Loading...
Attachment 4Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 FINDINGS: • As required by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside Dev e lopment Standards & Guidelines. • That the project is consistent 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: EXHIBITS: BACKGROUND: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. Previously received with May l l, 2016 Desk Item Report: 1. Emails from appellants, received May 11 , 2016 Received with this Staff Report 2. Location Map 3 . Required Findings and Considerations 4 . Recommended Conditions (nine pages) 5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Repo11ing Program (three pages) 6. Town Council Resolution (2001-128) 7 . December 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes (15 pages) 8. Consulting Architect's Report (three pages), dated February 24, 20 16 9. 20 l 0 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15 , 20 I 0 10. Project Data Sheet l l. Letter from Anthony Badame (13 pages), rece ived March 24, 20 16 12. March 29, 20 16 Development Review Committee Minutes (three pages) 13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages) 14. May 11 , 20 16 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) 15. Applicant 's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May 27 , 2016 16. Public comment received through 11 :00 a.m ., Thursday, June 2, 2016 17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016 18. Development plans ( 16 pages), received March 22 , 2016 The 1.04 acre s ite is a steep and narrow undeveloped parcel , located along an intermittent tributary of Los Gatos Creek and bordered by a driveway serving the neighboring property at 25 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 Highland Avenue. The property is densely wooded with Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, and California Bay trees. Applications for Architecture and Site approval were considered by the Planning Commission in 1998 and 2001 which were denied due to concerns with the mass, scale, and location of the proposed projects. The Town Council upheld the decisions of the Planning Commission on appeal , and directed the applicant to look to the property to create a design rather than imposing a design on the s ite (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, the property owner along with the assistance of a new architect submitted a new application in 2003. The applicant worked closely with Town staff to resolve the previous concerns of the Commission and the Council and the project was approved by the Planning Commission 6-0 on December 8, 2010 (Exhibit 7). The Town approved a time extension in 2012 after whjch the property owner passed away and the property was placed on the market. The applicant and current property owner purchased the property in 2015 and submitted a new application derived from the previously approved project plans . The application was approved by the Development Review Committee on March 29, 2016 (Exhibit 12). The application was appealed on April 8, 2016 (Exhibit 13). On May 11 , 2016 , the Planning Commission continued the application to June 8, 2 016 to allow staff and interested parties to complete additional analysis (Exhibit 14). PROJECT DESCRIPTION : A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The site is surrounded by single-family residences, with the driveway to the neighboring property at 25 Highland A venue forming the southern property line . B. Architecture and Site Approval Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of a new residence. C. Zoning Compliance The total proposed floor area for the residence and garage is within the allowable floor area for the property and the proposed residence complies with the setback and height requirements of the HR-2Yi zone. While the Town Code allows a maximum height of30 feet in the HR zone, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) are more restrictive with a 25-foot height maximum. A single-family residence is a pennitted use in the HR zone. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 ANALYSIS : A. Previous Approvals and Current Review The previous proposed and approved project and Environmental review from 2010 was used by staff as part of the background and analysis of the site. While the previous proposal was used to document previous analysis and site constraints, the proposed project was considered based on current standards and guidelines . Staff considered the reduction in grading, and the removal of two (exceptions to cut and fill and retaining walls in excess of five feet in height) of the three 2010 requested exceptions from the HDS&G. Staff determined that the remaining exception to the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) was very similar to the exception previous ly considered and approved by the Planning Commission (See Attachment 6 of Exhibit 15). B. Architecture and Site The proposed residence is has three levels with the garage set to the lowest grade, stepping up to two floors of living space. The first floor of li ving space exits at grade to a dirt patio at the rear of the residence. The residence has a modem/contemporary architecture with roof forms that slope with the hillside. The proposed materials include: cedar siding and smooth finish stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the plans and visited the site (Exhibit 8). The Consultant recommended using a single roofing material rather than a mix of comp and metal and extending the proposed landscaping between the residence and the existing driveway. The applicant included these changes in the final development plans (Exhibit 18). Story poles were placed on the site prior to the Development Review Committee meeting to aid in the review of the project. The project is in compliance with the HDS&G inclusive of grading and drainage criteria, allowable floor area, height, and architectural and landscape design. The only exception requested is in regards to development on slopes greater than 30 percent. The limited area of development on slopes greater than 30 percent is consistent with the approved placement of the residence from 2010. Based on the removal of any additional exceptions to the HDS&G, staff found the proposed project to be an appropriate development proposal for the subject site. General project data is included in Exhibit 10 . C. Neighborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in si ze from 680 square feet to 6 ,249 square feet (including garage). The FARs range from 0.02 to 0.43. The applicant is proposing a 5,077-square foot home (including garage) on a Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 45 ,240-square foot parcel (0.10 FAR). The maximum allowed square footage for the lot is 5, 100 square feet (including garage). The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines do not discuss neighborhood compatibility or give a guideline as to immediate neighborhoods a s defined within the Residential Design Guidelines. This is due to the context of hillside neighborhoods and their unique format and limited neighborhood format. Staff still looks at those properties within the vicinity of a proposed hillside development to determine compatibility with its surrounding environment. Staff has pro vided a Neighborhood Analysis chart to show the neighborhood context for those properties within the vicinity of the site. The applicant has provided additional neighborhood context information in Attachment 14 of Exhibit 15. The Neighborhood Analysis table below includes the gross lot area (all lots in the area would be subject to a slope reduction based on topography). The provided floor areas may include cellars . Addresses have been included on the map in Exhibit 2 for additional reference and site context. Living ADDRESS Living Garage and garage Lot size FAR 50 Alpine A venue 3,120 825 3,945 21 , 168 0 .15 54 Alpine Avenue 4 ,602 858 5,460 31,240 0.15 58 Alpine A venue 5,451 798 6,249 23 ,848 0.23 66 Alpine Avenue 3,779 560 4,339 14,922 0.25 74 Alpine Avenue 2 ,040 416 2,456 25 ,762 0.08 76 Alpine Avenue 3,644 473 4, 117 8 ,511 0.43 78 Alpine A venue 4 ,429 588 5,017 22,151 0 .20 106 Alpine A venue 3,633 677 4,310 20,037 0.18 1 18 Alpine A venue 3,922 816 4,738 20,036 0.20 19 Hil?hland A venue 4,357 720 5,077 45,240 0.10 15 Highland A venue 3,625 0 3,625 18 ,763 0 .19 63 Highland A venue 2 ,417 734 3, 151 128 ,485 0 .02 25 Highland A venue 4,343 798 5,141 67,879 0 .06 140 Foster Road * 4,834 564 5,398 220,936 0 .02 1 Highland A venue 2 ,279 580 2 ,859 111,427 0.02 48 Jacks on Street 4,819 864 5,683 20,006 0.24 52 Jackson Street 6 80 0 680 11 ,550 0.06 53 Grove Street 3 ,489 540 4,029 39,526 0.09 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 19 Highland Avenue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 D. Tree Impacts The applicant is proposing to remove 15 of the 87 protected onsite trees. The applicant worked with staff to address the tree protection measures within the 2010 arborist report (Exhibit 9). Based on concerns raised by neighbors during the public hearing process, the applicant obtained a new report by a licensed arborist to provide a more current health analysis of the existing trees and to further establish consistent tree protection measures for the proposed project (Attachment 3 of Exhibit 15). The trees being removed include: eight California Bay Laurels with diameters ranging in size from seven inches to 20 inches , five Coast Live Oaks with diameters ranging in size from 10.5 inches to 19 inches, and one multi-trunk Valley Oak with a combined diameter of 36 inches. All the trees proposed for removal are in fair or poor condition. The applicant will be required to provide canopy replacement pursuant to Town Code standards for the trees being removed. The applicant is working with a landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings and will work with staff to provide species and locations appropriate for the site. E. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010 . No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5) when the project was approved on December 8, 2010. Government Code Section 15164 allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted MND or EIR when changes to a project do not require preparation of a new MND or EIR (Government Code Section 15162). However, based on the reduced grading and increased setback from the creek (Exhibit 15), an addendum was determined to not be warranted for the proposed project. This determination was also made because the site constraints and development impacts were adequately analyzed and addressed in the adopted MND. F. Development Review Committee The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the item on March 29, 2016 (Exhibit 12). Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30). The following neighbors were in attendance and spoke on the item: • Teresa Spalding -15 Highland A venue • Lisa Roberts -78 Alpine Avenue • Greg Gomon -Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highland A venue Planning Commi ssio n Staff Report -Page 7 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 • Dorothea Smullen -Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highl and Avenue • D eric Durand -Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highland Avenue • Craig Sawyer -63 Highland A venue The public raised concerns regarding: additional CEQA review , the size of the res idence, the s lope of the site, the setback from the creek, tree removals, and construction related concerns. Prior to the public hearing staff met with and di s cussed these concerns with the neighbors at 1, 15 , and 25 Highland A venue and provided responses in regards to CEQA requirements and lim itati ons, creek setbacks, and construction related concerns . The applicant also met with adjacent neighbors several times to discuss the project and any concerns they had. The project site has limited visibi lity or direct impacts on an y adjacent neighbor. The neighbors· communications with staff, both in person and in writing have communicated di sagreement with staff as to interpretation of the Town's HDS&G and the conclusions of the biological reports. Staff and the applicant discussed additional landscaping and material changes with neighbors prior to the March 29 , 2016 DRC meeting. The DRC found that the application was complete and in compliance with the HDS&G, and that while changes could potentially be made to the resid e nce , the requests from the nei ghbors regarding a 25-to 50-foot setback from the top ofbank and a single-story resid ence could not be impl e mented on the site due to shape and topography of th e site. G. Appeal The application was appealed (Exhibit 13 ) on April 8, 2016 by four families , Smullen (25 Highland A venue), Badame ( 1 Highland Avenue), Roberts (78 Alpine Avenue), and Spalding ( 15 Highland A venue). T he appeal Jetter provides the following 12 statements; staff's responses are includ ed in italics: 1) The project has received inadequate environmental review and does not qualify for a CEQA exemption . The project was not d et ermined to be exempt from CEQA . Th e project was determin ed to be in compliance w ith the analysis contained within th e previously circulated and adopted initial Study and Mitigated N ega tive Declaration .for a single-fa mily development. Attachment 6 of Exhibit 15 shows the 2010 development proposal in contrast with the 20 I 6 proposal. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 19 Highland Avenue/S-15-077 June 8 , 2016 2) There are different professional opinions regarding location of the stream-bed and top of bank, the value of the creek, and the adjacent vegetation, and the appropriate setback from the top of the bank. The site has been analyzed by four different biologists over a period of approximately 20 years (1997, 200912010, and 2016). All four profess ionals have given the same analysis as to the existing vegetation, location of the creek, and limited impact of the proposed developme nt. The top of bank was no t re-analyzed in 2009 from the reports co mpleted in 1997. The current site condition and top of bank was established by HT Harvey in March 2016. Th e latest reportfrom Live Oak Associates (LOA) through the Town 's Environmental Consultant confirms the findings of the previous reports and provides the following statement: "The few areas of encroachment to within 15 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10 feet for the driveway are not significant in our opinion, given that the vast majority of the remaining setback is at least 20 feet, which we believe would be an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site ... From a biological standpoint, the riparian influence of the creek appears to be restricted to the wetted portion of the channel. Because of underground culverting downstream and the lack of associated riparian or wetland vegetation, the creek itself provides foraging, shelter, and movement habitat for native species that is not greater in value than that of adjacent upland woodland habitats. The creek will continue to provide a seasonal source of drinking water for native species even after the project is built, and the few common species that may move through the site within the creek currently will also likely continue to do so after the project has been constructed." Additionally, HT Harvey provided the following additional setback information within their 511312016 report ba sed on direction from LOA: "The average setback distance between the top-of-bank and the building envelope/deck as shown on the improvement plans is approximately 27 feet. .. between the proposed entrance road and the top-of-bank, the average setback distance is 20 feet." Bas ed on the determination of all four professionals staff determined that the proposed project is appropriately sited. 3) Input has not been received from any responsible (permitting) agencies. The applicant submitted documentation to both Cal(fornia Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, no comments were provided by Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 9 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 e ither agency. Additionally, both received the circulated Initial Study and MND in 2010 and provided no comments on the document or the proposal. Based on th e analysis by Live Oak Associates, it is anticipated that permits will not be required by these agencies for the proposed improvements. A stream bed A Iteration Permit/Agreement is only required when work occurs within th e creek bed or top of bank. No work within those areas is proposed. Additionally, staff reached out directly t o these agencies for any comments that they may have but didn 'I provide within the required 30 days. and neither agency responded with any comments for the proposed p roj ect . 4) The location of the development on the site maximizes perceived bulk and visual impacts and is inconsistent with the neighborhood. The proposed residence has a.front setback of 160 feet and a side setback which includes the driveway to 25 Highland Avenue of 24 feet. While the residence appears close to the existing driveway, to push it farther away from the driveway would actually increase the visual mass of the residence because more of the lower level wall would be exposed rather than hidden by the existing grade. Increasing this setback would also push the residence clos er to the creek Th e applicant has submitted additional documentation as to the compatibility of the residence with th e existing neighborhood (Attachment 14 o.f Exhibit 1 5). 5) The location of the development on the site is the result of the improper re- location of the creek due to grading on sites along Alpine A venue. The appellant references grading that was completed on sites on A lpin e Avenue. !f illegal grading has occurred adjacent to the site, the impact has only pushed the c reek closer to Highland Avenue and the proposed residence. Live Oak Associates discusses additional natural movement of the creek and top of bank due to a recent tree fall on the site (see statement number 2, and Attachment 2 of Exhibit 15). Additionally, as discussed in statement number 4 above, movement of the residence awayfrom th e southern property lin e and the exis ting driveway would expose more wall plane and make th e residence look large r than the existing proposal. 6) The proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 50 percent of the trees on the site which is inconsistent with the hillside guidelines. The proposed project requires th e removal of 15 of the 87 existing trees on th e project site (17 percent). Of the 15 trees that require removal due to th e proposed improvements, 11 are in fair health, three are in poor health, and one tre e is recommended to be removed due to disease. Planning Commission Staff R e port -Page l 0 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 7) The development should not have been approved without resolution of discrepancies between the submitted tree removal plan and the actual tree removal plan. One of the previous plan sets erroneously showed the removal of tree number 30, the applicant provides additional clarlfication to this within th eir letter in Exhibit J 5. 8) Significant limitations on the site make the maximum size of the home inappropriate for the site. While the HDS&G do state th at not all lots can accommodate the max imum p ermitted Floor Area, the propose d project co mplies with th e requirements o,(the HDS&G. The proposed project is cons is t en t wit h the size and FAR of res idences in the immediate vicinity; see Neighborhood Compatibility abo ve. The applicant provides additional information on this statement with i n Attachment 14 of Exh i bit 15. 9) The project reads as a three-story structure on its approach from Highland Avenue and from the creek side homes along Alpine Avenue, the proximity to the existing driveway maximizes the bulk of the residence. The r esid ence is s ited in the same location as the previously approved project in 2010 (Attac hme nt 6 of Exhibit 15) with the sam e maximum height. Th e existing driveway to 25 Hig hland Avenue is fully within the proposed project site so any development with an adequate setbackfrom th e creek is going to be visible.from the existing driveway. 10) The architecture of the proposal is neither compatible with the surrounding neighborhood nor respectful of the rural character of the hillside. The existing n eighborhood has a mix of architectural styles, and co ntemporary style of th e proposed r es idence would not be out of place and th e roo,( forms and materia ls are co mpatible with th e hillside en viro nme nt. Additionally, th e applicant provides a detailed response to this throughout Exhibit 15 . 11 ) The design of the proposed project results in excessive grading on the site, which is inconsistent with the hillside guidelines and will result in significant visual impacts. The proposed project in cludes approximately 270 cubic yards of cut (plus approximately 80 c ubic y ards o,( spoils from foundation and wall trenching) and 3 5 0 cubic yards of fill. The applicant 's proposal does not require a n import or export of soi/for d evelopment. Many hills ide homes require significantly more g rading than is proposed for this p roject. Th e proposed walls are limited to fou r feet or less a nd the Planning Commission Staff Report -P age 11 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8 , 20 16 majority of the.fill on the site is to provide a conforming fire turnaround which is r equired by the Santa Clara County Fire D epartment and will ben~fit n eighboring properties which currently la ck this provision. 12) The project is inconsistent with the Sustainability Element of Town of Los Gatos General Plan. Sta.ff is unclear whic h policies th e applicant is referring to. Th e project would exceed th e 50 p oint rating required/or Green Point Rating standards whic h are encouraged but not required at this time. P er th e provided biological reports, staff believes the project is consistent with polices and goals contained under Goal ENV-3 . The creek on-site is not a r ecorded c reek and is no t s ubject to the Goals or policies co ntained in GoalENV-5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The project is in compliance with the HDS&G and the Hillside Specific Plan. The proposed project was intended to implement the previous approval with revisions to reduce the exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines . The applicant has continued to meet with the appellants to seek out potential mitigations but has been unable to come to an agreement that satisfies the group of appellants . B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the follow ing actions to deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the DRC and approve the Architecture and S ite application: I . Make the required finding that the LRDA exception is appropriate and the project otherwise complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 3); and 2. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 3); and 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 3); and 4. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 4 and development plans attached as Exhibit 18. 19 Highland Avenue EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION : JUNE 8, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 19 Highland A venue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appea l of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yi. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ed Pearson FINDINGS : CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-famil y development application . The proposed application is in substantial compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 20 I 0. No additional CEQA findings are required; Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to locate the residence away from the creek. This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 20 I 0 . The project is otherwise in compliance with app li cable Hillside Dev elopment Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a single-family residence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the specific plan . CON SID ERA TIONS : Considerations in review of Architecture & 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. The house is an appropriate s ize for the property, the proposed project is compatible with development on surrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will help blend the new building into the site. There is limited visibility into the site from surrounding homes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new residence, and outdoor spaces. N :\DEV\FINDI NG S\2016\Hi ghlandl 9.doc EXHIBIT 3 This Page Intentionally left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -June 8, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yz. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ed Pearson 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 shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the 2. 3. 4 . 5 . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. scope of the changes. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval (June 8, 2018) unless the approval is used before expiration . Section 29 .20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines . 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. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town 's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report, dated February 15, 2010, on file in the community Development Department, except as otherwise noted. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. CREEK SETBACK: The proposed residence shall maintain a minimum setback of 15 feet from the creek/drainage course. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site. NEW TREES: New trees to be planted shall be double-staked, using rubber tree ties and shall be planted prior to occupancy. TREE NUMBER 30: Tree number 30 shall be protected and retained. Tree protection measures shall be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the arborist report. IRRIGATION: All newly planted material shall be irrigated by an in-ground system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native trees and vegetation. STORY-POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approva l of the Architecture and Site application. EXHIBIT 4 13 . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 2 : With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 20 l 0) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist' s report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching , trenching, drainages facilities , and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 3: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Ifhuman remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans . 16 . CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 5: 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 shall 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. 17. CULTURAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 6: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work , a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources , any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL Building Division 18. AIR QUALITY -MITIGATION MEASURE 1: To limit the project's construction- related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD- recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e . All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly v isibl e sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take correcti ve action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residence. Separate building permits are required for site retaining walls, water tanks, or swimming pools; separate electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits shall be required as necessary. 20. COND ITIO NS 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. 21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 22. 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. 23. 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 soil s report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to 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 comer l ocations d. Retaining Walls 24. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooden 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, suitab le for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5' x 5' level landing on both sides of the door, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance on the strike side. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 25. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans. 26. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905 . Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet of chimneys. 27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: This project requires a Class A roofing assembly. 28. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE : This project is located in a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7 A of the California Building Code. 29. 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. 30. PRIOR TO FINAL lNSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certi fying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 31 . 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 , signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov. 32. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS : The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Contro l Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print. 33. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department 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 . f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 TO THE SATFISF A Tl ON OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engin eering Division 34. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans , Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances . The adjacent public right-o f- way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and 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. The 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 Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 35. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approvals 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 36. 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 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 . 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 building permit. 37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her 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 rejection of work that went on without inspection . 38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS : The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as , but not limited to, curb , gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement 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 Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 39. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE : Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 40. PLAN CHECK FEES : Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department 41. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any permits. 42. 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. 43. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, 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). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 44. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 45. 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 46. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works. 47. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE 1: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for liquefaction on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. 48. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 49 . SOILS EN GINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an "as-built " letter/report prepared by the Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Limited Geotechnical Study Lands of Orphan and Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Pearson Property by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22, 2013 and December 22 , 2015, respectively, 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 Applicant. 51. UTILITIES: The 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. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility aligrunents 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. 52 . TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos . The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the build ing permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses . 53. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town . 54 . CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 55. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur d uring 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.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 56 . CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a .m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 57. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum employee parking, materials storage area, concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations. 58. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more 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 permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 59. 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 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 will 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 late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil , sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 60 . 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. 61 . SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks . No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -F lows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C .3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 1 O' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way. 62. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner 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 washed into the Town's storm drains. 63 . 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 storing of goods and/or 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 adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and 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. The 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 Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 64. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. Building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building code (CBC) Chapter 7 a. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 65. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED . An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed pennit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 66. WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS . Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The applicant, or any contractors and subcontractors shall contact the water purveyor s upplying the s ite and 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 ofrecord. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by the Fire Department until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyo r of record are documented by that purveyo r as having been met by the applicant(s). 67. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND REQUIRED . Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet in si de. In stallations shall confonn to Fire Department Standard D etails and Specifications D-1. 68 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly vis ible and legible from the street. Numbers shall b e a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N :\DEV\C ONDITNS\20 16\Highland-19.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank MITIGATION MONITORING PLA N DATE : November 2, 2010 PROJECT: Orphan Residence, 19 Highland Avenue/S-03-49, ND -03-01 Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES With review and approval by the Town , all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 2010) will be implemented to eliminated or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist's report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The reports recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study . Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a SO-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the 2 Monitoring Responsibility Timing Action Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval Monitoring Responsibility Timing Action Required as a Planning & Build ing During construction condition of Division , COD approval Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval Required as a Planning & Building Duri ng construction condition of Div ision, COD approval MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE: November 2, 2 010 PROJECT : Orphan Residence, 19 Highland Avenue/S-03-49, ND-03-01 submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted . Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.S(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant ar chaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions . GEOLOGY AND SOILS A design-level geotechnical investigation and final construction plans shall be completed and reviewed as specified by Geomatrix, Inc. (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for detailed recommendations). 3 Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval Required as a Engineering Div isio n, Bu ild i ng plan che ck condition of PPW and during approval construction This Page Intentionally Left Blank ( RESOLUTION 2001-128 RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN TIIB HR-2 Y2 ZONE. WHEREAS: ARCIDTECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-99-9 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-97-018 . PROPER1Y LOCATION: 19 IIlGHLAND AVENUE. PROPER1Y OWNER: ANGELO ORPHAN. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: MAURICE CAMARGO. A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on November 5, 2001, on an appeal by Maurice Camargo (applicant/appellant) from a decision-of the Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in conformance with State .and Town law. B . Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated October 30, 2001, along with subsequent reports a11d materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 4,252square foot, two story residence and a 559 square foot attached two car garage on a 1.02 acre parcel zoned HR-2Yz. The total floor area for the structure including the garage will be 4,811 square feet. D. The Planning Commission heard the application on February 28, 2001 and requested revisions to the design of the home. On May 22, 2001 and again on July 18, 2001, the applicant requested that the public meeting be continued to a later date. On July 18, 2001, the applicant voluntarily waived the Penn it Streamlining Act deadline by 90 days. The Planning Commission heard and denied the application on September 12, 2001. The Commission felt that the applicant did not meet the majority of the direction. E. Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion by denying a project that staff sent to the Commission requesting feedback rather than finaJ action, and that there is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Commission's meeting. F . The Planning Commission decision was correct. The appellant failed to provide sufficient additional new information to enable Council to envision how this project would change on remand . For example, the.appellant EX!ilBlI 6 failed to specify in any detail how the house would be redesigned. Rather, the appellant stated that a redesign would, as in the past, merely modify the design as currently proposed. The project site is very sensitive in that the potential building area is very limited. A significant redesign is necessary to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the hillside topography and vegetation, and that the structure is compatible with the neighboring structures in terms of mass and scale. TI1 e project would, therefore, be better served by a new application featuring an new design proposal. RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application is denied 2; The decision constitutes.a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10 .085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal law . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regi~lar meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, on the 19th day of November, 2001 by the following vote . COUNCIL ME'MBERS: AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski, Mayor Randy Attaway NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA a~ MAYO~ TOWN ~S GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Conceptual Development Advisory Committee --Commissioner Joanne Talesfore reported that the committee met today to review a 24-lot subdivision project on Oka Road and a dog club project on Los Gatos Boulevard. Chair John Bourgeois asked if the Oka Road project is one of the affordable housing overlay zones. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore commented that the Oka Road project is not one of the overlay zones or even considered in the Housing Element. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR * 1. Adopt proposed meeting schedule for 2011. Motion by Commissioner Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to approve Consent Item #I . Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS --NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 . 19 Highland Avenue. Architecture and Site Application S-03-49, Negative Declaration ND-03-1 . Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR-2 1/2. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a resuJt of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended . APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. Angelo Orphan. APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect. PROJECT PLANNER: Heather Bradley . Chair John Bourgeois opened the public hearing. Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report. John Lien, Architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked if the house gets closer to the road at one section. • Asked how old the driveway easement is and noted that the easement boxes in that property . Planning Commission Minutes Page2 December 8, 2010 John Lien • Commented that the distance of the house from the driveway ranges from 12 feet to 24 feet. Two issues they are dealing with are the stream setback requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the desire to maintain privacy. • Commented the driveway easement goes back to the 1970s. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked about where the excess fill will be placed . John Lien • Commented the wall and terrace is a waterproof concrete deck and the fill will go below the deck. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about the location for the installation of stone. John .Lien • Commented the stone will only be placed on the curving wall. Craig Sawyer • Commented he lives at 63 Highland A venue and believes that this design is a lot better than previous designs. • Commented the sewer line that runs down the driveway has to be continued in order to provide service to the subject address. That is his property and there is no easement agreement yet for that. • Commented the plans label the driveway as Highland A venue, but Highland A venue is on the right hand side of the fork. That is an important distinction when determining who pays for what. • Commented he is worried about road erosion because of the closeness of the home to the road. • Commented the use of t he driveway during construction is a concern due to the narrowness of the driveway and the large equipment. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that the Commission does not have~urisdiction over all of Mr. Sawyer's concerns and asked if he has had any conversations with the property owner regarding the driveway . Craig Sawyer • Commented he has not had any conversations with the owner. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked for clarification regarding the driveway. Craig Sawyer • Commented that where the road splits on the left, it is a private driveway. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 8, 2010 Roger SmuUen • Commented he lives at 25 Highland Avenue. • Commented he has concerns regarding road erosion. He read a 1998 Jetter from Marian Stoops, past property owner at 15 Highland Avenue, expressing concerns regarding any changes that will affect the flow of the creek and the narrowness of the driveway. John Lien • Commented that a sewer line will be brought to this property and noted that Mr. Sawyer may be interested in connecting to the new sewer line . • Commented that they are as interested as the neighbors in addressing any erosion problems. Road erosion issues have been discussed. • Commented that after working for six years, they comply with all the requirements imposed on this project. • Commented that if the Commission feels it cannot approve the project as presented, he would appreciate it if the Commission would deny it. Commission Questions: • Asked how the construction trucks will get up the driveway. • Asked about the process of building the driveway . • Asked for more information regarding the exceptions to the Least Restri ctive Development Area (LRDA), the maximum cut and fill limits, and the height of the retaining walls . • Asked if they considered having the home within the LRDA space rather than the deck area. • Asked what percentage of the home is outside of the LRDA. • Asked about the stone finish on the wall and if stone was considered on the house itself. • Asked about the color of the roof and the house. • Asked about the east deck on Sheet 1. John Lien, responded to Commission Questions: • Commented the construction trucks will enter the driveway at the end of Highland A venue before it splits. Access will be almost immediately after leaving Jackson A venue . The narrow driveway going uphill is never entered. • Referenced Sheet 1 of the plans regarding driveway construction. • Referenced Sheet 2D with refer ence to the LRDA and commented that there is hardly enough room to make a functional floor plan if they were to stay within the LRDA. Sheet 6 provides a breakdown of the grading quantities for the cut and fill depths . Of the one-and-one-quarter acres , there is a total of 23 square feet of wall area exceeding the five-foot retaining wall height. • Commented the only outdoor living areas are on flat terraces rather than any footprints outside of the house, creating useable outdoor living area away from th e dri veway side of the house for privacy. • Commented that 35 to 40 percent of the house is outside of the LRDA. • Commented that it is a simple house and do es not believe stone would be appropriate on the house. • Commented the plaster wall color is taupe , the first floor recessed porches are ochre, and the roof is terra cotta. Planning Commission Minutes Page4 December 8, 2010 • Commented that the terrace is 20 feet below and 40 feet away from the driveway at the east end of the house. Chair John Bourgeois closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. He thanked Mr. Lien for the design analysis report presented to the Commission. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented this is a difficult lot and the house is not extremely large. The design is very good under the circumstances. His only comment would be to make the house smaller, but he is not suggesting that . Outside of making the house significantly smaller, there is not much more that can be done to the design. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented that he concurs with Commissioner O'Donnell that the design is as good as it can be regarding the constraints. Chair J ohn Bourgeois • Commented that he likes the design and believes the design and size is compatible with the neighborhood but he is not sure it is compatible with the lot. Apart from a significant redesign, nothing will make a difference on the design. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Clarified that the owner has a legal right to build a house on the lot and the Commission does not have the right to determine whether or not a house is built on the Jot. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked staff about tree impacts and mitigation. Planning Manager Sandy Baily • Commented the tree mitigation goes to a fund and the Parks and Public Works Department determines the location of replacement trees for streets and parks. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Charles Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-03-49 and Negative Declaration ND- 03-1 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 5 of staff report dated December 8, 2010. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 4 of staff report dated December 8, 2010. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that she will support the motion and stated that while she is hesitant to have buildings outside of the LRDA, this is an appropriate design given the constraints of the site . Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented she agrees with Vice Chair Sayoc's comments and reluctantly supports the motion. She would h ave preferred that less of the house was outside of the LRDA but does appreciate that there will not be a Jot of movement of dirt off of the site. She does not want Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 8, 20 10 her vote to construe that future homes can go outside of the LRDA and that this vote is based on this particular lot. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented she does not view this as a hillside house, but believes it is in the best site possible. She is disappointed it does not have more natural features included. It could have had some design elements incorporated that would have mimicked the surrounding homes and the stones in the area. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights . 3 . 15928 Union Avenue -Parcel 2 . Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 . Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three-lot subdivision on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 527-42-008 . PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T .H.I.S. Design. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Dav is. Chair John Bourgeois opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked about Council 's direction to the applicant regarding neighborhood compatibility . • Asked about the immediate neighborhood. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that, rather than size, the Council talked about massing, lowering the height and trying to shift the house away from the neighbors . • Commented the lot pattern does not line up so they looked at two houses to the right on Panorama Way, the approved house on Parcel 3 on the left along with houses on Leewood Court, and houses on Cambrian View Way. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about Council's concern regarding massing and if it was in reference to the roof or the lower core. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented there was no discussion regarding first or second floor, but rather the overall bulk and massing. The house is still similar in size. Council did not discuss square footage . Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked for clarification regarding house size with referenced to page 4 of the staff report . Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 8, 2010 Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the house is 3 ,039 square feet and the original plan was 3,089 square feet. Tony Jeans, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project and confirmed the corrections in the staff report regarding square footage and the garage size. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Referenced Council 's direction to lower the house to 22 feet and asked Mr. Jeans why he did not comply with the mandate. Tony Jeans • Commented that he was complying with the spirit of what the Council was asking and believes they achieved the Council's direction, but he will work with engineering to achieve the limit if the Commission requires it. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked why the height of the first floor could not be reduced by three inches . • Asked what area of the upstairs is at seven feet. Tony Jeans • Commented the top floor plate has already been reduced to seven feet. He would prefer to reduce the height by grading. • Commented the seven feet in the upstairs is in the master bedroom and bathroom with a vaulted ceiling. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked staff about the grading issue . Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that height is measured from the pad, so grading would not fix the problem . Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he believed this design could satisfy the direction of the Council and asked the Town Attorney for comment. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that Commissioner O'Donnell's interpretation could be adopted by the Commission. Stephanie Lyn ott • Commented that she lives at 15910 Union Avenue and that her concern is that in lowering the house it now extends more into her yard. The deck looks directl y down into her house and the design does not retain any privacy for her. Her views are gone. • Commented the staging area will be outside her bedroom area. She is requesting that fencing and screening trees be put in at the beginning of the project to protect her privacy. She would like the balcony put back to where it was or removed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 8, 20 10 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked Ms. Lynott for clarHication on the loss of her views. • Asked about her feeling on screening trees or other suggestions for privacy. Stephanie Lynott • Commented the back end of the house goes into her backyard blocking her corridor view. • Commented that there would be more privacy if the deck was not there. There was more privacy with the original design. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked about tree screening and how that will affect her views . Stephanie Lynott • Commented that screening trees take years or decades to grow. The back of her yard is parallel to Parcel 2 and she would like redwoods there. The view is gone but it can be softened by trees. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked if the three inches in height makes a difference to her. Stephanie Lynott • Commented that the three inches does not make any difference. She has given up on her view, she just wants her privacy protected . There will be a few years of construction ahead with this house and with Parcel I. The house is too big for the lot. She would like to see appropriate development. Geoff Mitchell • Commented that he lives at 115 Panorama Way and he has been battling this for 2-1 /2 years and believes it is an inappropriate house for this site . The references to Leewood Court and Cambrian View Way are deceptive. The house should fit into the architecture of the houses on Panorama Way. Town Codes protect the integrity of a neighborhood and he is stunned that the Town Council chose to overturn the Commission 's findings . • Asked the Commission to put a strong emphasis on neighborhood compatibility and send this proposal back for redesign to bring it down to a reasonable scale. Orv Buesing • Commented he lives at 15892 Union Avenue, next door to Ms. Lynott's home. • Commented the CounciPs decision was to reduce the size and it should be reduced and it should conform to the neighborhood . He considers square footage when he hears size. He believes the applicant has disregarded the Commission's and Council's direction regarding the design. The Council directed to do a green build and a staging plan. The staging plan was submitted but not presented . T ony Jeans • Commented that the staging area is at least 25 feet away from Ms. L ynott's house. A second fence could be added to add privacy during staging. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 8, 2010 • Referenced Ms. Lynott's concern regarding the master bedroom balcony which is 70 or 80 feet away. The consulting architect recommended moving it to this location. He would move the balcony around where it would be facing three large redwood trees on the adjacent parcel. • Commented he will adjust the three inches and the angle of the pitch if the Commission requires it. • Commented that massing was reduced by the new design per the Council's direction. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked about the fencing and screening and if Mr. Jeans intended to provide it at the onset. Tony Jeans • Commented that he believed there is a condition requiring the fencing and screening to be provided at the onset and they have agreed to it. They have also agreed to plant two trees on Ms. Lynott's side of the fence . The tree in the front will block Ms. Lynott's view of things she does not like to look at. A storm drain must be put in out to Union A venue . He suggested that the trees be put on Ms . Lynott's side of the fence so they can be planted right away for maximum growth. They are proposing screening of about 12 to 15 foot hedges rather than redwood trees. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked about adequate room for planting versus corridor access. Tony Jeans • Commented the corridor is 10 feet wide leaving room for trees and access. That area of the house does not have Ms. Lynott's main viewshed. • Commented that he would prefer that the Commission condition the application rather than send it back for redesign. Chair John Bourgeois closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked staff to confirm the conditions regarding fencing and screening trees. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that Condition #9 does require that the two trees on Ms. Lynott's property be planted at the start of construction. The remainder of the landscape screening would not be required up front. Construction activities make it difficult to plant additional trees at the onset, but can be added, if required . The condition on fencing states that the fencing along the north property line should be retained and if it needs to come down during construction, it must be replaced when grading and utility construction is completed. It would be a six-foot wood fence that would match what is currently in place. Commissioner Thomas O'D onnell • Asked what Council's direction was regarding bulk, massing and square footage. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 8, 2010 Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that Council was talking more about the massing, but square footage does play into it. The second story is substantially smaller, but the house does remain about the same size. The massing has been significantly improved. It has come down, but it goes out. The Council did not have a lot of discussion regarding floor area, but it is all interrelated. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about the resolution stating that the height shall be lowered by at least two feet and if the Commission is left with only two feet. • Asked staff if massing does affect square footage . Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the Commission could require a greater height reduction than two feet. The applicant presented to Council an option that would lower the height by two feet and that is where the two feet came into play . • Commented that square footage does affect massing. Chair John Bourgeois • Confirmed that the proposal tonight is not the two-foot reduction presented to Council. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Confirmed that Council was presented a schematic outline of the house with a two-foot reduction, and this proposal lowers the bulk of the house by three feet. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented the Commission must follow the direction of the Council's resolution and must consider the proposal in front of it. • Commented that "shall" is a mandate and the Council gave a mandate; the applicant chose not to comply. She has a problem endorsing this and the precedent it may be setting for future applicants. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he does not believe that the issue is "shall," or the three inches. The issue is size, massing and bulk. The design is good. The critical issue is what the neighborhood is. His issue is if the Commission does something again that does not take into consideration what the Council has already done. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that the applicant knew the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission regarding neighborhood compatibility . The applicant had an opportunity to design a house that took those concerns into consideration, but he did not go far enough to address the sensitivity. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented that she agrees with Commissioner Talesfore that the applicant came back with something that does not fit and the three inches is just one indication of that. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 December 8, 2010 Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked what the Council's definition of neighborhood was. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented that she recalled that two Council Members defined the neighborhood as Union Avenue and Panorama Way, and the other Council Members did not address it. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that the way she would interpret that is if the other three Council Members did not respond, they were possibly in agreement. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented that may not be a safe assumption. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked staff to comment on its understanding of neighborhood. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the houses on Leewood Court are more relevant to Parcel 3 because they abut Parcel 3. The houses on Panorama Way and Union Avenue immediately abut the property. The neighborhood is not well defined, but what is most relevant to Parcel 2 are the Union A venue house, Ms. Lynott's house, the Mitchell's house across the street, Mr. Mangano's house which is abutting , Parcel 3 and ultimately what goes in on Parcel 1. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented that he would have trouble assuming that the Council considered the Union Avenue and Panorama Way houses in relation to neighborhood compatibility when they approved a 3,400 square foot house. He is not clear on the Council's direction on what is a reasonable size house. The same would be true when the Commission gets to Parcel 1 . Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he agreed with Commissioner Erekson, and commented that the Commission struggles with the definition of neighborhood more than the Council does. What he has observed is that the line that the Commission draws gets moved. The question here is where the Council is on this. If the Council approved a 3,400 square foot house, it is hard to argue that it wanted this house to be less than 3,000 square feet. • Commented he does not believe the three inches was an insensitivity to the Council's mandate. The design worked better that way, but the applicant has offered to drop the three inches. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented his concern is neighborhood compatibility. A neighborhood is experienced where you walk or where you drive; not as the crow flies. He has trouble in defining it any other way than Panorama Way. He asked how the Commission could resolve the fact how the Council approved the 3,400 square foot house at the end of this cul-de-sac. The bulk and mass of the house is better from some vantage points, but it is broader and longer in others. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 December 8, 2010 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented she hopes that the Council referred the application to the Commission because it hoped the Commission would make the best decision . Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked Ms. Propp if there is any avenue to get other direction from the Council on this application. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that there is no mechanism to get further direction from Council and then have the matter sent back to the Commission. That is completely at the Council's discretion and purview to decide the matter on appeal. There are three options tonight. The first option would be to deny the project and the applicant could appeal it to Council and the Council could make a decision on its own without additional Commission input. Another option is to approve the project, then the neighbors would have the ability to appeal it to Council. The project could also be approved with additional conditions where any party could appeal it to Council for clarification. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Charles Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 subject to the conditions as note d in Exhibit 3 of staff report dated December 8, 2010, with the added condition of moving the balcony as suggested by Mr . Jeans. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated December 8, 2010. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked if the motion included the three inches. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that the three inches were not important to him so he did not include it, but he would amend the motion to include it if it is important to someone else and it would move this project along. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented he seconded the motion because he agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell that the three inches is not the material issue and that moving the balcony is a reasonable accommodation to be responsive. He does not believe that the direction from the Council is that the Commission should not approve a house of this size based on its approval of the larger house on the smaller parcel. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that even though the Council approved the house on Parcel 3, this is a different case. Motion failed 2 -4 with Chair John Bourgeois, Vice Chair M.arico Sayoc , Commissioner Marcia Jensen and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting, and Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 December 8, 2010 Motion by Vice Chair Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to deny Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 on the basis that it has not met the mass and height reduction as directed by Town Cou ncil. Based on the ambiguity regarding neighborhood compatjbility, she would rather move it to Council to make the final decision rather than hold up the project or send it back for redesign and have it come back to the Commission. She would hope that if the project is appealed , the suggestion to move the balcony would be included in the decision. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that if the application does go to Council, she hopes the Council will take into consideration the lingering privacy issues which she believes are significant. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented that she supports the motion and if it is appealed, her request of Counci l would echo Vice Chair Sayoc's. The Commission is struggling with a Jack of direction from Council. She would like Council to consider what the neighborhood is for determining neighborhood compatibility and if the Council views mass and size as interrelated. It would be helpful to get direction on those issues since the Commission will be reviewing a third house. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked the maker of the motion if neighborhood compatibility turns on mass or size or both. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that the two are related and she believes size dictates mass. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that, as seconder of the motion, she agrees with that. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked if there is a magic number size for this Parcel and how much of a reduction under the 3,400 square feet would have made it okay. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that she defines mass by walking the neighborhood, and as she walked down the street, the one-story homes that are in the area range from 1,500-2,300 square feet, then it jumps to 3,000 square feet. That, a long with the way it looks on the cul-de-sac, is her definition of mass . Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he hopes that Council will get into this discussion and that the neighborhood will be defined. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 December 8, 20 I 0 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that in this particular case you have to consider that this is a unique neighborhood and how this project relates to the houses that are closest to it on Panorama Way and also the neighbors that are to the side of them on other streets. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented that he will support the motion to deny mainly because of the question of neighborhood compatibility. He would have trouble making a finding that it is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell dissenting and Commissioner Phil Micciche absent . Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS --NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development a. Planning Manager Sandy Baily reported that the Town Council approved amending the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures to allow the Commission to change the appointment date of the Chair and Vice Chair from the second meeting in February to any meeting in January. Chair John Bourgeois confirmed with Ms. Baily that they needed to make a decision on that tonight. Planning Manager Sandy Baily stated that the appointment of the new Chair and Vice Chair would be agendized for the next Planning Commission meeting. b. Chair John Bourgeois asked if the Council had a discussion about removing subcommittee authority from the Planning Commission to the Council. Planning Manager Sandy Baily commented that the Council did not approve that. 5. Commission Matters a. Chair John Bourgeois commented that this is officially Commissioner Phil Micciche's last meeting of the Planning Commission after 12 years. The Planning Commission appreciates his service to the Town, his humor, his pragmatic nature , and his cooking. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell commented that Phil is a larger than life person and that he will miss him. He is an extraordinary person, and a fine Commissioner. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 December 8, 2010 This Page /11tentio11ally Left Blank Februa..ry 24, 2016 Ms. Marni Moseley Community Development Department T own of Los Gatos 110 E. Matti Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 19 Highland Avenue Dear Marni: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the cbwings, and have previously visited the site for an application review in 2006 for a home on this parcel. My comments and recommendations are as follows : Neighborhood. Context The site is located on a very narrow road serving this parcel and one other nearby. The site slopes down away from the road and is heavily wooded. A photogn.phs of the site Wren at the west end of the site near the proposed new access driveway is shown on the fol- lowing page. ~ ~~ 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE • SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 .EXHIBIT 8 TEL: 415 .331.3795 CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET This Page Intentionally Left Blank • t .-. ( ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 SECTION 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 EXHIBIT A B TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE IN"TRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 Assignment ...................................................................... I Site Description ............................. : . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .................................. 2 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE IMP ACTS ....................... 4 RECOI\DmNDATIONS ................................................... 6 Design Guidelines ..................................... ; ....................... 6 Protection Measures Before and During Development .................. 9 EXHIBITS TITLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SITE MAPS (three sheets) ·. ( David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Assignment I have been retained by the Town· of Los Gatos Community Development Department to re"iew the potential tree impacts associated with constructing the proposed residence on a vacant lot at 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos (project titled "Orphan Residence"). This report presents my analysis and ree<;>mmendations . Trees inventoried for this report include those defined as being "protected"1. and located in proximity to the proposed development, to include trees situated on the subject site, as well as those overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. Plans reviewed for this report include the set of plans by John Lien Architect, stamp dated January 29, 2010 (to my understanding, the project design remains the same as presented in the set of plans reviewed for my previous report dated October 10/26/09). The trees' approximate locations and numbers are presented on Sheet T3~ as well as on three site maps in Exhibit B (the maps are copies of Sheet 1, dated 9/31/04, from an earlier design). 1.l Site Description The subj~ct site is an undeveloped lot on fairly steep terrain. It slopes sharply downhill from Highland A venue, and flattens near a creek that flows through nearly the entire length of the property. As of more recently, extensive grading or soil repair work was performed along the creek channel. The site is forested, and contains a relatively significant amount of large, evergreen trees that provide year-round shade over most of the property. The tree population is rather dense and dominated with native specimens, predominantly oaks and bays. There is a grove of large blue gum eucalyptus at the property's western section. At the time the trees' conditions were evaluated, most of the site was blanketed with a dense and deep layer of ivy that covered the trees ' lower trunks , a situation that inhibits viewing any potential structural defects or indicators within the obStructed areas. 1 Pursuant to Section 29.10.0960 of the Town's Municipal Code, "protected trees" have a trunk with a diameter of four inches and greater measured at three fet;lt above grade. Fruit· or nut-bearing trees with trunks less than 18 inches. in diameter are exempt (Section 29.10.0970). 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 1of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( David L. Babby, Registered Con,mlting Arborist February 15, 2010 3.0 SlJITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a "high," ''moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring their p.hysiolc~ical hea!th, structural integrity, location, size and specie type . These ratings and applicable tree numbers are presented below. Note that ilie "high" category comprises 10 trees (or 15%), the ''moderate" category 36 trees (or 53%), and the "low" category 22 trees (or 32%). High: Applies to trees #8, 11, 21 , 22, 25, 33, 36, 49 , 53 and 56. These trees appear in good health, have seemingly stable structures, and have the likely potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. They are typically the most suitable for retention .and protection. M oderat e: Applies to trees #2, 7, 9, 12-~5, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 45, 48, 50-52, 57-63, 67 and 68 . These trees contribute to the site, but not at seemingly significant levels. Their longevity and contributio~ is less than those of high suitability, and more :frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. Also, they are worthy of protection, however, not at the expense of major design revisions. Low: Applies to trees #1, 3-6, 10, 16, 19, 28" 38, 39, 41-44, 46, 47, 54, 55 and 64-66. These trees provide mfuor contribution to the property, present a significant risk to the site, and/or are in poor, dead or dying condition. In many instances, the removal of these trees would improve site safety as they are predisposed to decline and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 3of12 Towri of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 4.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE IMP ACTS By implementation of the proposed design, the following 29 trees (or 43% of the total) would either be removed or considered a loss (regardless if retained or removed) due to being [1] in direct conflict, [2] indicated for removal on Sheet 2, and/or [3] subjected to such severe impacts that their loss is anticipated: #3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21 , 22 , 24-28, 30, 37-40, 60-62, 64 and 68. Information regarding these 29 trees is as follows: 1. Those in direct conflict include the following 20 trees: #3, 4, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 24- 27, 37-40, 60, 61, 64 and 68. Of these, tree #25 is highly worthy of retention~ however, its retention does not seem feasible as _major design revisions would be necessary to achieve a minimum setback from its trunk of at least nine feet. 2. In addition to the 20 trees listed above, there are an additional five trees indicated on Sheet T3 to be removed; they include #5-7, 28 and 62. 3 .. There are an additional four trees planned for retention, but would ptherwise be subjected to such severe impacts that their premature decline and instability would result, and they would become a serious safety concern to persons and property below; they include #8, 21, 22 and 30. Information and recommendations regarding these trees are as follows: a Tree #8 is a 14-inch diameter coast live oak that would be severely impacted during construction of the proposed driveway . The plans show its trunk to be within a few feet of the driveway's retaining wall. To facilitate construction of the wall, overcut is expected, and would result in root loss within inches from trunk. As roots anchoring this tree can be found within the depth requiring excavation, the tree's stability and longevity will be subjected to instability and premature decline. b. Trees #21 and 22 are sizeab_le oaks (19-and IS-inch . trunk diameters, respectively) situated extremely close to the future staircase. . When considering overcut, root loss is expected to occur within one to two feet from I their trunks, and as such, they will be predisposed to uprooting and decline . c . Tree #30 will be adversely impacted by installing the proposed dissipater (labeled on Sheet T3 as "B"). To avoid significantly impacting this and other 19 Highla"l)d Avenue, Los Gatos Page 4of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ,,- 1 David L . Babby, Registered Consulting Arbori,n I~-; a I February 15, 2010 trees to be retained, the dissipater and any drain lines should be established beyond the trees' canopies. I recommend trees #10 and 46 are also scheduled for removal. Tree ff-10 is a small, dying coast live oak with a trunk diameter of seven inches. Tree #46 is a moderately-sized bay tree (multiple trunks of 15 and 8 inches in diameter) with root rot and internal decay, a situation that· can result in the entire tree fiilling. Note that I did not detect the presence of Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorom) within or immediately surrounding the site. However, due to the site . being populated predominantly by California bays and coast live oaks, and to reduce the potential for infection, I recommend that the property owner considers developing a comprehensive management strategy with a consulting arborist (either the Town's or one hired directly by the property owner). Facets of the strategy may include a combination of removing specific California bay trees in close proximity to valuable and more dominant coast live oaks, treating the bay stumJ>s with an herbicide, and applying chemicals to the trunks of valuable oaks. Prior to implementing the removal of any bays regulated by Town Code, I recommend-the strategy (presented in a report) is reviewed and approved by the Town. Around the time of October and November 2009 (during the significant storm event), grading activity occurred along the section of creek at the east side of the property, seemingly for creekside repair apd/or flood damage control. This type of work will have impacted the roots of surrounding trees, although my cursory evaluatfon did not reveal the impacts to be significant. The proposed underground WJtility trench (as shown on Sheet 1) will conflict with four large oaks located on the neighboring western property. To avoid jeopardizing those trees, the section of line beneath the canopies must be directionally bored by at least four feet below grade; additional recommendations are provided in Section 5 .1 of this report. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 5of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 All other trees not mentioned in this section will potentially be adequately protected, provided the recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code provisions mitigation for the removal of trees unless ''the tree is dead or a hazardous condition exists .... " Subsequently, mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of all removed trees except for #10 (nearly dead), 28 (dead) and 46 (extensive decay). I also recommend mitigation apply to trees that will be severely impacted and predisposed to premature decline and instability. Please refer to Section 5.1, item 11 , for further details. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section are based . on plans reviewed, and serve as guidelines for avoiding or mitigating impacts to the trees being retained and removed. They should be carefully followed throughout the development process, and are subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans. 5.1 Design Guidelines 1. This report should replace the report currently shown on Sheets T-1 and T-2 (the map section is the same and can remain). 2. The maps on Sheets T3 and 6, and the graphic bars on Sheets 2A, 2B, 2D and 6 are not to scale and should be adjusted accordingly. 3 . At the bottom center of Sheet T3, the rectangular box should be modified to omit discus·s of the 55 trees mentioned for either removal or optional removal . 4 . Recommendations presented in Section 4 .0 of this report should also be followed. 19 Highland Ave nue, Los Gatos Page 6of12 Tow n of Los Gatos Community Development Departm ent _,.- ( David L. Bewby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 5. The proposed dissipater labeled as ''B" on Sheet T3 must be moved beyond canopies of retained trees (or omitted from the design). Additionally, the anticipated locations of drain lines connecting to the dissipaters should also be shown, and established outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. 6. Due to the amount of .significant trees aiong the proposed route of the underground utility trench," the applicable plans shall specify that the utilities will be directionally- bored by at least four feet below existing soil grade; the ground above any tunnel must remain undisturbed; and access pits and any above-ground infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters and vaults) must be established beyond the trees' canopies, unless approved and pre-determined on-site with the Town's consulting and/or client's project arborist. 7 . Underground utilities and services should be established beyond a TPZ. Where this is not feasible, the section of line(s) within the TPZ should be tunneled or directionally-bored by at least four feet below existing grade; 8. The home design must not require the.removal of significant branches from trees that would otherwise be.planned for retention and protection. 9. The drainage design for the project, inc.:Iuding downspouts, must not require water being discharged beneath or towards the canopies of retained trees. The exception to this is where water is discharged directly into the existing channel. 10. The construction of an approved retaining wall beneath a tree's canopy should adhere to the following. guidelines: a. If the .wall is supporting fill, a post and above-grade beam design should be employed, in which no soil is excavated or trenched between the posts (i.e. a no-dig design except vertically for the posts). b . If the wall i s supporting existing grade, overcut bey ond the wall should not exceed 24 inches (shoring will be necessary to achieve this). 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 7of12 Town of Los Gatos Com munity-Development Department ( /''' i David L . Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 11. Except for trees # 10 (if removed), 28 and 46, mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of trees removed, and should also apply to trees determined by the "project arborist" (~ Section 5.2) to have been sev erely impacted and subject to premature decline and/or instability. Per Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code, this shall be determined by the Parks and Public Works Department and all new trees shall be planted prior to final inspection. They must be double-staked with rub~er tree ties and all forms of irrigation shall be of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 12 . The future landscape plans should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to approval. 13. The landscape design should incorporate the following guidelin.es: a. Turf should be avoided beneath an oak tree 's canopy; if necessary, it should be established a minimwn distance from an oak's trunk of seven times its diamet~r. Any plant material instaUed beneath an oak's canopy should be highly drought-tolerant, limited in amount (such as no more than 2-0-percent of the canopy area), be at leas~ five to ten feet from the trunk. b . Within the setback, I suggest a four-inch ~ayer of coarse wood chips or other high-quality mulch is used as ground cover (no gorilla hair, bark or rock/stone). Black plastic or other synthetic ground cover should be avoided. Mulch should be placed no closer than 12 inches from a tree's trunk. c. Irrigation can, .overtime, adversely impact the oaks and should be avoided. Irrigation for any new plant material beneath their canopies should be a ·Jow- volume, drip-type system that is appJied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week), and temporary (such as no more than three years). Irrigation should not strike w ithin 12 to 24 inches from the trunks of other trees . d . Trenching for irrigation or lighting should be established beyond the trees' canopies. If any are necessary, they should be in a radial direction to the trunks, and established no closer than three times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this is not possible, the lines c~ be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page8of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department [,.... ' ,. I l David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Felmlary 15, 2010 e. Stones or mulch should not be pla9ed ag~st the trunks of retained or new trees. Plastic ground cover should be avoided beneath canopies. f. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. g . Bender board or other edging-material proposed beneath th~ canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 5.2 Protection Measures before and during Development 14. Due to the close proximity of activities among trees, an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) -to be named the ''project arborist" - should be retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures, as well as prepare a comprehensive "final tree preservation report" following completion of the construction phase (per Sec. 29 .10.10000 of the Town Code); a copy should be submitted to the Town. Any necessary follow-up visits suggested by the arborist should also occur. 15. At least two weeks prior to any grading or site clearing work. a pre-construction meetmg shall be held on-site with the project arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures, tree ~ovals, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, mulching, watering and other items regarding mitigation. Prior to this meeting; the approved limits of grading should be staked, and the approved removals marked. 16. Tree protective fencing sha11 be inStalled prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. Its precise location must be detennined and its placement approved by the project arborist (in the fonn of a letter submitted to the Town) prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link moi.inted on eight-foot tall, tw~-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than I 0 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction \llltil final inspection. Pleas~ note fencing beneath a tree's canopy should be established no more than two feet from a retaining w all and driveway, and six feet from the home's foundatio'l. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 9of 12 Tawn of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 17. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehiele operation and parking. 18 . The following shall be displayed on 8.5-by 11-itich signs (ini.nimum) and attached to ·the fencing every 50 feet on the side facing construction activities: "Warning -Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty acc ording to Town Code 29.10.1025 ." These signs shall be posted prior to grading cominencing (essentially, at the same time tree fencing is erected). 19. Prior to commencing demolition, I recommend a five-inch lay~r of coarse wood chips from a tree service company is manually spread within the designated fenced ·areas. The wood chips must not be placed against the tr~es' trunks and shall remain throughout construction. 20. Prior to heavy equipment being used to excavate soil for the home, Ql'iveway and retaining walls, a one-foot wide, three-foot deep trench (or to the required depth, whichever is less) shall be manually dug where beneath a tree 's canopy. The trench should be dug where excavation would occur closest to the trunks, and exposed roots cleanly severed on the tree side of the soil cut. Roots encountered w ith diameters of two inches and greater should be treated accordllig to the project arborist. 21 . Except as described in the recommendation above, any approved digging or trenching beneath a canopy shall be manually performed. In the event roots of two inches and greater are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted for appropriate action (roots of this size should remain intact and not be damaged); 22. Soil approved for excavation beneath a canopy should be piled away from and beyond a canopy. Where this is not practical, the soil can be placed on a tarp, plywood or mulch. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page JO of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( ( t David L . Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 23. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. 24. Any approved activity required beneath a tree's canopy (within and beyond the designated fenced areas) must be performed under the direction of the project arborist. The project arborist should also be retained to perfon11 monthly site visits for ens_uring compliance to tree protection measures. 25. Any existing, .unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 26