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-3'-0" B.F.F.(377.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.(378)PAD(375)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE±20'-712" ±23'-712"EXISTING GRADE±6'-6"A4.3BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV ATTICGREATROOMMASTERW.I.C.MASTERBATHROOMOPEN TOMASTERBEDROOMG - BUILDING SECTION(380)(385)(390)(375)(370)CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE-4'-0" B.F.F.(376.5)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(380.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.±2'-0"(374)PAD(378)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD24'-312" 6'-2"NOTE: EXCEPTIONREQUESTED FOR CUTAMOUNTS SEE CIVILPLANS - SHEET C-8/SECTION D-DA4.4BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201931 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL V S U R M O N T D RJUN. 21ST 9 AMJUN. 21ST 12 PMJUN. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 9 AMDEC. 21ST 12 PMDEC. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 3 PMDEC. 21ST 9 AMDEC. 21ST 12 PMJUN. 21ST 3 PMJUN. 21ST 9 AMJUN. 21ST 12 PMPARCEL #1PARCEL #2400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)198 SURMONT CT.(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)175 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 2-STORYRESIDENCE)183 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 2-STORYRESIDENCE)200 SURMONT DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)±63'-3" ±67'-11"A1.1COVER SHEETSCALE: N/A400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL VINDEXVICINITY MAPOwner:Sandra K. Anderson, Trustee400 Surmont DriveLos Gatos, CA 95032C/O Bob Hughes (408) 559-8850PROJECT INFO.Designer:Studio 3 DesignContact: Bess Wiersemabess@studio-three.com638 University AvenueLos Gatos, California 95032ph: (408) 292-3252fax: (253) 399-1125PARCEL MAPPROJECT DATAPROJECT DESCRIPTIONThis project is a new, one-story, single-family residence with a attached garage.PROJECT ADDRESS:400 SURMONT DRIVE, PARCEL #2A.P.N. :527-20-003LOT AREA (FROM COUNTY RECORD)57,840 SF (1.328 AC)ZONING =HR-2.5FLOOD ZONE = ZONE XHISTORIC ZONE = NOOCCUPANCY = R3/U (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING / UTILITY)WUI FIRE AREA =YESHAZARD ZONE =COUNTY FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONECONSTRUCTION TYPE= V-BREQUIRED PARKING:2 OFF STREET SPACESSETBACKSALLOWEDFRONT: 30'SIDE (INTERIOR):20'REAR:25'BUILDING HEIGHTALLOWEDPROPOSEDHOUSE:25'-0" (MAX.) ± 25'-0"FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONGross Lot Size: 57,840 SFAve. Slope: 27.3%Net Lot Size: 57,840 SF x (1-30% + 3% x 7) OR 57,840 x 49% = 28,342 SFReduction of net site area on sloping lotsAverage lot slope: 20.01 - 30%Percentage of net lot area to be deducted (30% = 3% for each 1% of slope over 20%)As Los Gatos IV Devlopment Intensity Table 2, FAR = 19%Allowable Floor Area = 28,342 x 19% = 5,500 SFFLOOR AREA RATIOALLOWEDPROPOSEDHABITABLE HOUSE5,500 SF3,450 SFATTIC AREA OVER 7-FEET 713 SF GARAGE:671 SFTOTAL5,500 SF4,834 SFCivil Engineer:TS/Civil EngineeringContact: Terrance J. Szewczykterry@tscivil.com1776 Technology DriveSan Jose, California 95110ph: (408) 452-9300 EXT 220SHADOW STUDYContractor:The Building WorksContact: Robert O. Hughesbldngworks@aol.com2730 Union Avenue; Suite BSan Jose, California 95124ph: (408) 559-8850fax: (408) 559-3075Landscape Architect:Alyson FlynnLandscape Architect & AssociatesContact: Alyson Flynn50 San Tropez DriveHollister, California 95023ph: (408) 274-4114SCC FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES1.Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and mayinclude specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not beconstrued as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes.Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the BuildingDepartment all applicable construction permits.2. Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- andtwo-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-familydwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasingthe area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new basementsand in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all attached ADUs, additions or alterationsto an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. Please indicate on thecover sheet that an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided and installed per NFPA 13D.3. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Driveways Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weathersurface, a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum outside turningradius of 36-feet and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to the Fire Department StandardDetails Specifications D-1 and CFC Section 503.4. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department enginedriveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in anydirection shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details andSpecifications D-1. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fireapparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).5. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or movedinto or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measuredby an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall beprovided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, equippedthroughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1].6. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fireprotection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors tocontact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of thatpurveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems,and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in anymanner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record.Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with therequirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by theapplicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.7. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbersor approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or roadfronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official,address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Addressnumbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm)high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and thebuilding cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identifythe structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.8. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFCChapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plansubmittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.WATER FLOW LETTERIn accordance with the Town Code Section 6.70.020 and 6.120.020:1. All new single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings, and ADU's(Accessory Dwelling Unit) shall use electricity as the source of energy for its spaceheating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, clothes dryingappliances, and other features for both interior and exterior applications.2. All single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings, and ADU's(Accessory Dwelling Unit) shall be pre-wired for the installation of battery storage. thepre-wiring shall be in accordance with California Building, Residential, and ElectricalCodes and be adequately sized by a licensed professional to accommodate theback-up loads installed in the critical load panel with a minimum of 5 kwh.3. All single-family residential buildings, low-rise multifamily buildings with privategarages, and ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Unit, shall provide two wired nationalelectrical manufacturers association (NEMA) outlets, each supplied by a separate40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit, and shall be installed specifically forsupplying electrical power to an electric vehicle charger. One outlet shall be installedinside the garage and the other outlet shall be installed outside the garage.REQUIRED PV SYSTEM1. PV System 2.53 kWdc” is a ‘Required PV Systems’ of the Energy Calculations2. A separate building permit is required for the PV system that is required by the EnergyCalculations compliance modeling. The separate PV System permit must be finaledprior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy”.TOWN OF LG ENERGY REACH CODE Architectural PlansA1.1 Cover SheetA1.2 Tree Preservation Req'ts + GreenPoint ChecklistA1.3 Proposed Site Plan + Site Line StudyT-1 Tree Protection RequirementsA2.1 Proposed Floor PlanA2.2 Proposed Roof PlanA2.3 Proposed Garage Floor + Roof PlansA3.1 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA3.2 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA3.3 Proposed Exterior Elevations (Garage)A3.4 Proposed Exterior ElevationsA4.1 Building SectionsA4.2 Building SectionsA4.3 Building SectionsLandscape PlansL1 Cover SheetL2 Frontage + Driveway Proposed Tree +Planting Parcel 1 + 2L3 Parcel 1 Proposed Trees + PlantingL4 Parcel 2 Proposed Trees + PlantingL5 Tree TableCivil PlansC-0 Cover SheetC-1 Tentative Map (Previously Approved)C-2 Access Road Plan + ProfileC-3 Utility PlanC-4 (Not included in this Submission)C-5 Access Road Plan + ProfileC-6 Erosion Control PlanC-7 Erosion Control + Construction DetailsC-8 Parcel 1 Site PlanC-9 Parcel 2 Site PlanDEFERRED SUBMITTAL(S)·FIRE HYDRANT (PC 19-2053) - Hydrant installation shall occur prior to the commencementof combustible construction.·AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM - PROVIDED + INSTALLED PER NFPA 13DCODES USEDThe following codes are currently in effect:2019 California Building Code2019 California Residential Code2019 California Electrical Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Energy Code2019 California Fire Code2019 California Existing Building Code2018 International Existing Building Code2019 California Green Building Standards CodeTown of Los Gatos New Energy Reach CodesEXHIBIT 16 SCALE:N/A400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032t 408.292.3252f 253.399.1125STUDIO THREE DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVD.2TREE PRESERVATIONINSTRUCTIONS +GREENPOINT CHECKLISTTREE PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONSThe Los Gatos Town Code requires a tree removal permit in order to remove any tree designated as a Protected Tree under theTown Code. The Town Code also requires a permit to prune more than 25% of a Protected Tree within a 3-year period, or toremove or cut any branch or root greater than 4 inches in diameter of any Large Protected Tree or Heritage Tree (see definitionsbelow). Property owners may be subject to significant fines and civil actions by the Town if removal or pruning requiring a permit isdone without first obtaining a permit.Protected Tree(s)Protected Trees are defined in the Town Code as any of the following:1.All trees which have a 12 inch or greater diameter on developed residential property.2. All trees which have an 8 inch or greater diameter on developed Hillside residential property3. All trees of the following species which have an 8 inch or greater diameter located on any developed residential property:a- Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)b- Black Oak (Quercus kellogii)c- California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)d- Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)4. All trees which have a 4 inch or greater diameter on vacant or non-residential property.5. All trees which have a 4 inch or greater diameter when removal relates to any development review.6. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development approval, buildingpermit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action.Large Protected Tree(s) or a Heritage Tree (s)A Large Protected Tree is any tree with a diameter of 48 inches or more. In addition, all Oak, California Buckeye, andPacific Madrone with a diameter of 24 inches or more are considered Large Protected Trees.A Heritage Tree is a tree specifically designated by action of the Town Council which possesses exceptional aesthetic,biological, cultural, or historic value to the community.Diameter of a Tree(s)Diameter is measured at a height of 4.5 feet above the average natural grade. For multi-trunked trees, diameter is the sumof all trunk diameters measured at 4.5 feet above the average natural grade.A permit is not required for removal or major pruning of any of the following trees:1. A fruit or nut tree less than 18 inches in diameter.2. Any of the following trees that are less than 24 inches in diameter:·Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)·Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)·Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)·Blue Gum Eucalyptus (E. globulus)·Red Gum Eucalyptus (E. camaldulensis)·Other Eucalyptus (E. spp.)--Hillsides only·Palm (except Phoenix canariensis)·Privet (Ligustrum lucidum)Sec. 29.10.0985. - Determination and conditions of permit.The Director shall determine whether to grant a permit. The Director may consult with other Town departments or outside agencies at his/her discretion. When adevelopment application for any zoning approval, or subdivision of land, including lot line adjustment, is under consideration by the Planning Commission, the determinationon the tree removal permit shall be made concurrently by the Planning Commission with the related matter. The Director or the deciding body shall impose, except whenremoval is permitted if the tree is dead or a Tree Risk Rating of Extreme or High is present, as a condition on which a protected tree removal permit is granted that two (2)or more replacement trees of a species and a size designated by the Director or designee, shall be planted in the following order of preference:(1) Two (2) or more replacement trees, of a species and size designated by the Director, shall be planted on the subject private property. Table 3-1, TreeCanopy-Replacement Standard shall be used as a basis for this requirement. The person requesting the permit shall pay the cost of purchasing and planting thereplacement trees.(2)  If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by the Town Council by resolution shall be paidto the Town Tree Replacement Fund to:a.  Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; orb.  Add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; orc.  Support the Town's urban forestry management program.Notes1  To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size.2  Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with acombination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to theTown Tree Replacement Fund.3  Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under n thousand (10,000) square feetthat are not subject to the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All fifteen-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieufees for single family residential shall be based on twenty-four-inch box tree rates as adopted by Town Council.4  Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity tostructures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native speciesshall be strongly encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and GuidelinesAppendix A and section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions--Hillsides.Replacement with native species is strongly encouraged. Most fruit and nut trees, palm trees, or "nuisance" species (see section 29.10.0970(2) of theTown Code) are generally not considered suitable replacement trees. If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably replanted on the subject property, theTown Arborist may approve a full or partial in-lieu fee payment. Where the payment of in-lieu fees are approved, permits will not be issued until allin-lieu fees are paid in full. If approved by the Town Arborist, in-lieu fees are as follows: 24 inch box tree = $250, 36 inch box tree = $500Dangerous Tree(s)A tree may be removed or severely pruned without a permit when there is an imminent danger to life, property, utilities oressential transportation facilities. Property owners are still required to notify the Town prior to any removal or pruning andmust receive approval from the Town before taking any emergency action. Contact the Parks and Public WorksDepartment at (408) 399-5770 Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or the Police Department at(408) 354-8600 after hours or on weekends to report a dangerous tree and request approval for removal or pruningwithout a permit. Within 72 hours following removal or pruning, photos and a description of the emergency action taken must besubmitted to the Department of Parks and Public Works.Requirements for a Removal or Pruning Permit *The following items are required to apply for a tree removal or pruning permit:1.A completed application signed by the property owner. Applications are available online athttp://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14925 or at the Parks and Public Works Department, Monday through Fridaybetween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.2.Photos and/or a site plan of the tree(s) proposed for removal or pruning (for pruning, proposed cuts should be indicated onphoto).3.A completed tree replacement worksheet (located on the reverse side of the application).4.Inspect trees prior to removal or major pruning to confirm the absence of active bird nests, particularly during thespring/summer nesting season (February 1 through August 31).5.If required by the Town Arborist following initial inspection, a certified or consulting arborist's written report.6.If part of a development application, a copy of the associated tree report.7.If structural damage to a building, major landscape feature or utilities is the basis for the request, a report from a licensedarchitect or engineer may be required describing what modifications to buildings, structures, improvements or utilities would benecessary to mitigate the damages caused by the tree.8.For Large Protected Tree or Heritage Tree removal or pruning permits, notification will be sent to neighboring residents andproperty owners prior to issuance by the Parks and Public Works Department (more information on noticing is provided on page 4of this FAQ).9.Payment of a permit fees, as established by Town resolution. The current fee is $130 for one tree, plus $65 for eachadditional tree included in the same application.*Pruning or root pruning must be supervised by an ISA-certified arborist or an ASCA-Registered Arborist. See Section29.10.1010 of the Town Code for specifications to determine if a pruning permit is required.Tree Protection ZoneThe tree protection zone (TPZ) means the area of a temporary fenced tree enclosure at or beyond the tree's dripline or as specified in a reportprepared by a certified or consulting arborist. The TPZ is a restricted activity zone before and after construction where no soil disturbance ispermitted unless approved and supervised by the certified or consulting arborist.Tree Protection Fencing Requirements*1.Six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts shall be driven into the ground atleast two-feet deep at no more than ten-foot spacing. When stipulated, for existing paving areas that will not be demolished,posts may be supported by concrete base.2.Posted eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign on each tree fence stating: "Warning - Tree Protection Zone - Thisfence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025"3.Labeled photographs of the installed fencing shall be emailed to the project planner prior to issuance of permits.4.Tree protection fencing is required to remain in place throughout construction.*Any protected tree on-site will require replacement according to its appraised value if it is damaged beyond repair as a resultof construction.GREENPOINT CHECKLIST 25'-0"REAR SETBACKSIDE SETBACK 20'-0" SIDE SETBACK 20'-0" SIDE SETBACK 30'-0"'FRONT SETBACKPARCEL 257,813 SF(1.327 AC)PARCEL 3 - REMAINDER530,095 SF(12.169 AC)20' WIDE SLOPE STABILITYPROTECTION AREA FOREX. WATERCOURSE25' NON-EXCLUSIVERIGHT OF WAY(2484 OR 282)±6'-6"±14'-10"N90°00'00"E488.91'120.24' 120.00' 14.95'S03°51'59"E (E) 14" OAK(E) 14" OAK(E) 11" + 9"OAK(E) 20" OAK(E) FRUIT(E) 11" OAK(E) 14" OAK(E) 8" PLUM(E) 8" PLUM(E) 12" OAK(E) 12" OAK(E) 12" OAK(E) 27" OAK(E) 9" + 9"OAK(E) 13" OAK(E) 10" + 9"OAK(E) 18.5"OAK(E) 12" OAK(E) 8" OAK(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) FRUIT(E) 5" OAK(N)DRIVEWAYN90°00'00"E480.52'A/C UNITSA/C UNITS133134135127894X129123126125124116122117115(E) 6" PLUM(E) 8" + 4" +4" PLUM(E) 8" + 8"APRICOT(E) 8" + 6"OAK(E) 6" + 4" +4" OAKPROVIDE TREE PROTECTIVEFENCING PER TOWN REQ'TS +ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONXXEXISTING TREES NOTIN THE AREA OFCONTRACTION TOREMAIN(E) FRUITFENCING PER TOWN REQ'TS +ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION128893892118119120121±7'-9"PROPOSED SITE PLANNORTH±16'-2" ±27'-3" ±33'-2" ±26'-6" ±18'-1" ±26'-5" ±20'-3"EXISTING GRADEPROPERTY LINE ±18'-912"400 SURMONTPARCEL #2400 SURMONTPARCEL #1200 SURMONT159 WESTHILLDRIVE420.00410.00400.00390.00380.00370.00360.00350.00340.00330.00320.00310.00PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING GRADES U R M O N T D RS U R M O N TCT400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #1(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)200 SURMONT DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2(PROPOSED 1-STORYRESIDENCE)(PROPOSEDGARAGE)159 WESTHILL DRIVE(EXISTING 1-STORYRESIDENCE)W E S T H I L L D R±63'-3"±67'-11"A1.3PROPOSED SITE PLAN +SITE LINE STUDY/MASSING RELATIONSHIPSCALE: AS NOTED400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVSITE LINE STUDY / MASSING RELATIONSHIPSITE PLANSCALE:116" = 1'-0"GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 1GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 2159 WESTHILL DRIVE200 SURMONT DRIVE400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 2400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 1159 WESTHILLDRIVE200 SURMONT DRIVE400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 1400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL 2 SCALE:116" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032t 408.292.3252f 253.399.1125STUDIO THREE DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IVTTREE PROTECTIONREQUIREMENTSTREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTSTree ProtectionTree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches (Appendix D). Themost current accepted method for determining the TPZ is to use a formula based on species tolerance, treeage/vigor, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016).Preventing mechanical damage to the trunk from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished bywrapping the main stem with straw wattle or using vertical timbers.Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposed construction and will require treeprotection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are four trees in close proximity to theseincluding #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as a group with #131 and #132. Tree #133will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. The remaining threetrees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal.ConclusionThe inventory contains 39 trees comprised of 6 different species. Two coast live oaks are considered LargeProtected, and sixteen fruit trees are Exempt. Eighteen trees are in good condition, eleven fair, nine in poorshape and one is dead. Most of the trees in poor condition are remnant orchard trees. The best specimen inthe building area is coast live oak #133. Eighteen trees are poorly suited for retention which are primarilyfruit trees. Ten trees have fair suitability for preservation and the remaining eleven have good suitability.Sixteen trees will be highly impacted and are expected to be removed, four moderately affected andnineteen are not near the improvements. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129,#130, #700, and #896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens.. Seven of the sixteen treesexpected to be highly impacted are Protected (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and #896) while theremaining are Exempt fruit trees. Trees #131, #332, #133 and #894 are all located close to proposedconstruction and will require tree protection fence around them to help prevent damage. There are fourtrees in close proximity to #131 and #132 including #134, #135, #892 and #893 which will be enclosed as agroup. Tree #133 will need a minimum of eighteen feet of protection radii to help ensure its survival. Theremaining three trees are small and ten feet of protection radii would be ideal. A total of 39 trees wereappraised for a rounded depreciated value of $64,260.00 using the Trunk Formula Method.Recommendations1.Update the site plans and survey to show the current existing conditions and correctedlocations (Appendix A) of the trees and their trunks, including those along the drainage andtheir associated numbers.2. Place tree numbers and tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plansincluding the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Create a separate plan sheet that includesall protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.”3. Place tree protection fence along the service road near the drainage outside the tree diplines (#113, #114, #115, and #116), around #133 at eighteen feet (18'), and around #332,#133 (#134 and #135) and #894 (#892 and #893) at a radius of ten feet (10').4. Provide a landscape plan that accounts for the loss in tree canopy to include in tabularform the required replacements in accordance with the Town's Tree Canopy ReplacementStandard. Seven trees will require replacements (#111, #127, #128, #129, #130, #700, and#896) resulting is twenty-one (21) 24 inch box specimens..5. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writingaccording to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and OtherWoody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSIZ133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performedaccording to ISA Best Management Practices.6. Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations forarborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees dripline or designated TPZ/CRZ.7. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including thearchitect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of theowner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document.8. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect toverify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances.Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During ConstructionTree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diametergalvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at nomore than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulatedin 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 driplinearea 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 entireplanter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small plantercutout only(such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from theground 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, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading orconstruction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractorshall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a treeprotection fence.4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inchby eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not beremoved and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025.” Text on the signsshould be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).All persons, shall comply with the following precautions1. Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protectionzone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetationto be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage ofconstruction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles withinthe TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment ofthe construction.2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation,grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director.3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials withinthe dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of aprotected tree.4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.5. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arboristfor periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. Theproject arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threatto 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 protectedtree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.MonitoringAny trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree rootsshould be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should bedocumented.The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist afterconstruction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should benoted.Root PruningRoots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches indiameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned byhand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn.Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised bythe project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap orbackfilled within one hour.Boring or TunnelingBoring 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 inchin diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar airor water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directlyunder the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of threefeet deep.Tree Pruning and Removal OperationsAll tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified in writingaccording to the most recent ANSI A-300A Standards and Limitations and performedaccording to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards.Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walkthrough.APPENDIX A, B, D + DETAILS TREE INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT + PROTECTION REPORT400 SURMONT DRIVE, LOS GATOSPREPARED FOR: TOWN OF LOS GATOS, DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019,REVISED FEBRUARY 11, 2022PREPARED BY: MONARCH CONSULTING ARBORISTS, RICHARD GESSNER CA KINGQUEENQUEEN42" FIREPLACEWASHERDRYERMUD RMKITCHENENTRY FOYEROFFICE/BEDROOM #4DINING ROOMGREAT ROOMWINEROOMLAUNDRYROOMMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATHROOMMASTER W.I.C. BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #3HALL #3HALL #1BATH #2BATH #3ENTRY PORCHW.I.C. #2QUEENLOW WALLLOW WALLWINEREFRIG.8' X 5'ISLAND48" GAS RANGE SINKW/DISPOSALT/CD/WPREP SINK30"OVENMICRODESK48" REFRIG.DN UP COVERED DECK #1COVERED DECK #2PROPOSED RETAINING WALL42"BUILT-IN BBQ24" U/CREGRIG.DN DNPWDRRMUPDINING PATIOREAR PATIOBENCH SEATBENCH SEATBENCH SEAT TUB W/RAISEDPLATFORMSINKPLANTERPLANTER2A3.11A3.1 3 A3.24A3.2PROPOSED FLOOR PLANPARCEL #2NORTH96'-4"(TO ROUGH FRAMING)96'-7"(TO EXTERIOR FINISH)15'-0"16'-0"23'-2"27'-2"15'-0"96'-4"14'-612"16'-512"65'-4"54'-0"(TO ROUGH FRAMING)40'-0" 54'-0" 1'-6"29'-9"22'-9"WALKWAY, SEE SHEET A2.354'-3"(TO EXTERIOR FINISH)8'-10"5'-0"35'-0"8'-10"7'-0"7'-0"SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"VAULTEDVAULTEDVAULTEDVAULTEDVAULTEDVAULTED1'-6"1'-6"AA4.1BA4.1 C A4.2DA4.2FA4.3EA4.3CEILING HT = 9'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"PEAK = ±14'-5"PEAK = ±14'-5" PEAK = ±15'-11"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 11'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILINGHT = 9'-0"CEILING HT = 10'-0"CEILING HT = 12'-0"W/HA/C UNITHALL #2 5'-912"4'-212"2'-8"2'-4"3'-11"1'-4"2'-8"2'-8"1'-4"4'-1"1'-912"2'-8"2'-8"1'-4"6'-1"1'-5"2'-8"2'-8"1'-1112"6'-512"1'-612"2'-8"0'-6"2'-8"0'-6"2'-8"1'-612"1'-612"7'-8"1'-3"2'-912"1'-412"2'-8"2'-8"1'-612"9'-412"2'-8"2'-6"2'-1"5'-4"2'-1"5'-4"1'-712"3'-8"2'-8"2'-4"2'-8"2'-212"4'-512"2'-8"0'-1012"2'-4"2'-8"2'-4"2'-8"3'-612"4'-012"2'-8"2'-4"2'-8"3'-9"14'-10"3'-3"16'-0"4'-912" 0'-1112" 2'-8"3'-1012" 1'-112"2'-8"1'-10"2'-8"3'-1112"10'-6"1'-212"2'-8"2'-8"8'-6"1'-7"10'-8"6'-3"8'-8"4'-6" 3'-0" 1'-912" 18'-0"19'-0"5'-7"5'-0"6'-012"0'-10"4'-0"8'-2"4'-6"5'-3"5'-0"2'-0"6'-512"8'-712"3'-812"7'-0"6'-912"4'-0"3'-6"6'-212"4'-0" 5'-5"13'-11"2'-712" 5'-6" 4'-6"4'-6"2'-6"13'-6" 20'-1112" 3'-11"2'-8"1'-3"6'-11"6'-212" 3'-11"5'-1112"6'-112" 2'-4"9'-4"9'-4"4'-0"1'-6"4'-0"7'-812"4'-212"13'-012"7'-612"2'-0"2'-0"A2.1PROPOSED FLOOR PLANSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV RIDGERIDGERIDGE RIDGE RIDGEVALLEY VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYPITCH BREAK RIDGE V A L L E Y VALLEYVALLEYPITCH BREAK6:12PITCH 6:12PITCH4:12PITCHPROPOSED ROOF PLANPARCEL #2NORTHRIDGEVALLEYHIPRIDGEVALLEYPITCH BREAK4:12PITCH 4:12PITCH4:12PITCH 6:12PITCH6:12 PITCH 6:12 PITCH 6:12PITCH6:12PITCHV A L L E Y 3:12PITCH3:12 PITCH WOOD SHINGLE ROOFWOOD SHINGLE ROOFSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOF2A3.13 A3.24A3.2SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT1A3.1 AA4.1B A4.1 C A4.2DA4.2FA4.3EA4.3S1S2S3S7S6S5S435341'-0"TYP.1'-0"TYP.6:12PITCH6:12PITCH4:12PITCH±426.0±421.375±423.375±426.75±420.9RIDGE3:12PITCH6:12PITCH3:12PITCH±426.0RIDGE ±422.79±421.875DASHED LINE INDICATED ATTICAREA OVER 7'-0" + AREA DOWNTO 5'-0" (713 SF)GARAGEA2.2PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV 3070PROPOSED GARAGE PLANPARCEL #2PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF PLANPARCEL #2NORTH1A3.32 A3.33A3.34 A3.3 28'-0"23'-6"28'-0"23'-6"3'-3"2'-0"2'-912"16'-0"4'-0"2'-6"3'-0"18'-0" 22'-7"27'-1"2'-0"23'-1"2'-0" 2-CAR GARAGERIDGE PITCH BREAK 6:12PITCH6:12PITCH3:12PITCHRIDGEV A L L E YVALLEY 4:12 PITCH 4:12 PITCH PROPOSEDELECTRICALPANEL LOCATIONPROPOSED GASMETER LOCATIONWOOD SHINGLE ROOF1A3.32 A3.33A3.34 A3.3 CEILING HT = 8'-0"123NORTH1'-0"TYP.1'-0" TYP.±419.76HI P ±6'-6"FIELD VERIFYENTRY PORCHWALKWAYMAINHOUSEMAINHOUSEA2.3PROPOSED GARAGEFLOOR + ROOF PLANSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.322f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV 1- WEST (FRONT) ELEVATIONPARCEL #2+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT. @BATH #3/W.I.C.PITCH6128'-0" HEAD HT. 3'-6" GUARDRAIL WOOD SHINGLEROOFINGSTANDING SEAM METALROOF @ ENTRY PORCH +GARAGEBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)GUARDRAIL, WOODCROSS MEMBERS +HORIZONTAL CABLEWOOD POSTSMETAL GABLE ATTICVENT w/WOOD TRIMBOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASEMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE±18'-11"DASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGPROPOSED FINISHGRADE±426.0±420.9±426.75(405)(410)(415)395.00400.00405.00410.00415.00(406.5) F.F(403.5) PAD410.525'-0"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±23'-312"PITCH412PITCH612MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADPAD(403.5)402.00+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+10'-6" A.F.F.PL. HT.PITCH612PITCH312+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT. @BATH# 3/W.I.C.+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.PITCH412PITCH612PITCH612WOODCOLUMNSBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)METAL GABLE ATTICVENT w/WOOD TRIM4" WOODBELLY BANDWOOD SHINGLEROOFINGBOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASEBOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASEBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)ACCESS DOORS TOSUBFLOOR10" WOODBELLY BANDHORIZONTAL WOODSIDINGSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFCRICKET,G.S.M.STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFGUARDRAIL, WOODCROSS MEMBERS +HORIZONTAL CABLEBOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASE2- NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #2PLANTERSSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFWOOD SHINGLEROOFING3'-6" 3'-6"3'-6"BOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASEDASHED LINEINDICATESGUARD RAILPROPOSED FINISHGRADE8'-0" HEAD HT. 9'-0" HEAD HT. 8'-0"HEAD HT.MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±423.375±421.375±426.75±420.9PAD(403.5)PAD(402.0)+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT. @ GREAT RM +KITCHENPAD(402.0)PAD(404.0)(400.0)(400.0)±23'-312" 25'-0" ±18'-11" 8'-0" HEAD HT. ±21'-1012" 25'-0"PITCH612±24'-012"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD25'-0"±426.0±422.79±421.875WINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: PAINTED WOOD, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-190, BLACKROOFING MATERIAL: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, CHARCOAL GRAY; WOOD ROOF SHINGLES, TREATEDSIDING:BOARD + BATTEN VERTICAL SIDING,HORIZONTAL SIDING, BENJAMIN MOORE HC-168, CHELSEA GRAYWOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: BOARD FORM FINISHPROPOSED MATERIALS1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV -1'-6" B.F.F.GREAT ROOM(405.0)+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)+10'-6" A.F.F.PL. HT.+10'-6" A.F.F.PL. HT±19'-412"PITCH612PITCH3123 - EAST (REAR) ELEVATIONPARCEL #2BOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)4" WOOD BELLYBANDSTEPS TO GRADEPLANTERSWOOD COLUMNSWOOD SHINGLEROOFINGSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFPLANTERSMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEGUARDRAIL, WOODCROSS MEMBERS +HORIZONTAL CABLEDASHED LINEINDICATESGUARD RAIL9'-0" HEAD HT.DASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGPROPOSED FINISHGRADEBOARD FORMCONCRETE @EXPOSED BASE(400)(405)(410)(415)(407)-2'-6" B.F.F.DECK(404.0)PAD(404.0)PAD(402.0)8'-0" HEAD HT.STEPS TO GRADEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD415.00410.00405.00400.00±22'-512"±423.375±421.375±426.0±426.0±426.7525'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0"401.00+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.FENTRY PORCH +DINING RM. PL. HT.+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)+10'-6" A.F.F.PL. HT8'-0" HEAD HT. 8'-0"HEAD HT.8'-0"HEAD HT.4- SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATIONPARCEL #2WOOD SHINGLEROOFINGBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)4" WOODBELLY BANDBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)METAL GABLE ATTICVENT w/WOOD TRIM4" WOODBELLY BANDHORIZONTAL WOODSIDINGWOOD SHINGLEROOFINGSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFPROPOSED FINISHGRADEHORIZONTAL WOODSIDINGBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)PROPOSED A/C UNITSLOCATIONMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±426.75-1'-6"FINISH FLOOR(405.0)PITCH612PITCH412PAD(404.0)25'-0" ±19'-412"PAD(402.0)PAD(403.5)±23'-312" ±24'-012"STEPS TO GRADE±426.0±423.375MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD25'-0" 25'-0"WINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: PAINTED WOOD, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-190, BLACKROOFING MATERIAL: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, CHARCOAL GRAY; WOOD ROOF SHINGLES, TREATEDSIDING:BOARD + BATTEN VERTICAL SIDING,HORIZONTAL SIDING, BENJAMIN MOORE HC-168, CHELSEA GRAYWOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: BOARD FORM FINISHPROPOSED MATERIALS1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.2EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W.22.322f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV GARAGE SLAB(405.0)+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.1- GARAGE ELEVATIONPARCEL #2PITCH612PITCH312METAL GABLE ATTIC VENTw/WOOD TRIMBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)EXTERIOR LIGHTFIXTURESPITCH612PITCH312METAL GABLE ATTIC VENTw/WOOD TRIMBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)2- GARAGE ELEVATIONPARCEL #23- GARAGE ELEVATIONPARCEL #24- GARAGE ELEVATIONPARCEL #2GARAGE SLAB(405.2)+8'-0" A.F.F.GARAGEPL. HT.+8'-0" A.F.FGARAGEPL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.2)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.+8'-0" A.F.FGARAGEPL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.0)+8'-0" A.F.F.GARAGEPL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.2)+8'-0" A.F.FGARAGEPL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.2)GARAGE SLAB(405.0)±14'-214" 6'-812"+9'-0" A.F.FENTRY PORCHPL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.0)STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFPITCH BREAKBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)BOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)BOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED(8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)PROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED FINISHGRADEPROPOSED FINISHGRADEDASHED LINE INDICATESBUILDING BELOW GRADEDASHED LINE INDICATESBUILDING BELOW GRADEDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGDASHED LINEINDICATESEXISTING GRADINGWOOD SHINGLEROOFINGWOOD SHINGLEROOFINGBOARD + BATTEN,PAINTED (8" O.C. w/2" BATTS)O.H. SECTIONALGARAGE DOORPROPOSEDELECTRICALPANEL LOCATIONPROPOSED GASMETER LOCATION±419.76±419.76±419.76±419.76+8'-0" A.F.F.GARAGEPL. HT.+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.415.00414.50411.50412.00408.00MAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 15' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 15' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEWINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: PAINTED WOOD, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-190, BLACKROOFING MATERIAL: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, CHARCOAL GRAY; WOOD ROOF SHINGLES, TREATEDSIDING:BOARD + BATTEN VERTICAL SIDING,HORIZONTAL SIDING, BENJAMIN MOORE HC-168, CHELSEA GRAYWOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: BOARD FORM FINISHPROPOSED MATERIALS1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.3EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(GARAGE)SCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV 395.00+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.±426.0±420.9±426.75+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+8'-0" A.F.F.GARAGEPL. HT.±420.761a- WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION W/GARAGEPARCEL #2+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.GARAGE SLAB(405.2)±426.75GARAGE SLAB(405.0)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.2a- NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION W/GARAGEPARCEL #2±420.76+8'-0" A.F.F.GARAGEPL. HT.±426.75±420.9WINDOWS: KOLBE, OR APPROVED EQ.BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR, WOOD INTERIORWINDOW TRIM: PAINTED WOOD, BENJAMIN MOOREHC-190, BLACKROOFING MATERIAL: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, CHARCOAL GRAY; WOOD ROOF SHINGLES, TREATEDSIDING:BOARD + BATTEN VERTICAL SIDING,HORIZONTAL SIDING, BENJAMIN MOORE HC-168, CHELSEA GRAYWOOD COLUMNS: DARK WOOD STAINRETAINING WALLS: BOARD FORM FINISHPROPOSED MATERIALS1. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES WILL COMPLY WITH TOWNREQUIREMENTS TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED ANDSHIELDED FROM NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.2. ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES, LOCATIONS, TYPE ANDNUMBER WILL COMPLY WITH TOWN REQUIREMENTS.TOWN NOTES:A3.4EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV ATTICBATH #3OFFICE/BEDROOM #4ENTRYFOYERMUDROOMENTRYPORCH(SIDE)A - BUILDING SECTIONATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.ENTRY PORCHPL. HT.+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.7'-0" 8'-8" 4'-4" 5'-4"(403.5) PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADEXISTINGGRADE±23'-312"±14'-6"(403.5) PAD 5'-0" 5'-0"NOTE: EXCEPTIONREQUESTED FOR CUTAMOUNTS SEE CIVILPLANS - SHEET C-9/SECTION B-BB - BUILDING SECTIONATTICKITCHENHALLDININGROOMCRAWL SPACE+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)7'-0"MAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADE9'-8" 3'-412" 1'-1012"(402) PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADEXISTINGGRADE±24'-912"±8'-2"(402) PADNOTE: EXCEPTIONREQUESTED FOR CUTAMOUNTS SEE CIVILPLANS - SHEET C-9/SECTION B-BA4.1BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL V C - BUILDING SECTIONGREATROOMLAUNDRYROOMHALLBATH#2ATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)+10'-6" A.F.F.PL. HT.±4'-312"(402) PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEEXISTING GRADEEXISTINGGRADE22'-712" ±18'-11"(404) PADNOTE: EXCEPTIONREQUESTED FOR CUTAMOUNTS SEE CIVILPLANS - SHEET C-9/SECTION B-BATTICD - BUILDING SECTIONENTRYPORCHENTRYFOYERHALLWINEROOMLAUNDRYROOMCOVEREDDECK #1COVEREDDECK #2REARPATIOATTICATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)±8'-1012"(403.5) PAD(402) PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD7'-0"ATTIC±2'-8" ±24'-012" ±23'-312" ±24'-912"+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.±15'-1112"25'-0"(404.0)PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD25'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 5'-0"5'-0"A4.2BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4.22.22f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV08 JULY 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL V ATTICE - BUILDING SECTIONENTRYPORCHOFFICE/BEDROOM#4COVEREDDECK #1REARPATIOKITCHENGREATROOMATTICATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)(403.5) PAD(402) PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD±7'-212" ±7'-412" ±19'-2" ±24'-112" ±14'-5" ±15'-11"(402) PAD25'-0"3'-9"2'-212"F - BUILDING SECTIONATTICATTICMASTERBATHROOMMASTERBEDROOMHALLDININGROOMENTRYFOYERENTRYPORCHATTICCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-0"FINISH FLOOR(406.5)+10'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.-1'-6" B.F.F.(405.0)+0'-6"FINISH FLOOR(407.0)±7'-512"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD(402) PAD7'-0" ±2'-912"MAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PADMAX 25' ABOVEBUILDING PAD(403.5) PAD(404) PAD±17'-5" ±24'-112"+9'-0" A.F.F.PL. HT.3'-11"±10'-312"±14'-5" 5'-0"A4.3BUILDING SECTIONSSCALE:14" = 1'-0"400 SURMONT DRIVEPARCEL #2LOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032INTERIORSREMODELS +ADDITIONSNEW CONSTRUCTION638 UNIVERSITY AVELOS GATOSCALIFORNIA95032W4..3f 253.399.1125STUDIO ..... DESIGN20 AUGUST 201917 JANUARY 2020PLANNING SUBMITTAL23 AUGUST 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL II16 NOVEMBER 2021PLANNING SUBMITTAL III29 APRIL 2022PLANNING SUBMITTAL IV -----Original Message----- From: Diane Michaelis Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:12 AM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 400 Surmont Drive EXTERNAL SENDER Hi Jennifer, Please forward this letter to the appropriate planner for the development project at 400 Surmont Drive. We did not receive any notice that this project was about to begin. Upon seeing the orange netting for only the lower home, it is clear both houses will greatly affect our view and privacy. When we built our personal residence in 2017, at , we carefully followed all guidelines to not disturb the beautiful open space of our hillside. Our home is not visible from the “view” platform, is one level and is less than 3500 square feet. These large new homes at 400 Surmont Drive will clearly be visible and definitely change the character of the open space. We believe there should be netting to illustrate both proposed homes’ locations for transparency. Thank you, Diane and Mike Michaelis EXHIBIT 17 To the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos, I hope this finds you all doing well. As you know, Story Poles for the housing development on Surmont Drive are up, and I would like to invite you to come up to the front of our home to see them. I encourage you to view these proposed houses from our perspective – from our front porch, in relation to the home we've lived in for over 43 years. And we would like you to seriously consider the following issues when voting on the plans for this development: 1. Absolute Minimums The Story Poles erected last month show that the proposed 4,700+ square foot house would be built at the absolute minimum distance allowed by the town: exactly 20 feet from our property. This is one of the main reasons I am inviting you to come and stand at our front porch to see and feel how uncomfortably close this house would be. Further, and more critically, with the increase in wild fires in California, we ask that the town consider the Defensible Space ordinance to keep all homes safe before allowing houses of this size to be built in such close proximity. 2. Major Exception Each of these proposed houses exceeds the maximum height requirement for the town’s limits for hillside homes which, as you know, is 18 feet. These houses range from approx. 22 to 24 feet at their highest point. We are opposed to this major exception to the town’s height requirement as it would over power the front of our home and create an overbearing presence to the neighborhood. (see attached pics taken from Leigh Ave & Blossom Hill Rd) 3. The Storm Drain After conducting a property survey of our own, we learned that the proposed driveway will actually be ON our property. This, as we understand it, is as a result of a refusal on the developer’s part to move forward with the original plan to extend Surmont Drive and build a cul- de-sac that would properly service these new houses. Instead, they plan just to leave the old existing storm drain in the middle of active driveways. When we asked why the cul-de-sac is no longer being considered, we were told by the developer that you, the town counsel of Los Gatos, had voted against it. I checked with Ryan Safty for documentation on this, and this was his reply: Hi Paul, Please see attached for the CDAC report and meeting minutes. The plans that went before CDAC showed the cul-de-sac bulb. The meeting minutes state the following: • The Committee did not express concerns with the proposed cul-de-sac and lot configuration. Respectfully, Ryan Safty ● Associate Planner Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 We respectfully ask the town to address why the cul-de-sac plans have been abandoned, and why Surmont Drive is not being extended to allow proper access to private driveways to service these new houses. The existing storm drain is a serious safety concern, and needs to be reconsidered. If left in its current location, this development would restrict access to fire and sanitation vehicles, which brings me to the last concern: 4. The Garbage Can issue has not yet been resolved. In my letter to the town in March of 2021, I raised concerns about the number of garbage cans there would be if these houses were built. The following is, in part, what I wrote: “At our house, we have 5 garbage cans. In the heavier growing season, we have 7. Sandy has 5 generally, but sometimes 8. And she brings them down from her property and places them in front of our house, as that is the only place on Surmont Drive for them. Her property has no curb space for garbage cans. Neither does the Bates’ property. Currently, every Thursday/Friday, along with the other 3 homes that share road space for cans, somewhere between 16 and 21 garbage cans are placed on Surmont Drive. “Each of the two approved subdivisions is ~1.3 acres, so they could potentially have 5-7 cans each as we do, which would mean 10-14 more garbage cans. (15-21 if a third home is built). Where are these 34-45 cans going to go? Not at the top (hammer head) of this proposed driveway. And, contrary to what the developer has stated, West Valley Collection & Recycling will NOT guarantee that they will send a smaller garbage truck up the private driveway except for an “on-site prem” (disabled) provision. “The cans must be curb-side” I have called West Valley Collection & Recycling several times to talk with Matt Chapa, the supervisor who came out to Surmont Drive earlier last year to talk with us about garbage removal for this development, and he told me that, in fact, they will not guarantee (in writing or otherwise) that they will send a smaller garbage truck up a private driveway. I followed up this past week and spoke with an employee named Eddie, and he actually said to me, "We don’t even have small trucks!" Again, I encourage each of you to come up to view the Story Poles, the Storm Drain, and the proximity of the proposed driveway to our property before the next public hearing. (perhaps on a Thurs or Fri when all the garbage cans are out!) Please call or text me to set up a date/time. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Respectfully, Paul Cosentino From: Karyn Meadows Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 11:40 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Homes to be built on Surmont Court EXTERNAL SENDER Hi, I want to officially protest the size and height of the prospective homes that are to be built up on Surmont Court off Surmont Drive/Westhill Drive in east Los Gatos. The homes are HUGE...we can see them no matter where we look up there on the hill. And they are over the approved height for the foothills. That right there is NOT OK. Please knock them down to approved limits. And let me know how to 'officially' protest the size. best, Karyn From: Diane Michaelis Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:36 AM To: Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 400 Surmont Drive EXTERNAL SENDER Hi Ryan, In our previous letter to you, we requested to see orange netting for both proposed homes. Thank you. I have attached pictures that were taken from the adjacent hillside open space easement on our property. You can see how the homes clearly interfere with the natural hillside setting. It appears the homes will dominate, rather than blend in with the scenic appearance of the hillside and the environment. There will be a significant visual impact to us, especially the bulky upper home, as it blocks our views across the open hillside to the west. In the developer’s original proposal to neighbors, it was stated that “the homes would be one story with generous setbacks and floor plans that nestle into the hillside terrain”. The orange netting suggests something other. How does this look from the view platform? Please feel free to view the netting from our open space easement - (in the subdivision that created our parcel, this easement was mandated by the town to preserve the open space character and natural scenic backdrop of the hillsides). Thank you, Diane and Mike Michaelis Los Gatos Date: November 17, 2022 To: Planning Commission Re: 400 Surmont Dr. Development Request For Approval Dear Commissioners, I am the homeowner located at . (Corner of Surmont Dr. & ). From the very first CDAC meeting that I attended in 2019, I stated that I do not object with the property owner’s legal right to developing the two SFR’s. I do object to approving any exceptions to be requested by the developer. The Town’s hill-side guide lines should be strictly enforced. The only exception(s) to approve is if it relates to a threat to health, and/or safety. My understanding is that the reason why this project is going before the Planning Commission is to approve exceptions. I request that the Commission reject any and all of the exceptions, especially the request for the height exception. In addition, the homeowner, Paul Cosentino, the property most affected by this project, has requested consideration to relocate the storm drain and to resolve the garbage cans matter. Please consider addressing these issues for resolution before approval of this development. Thank you, Chris Tanimoto Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Terry Negendank __________________ Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:10 PM To: Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Surmont development EXTERNAL SENDER I am writing to voice my concern over the height of the two proposed residences. Each of the two proposed houses exceeds the maximum height requirement for the town’s limits for hillside homes which is 18 feet. These houses range from approx. 22 to 24 feet at their highest point. I am opposed to this, as the homes as proposed would overpower the neighborhood. I ask that you vote against allowing there to be hillside homes of this height. Terry Negendank ________________ Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Suzanne Hutchins Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 8:54 AM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 400 Surmont Drive Planning item 11/21/22 EXTERNAL SENDER We are residents on and have a view of the hillside where the proposed project will be built. Please do not make an exception to allow for the proposed new residences to exceed the maximum height for visible homes in the hillsides. The point of having a maximum height restriction for visible homes is to reduce the obstruction it imposes on others owning properties in the neighborhood. Making an exception to the height restriction will result in two more houses taking away from the beauty of the current view the neighborhood has of the hillside and all of the nature that lives around it. Again, please do not allow the proposed residences to exceed the maximum height for visible homes in the hillsides. Thanks, Darren and Suzanne Hutchins Hi Mike and Diane I received a copy of your e-mail to Jennifer Armer from Ryan Safty, our Project Planner, and I am responding to same with hopefully some helpful information. As now know, the story poles for both homes are up, so our plans are now clear and transparent as you request. To clarify, the home on Lot #1, the lower of the two homes, is a one story home with 3,685 square feet. Lot #2, the upper one of the two homes, is a one story home with 3,450 square feet. Both homes, like yours, are smaller than allowed to be constructed on the sites. Lot #1 is not visible from the viewing platform in San Jose. Lot #2 is over 25% visible from the viewing area so we will be looking to the Planning Commission to direct us on ways to mediate this minor exception to the Hillside Development Standards, such as adding some tree screening. Please let me know if I can provide you further clarification for our project relative to a potential impact on your home. Thanks Bob Robert O. Hughes THE BUILDING WORKS EXHIBIT 18 2730 UNION AVENUE, SUITE B, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95124 | P. 408.559.8850 | F. 408.559.3075 www.thebuildingworks.net Hello Paul Ryan forwarded your attached letter to the Planning Commission for my review and comment as needed. On review of your letter, I have deemed that a meaningful response is necessary to avoid confusion to those that might read your letter during this process. To follow the points of your letter, I offer the following: 1) ABSOLUTE MINIMUMS: First let me provide the actual details of the proposed homes. The project signs posted state the home on Lot #1 is 4,785 square feet broken down as 3,683 square feet in the Main Home, 996 square feet in the Garage, and 106 feet in a covered walkway. The home on Lot #2 is 4,834 square feet broken down as 3,450 square feet in the Main Home, 671 square feet in the Garage, and 713 square feet in non- habitable attic space over 7’ tall. These are not monster homes by any means, and are comparable to homes in the neighborhood. You are correct that the set back from property line is the required 20 feet minimum. The homes were plotted several times in an effort to minimize the impact on your home by shifting the homes to the East, beyond a direct impact on your front door. The front corner of the home closest to your home is 20’ off your property line and the rear corner is 40’ off your property line as another effort to lessen the impact at your property. I can understand you concern for change to what you have lived with for 43 years. I suspect what you are feeling is probably the same as the then neighbors North of your parent’s parcel at the time they proposed building a home directly above their home. A lot of anxiety during the process, but in the end things usually work out and settle down. It did for your parents and that neighbor, and I suspect you will experience the same result over time. As for your concern for the potential fire as a result of these homes being built, I believe it is an unfounded concern. Both proposed homes are in Wildfire Urban Interface High Fire Area meaning the homes must be built to specific fire prevention specifications in the Building Code (Section R337 of the 2019 California Residential Code). Additionally, both homes will have the required fire sprinkles, and defensible space and fire break Landscaping in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect. 2) MAJOR EXCEPTION: The Hillside Specific Plan does not specifically state the maximum height for a home is 18’. It does state that the maximum height is 25’, and both homes are proposed within that maximum height restriction. The Hillside Specific Plan does state that if the homes are more than 25% visible from the viewing platform at Los Gatos Almaden Road and Selinda Way, across the street from Leigh High baseball field, then it could be required to lower the ridge height to 18’. It is understood that this height is an issue that requires an exception, and this request had been made. The Planning Commission will ultimately decide this issue with a response ranging from lowering the home to 18’ or mitigate the height issue with additional landscaping around the homes amongst other possible mitigation possibilities. It is important to keep in mind the Story Poles are a bright orange color, making it obviously standout from the viewing point and from various points in the neighborhoods below the project site. The homes have been designed with colors that will blend into the surrounding foliage and be less visible than the story poles. 3) THE STORM DRAIN: It is not true that the proposed access road will be on your property Paul. Your survey clearly shows a 30’ access and utility easement across the front of your property that is to the benefit of the subject development parcel . It is important to note that this 30’ easement is in addition to the Public Right Away reserved by the Town of Los Gatos. To put it bluntly, access to this project could be to proceed up your driveway and make a sharp right hand turn onto the subject property, all within the easements. When this project was first contemplated we had a meeting with your attorney at which time access to the property using the same “utility road” that has existed long before your home was built was offered to us. In exchange you requested that you would have continual access across a portion of the subject property to facilitate landscape maintenance between the wrought iron fence your Father built well onto your property and the boundary line for the proposed home to be built on the lot closest to your home. We agreed that was a doable situation, but subsequently when I inquired about moving forward with that proposal by contacting your attorney, I was told he was no longer retained by you, and that the “offer” was no longer valid. Since then we have been diligently working to gain approval of an access road to the project that meets the requirements of all development departments in the Town, while avoiding any encroachment onto the public right away that you allege is your property. And that is where we stand today. I am not certain if you have reviewed the latest plans that depict the conditions I note above, so I will drop off a full size civil plan set to your home in the next day or so. By the same token, it is important that you realize property in the Town Right- Away is not your property. Yes, the original proposal presented to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting on January 9, 2019, did propose a cul-se-sac. You attended that meeting, and there were comments made at that meeting suggesting that we needed the cooperation of the neighbor to the west of the subject property to be able to make the proposed cul-de-sac work. That neighbor was represented at that meeting, and he stated that they had no interest in participating in the widening of our driveway to accommodate the proposed access road. I subsequently contacted the Owner of the property, and she reiterated what her representative said in that meeting. The existing driveway is 9.5 to 10.0 wide depending on where you measure it. The right side of the driveway (as you drive up) pretty much designates the common property line between the 2 properties. I understand it is deceiving because the area (about 20’ wide) to the right of the property is maintained by Sandy Anderson, the Owner of the subject property, for “curb” appeal to her home. By using the driveway as the access to the development, that road would be serving three (3) homes at which time the requirement of the Santa Clara County Fire Department for the driveway width becomes 20’. Twenty feet cannot be achieved between the property line and the creek, which is environmentally protected. That leaves the proposed access to the project as the only viable one for consideration. The existing storm drain is addressed in the improvement plans I will be dropping off at your home in the next day or so. The railing around the storm drain will be rebuilt to Cal Trans specifications as requested by the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department. The proposed access road to the project has been approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The four (4) “driveways” (yours, the new development access road Anderson, and Bates) that will come off the existing rural end of Surmont Drive are separated to the required cul-de-sac spacing in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department specifications. As for the trash can collection, I think you have somewhat been over dramatic regarding the situation. Yes, Anderson does bring her five (5) trash cans down to Surmont Drive to facilitate the weekly trash pick. They are brought down late Thursday, and picked up a little afternoon on Friday, assuming the trash pickup has been done by then. You are correct, the trash cans are placed at curb side at the far south of your property frontage so as to not interfere with the placement of your trash cans. I have to stand by the documented comments Matt Chapa made when we all met on March 31, 2021, that trash for the two proposed homes can be picked up on the hammerhead portion of the development. My team looks forward to discussing these items of concern with you at the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, November 21, 2022. Respectively submitted THE BUILDNG WORKS ROH/BS Robert O. Hughes, President 2730 Union Avenue; Suite B San Jose, CA 95124 400 Surmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 This Page Intentionally Left Blank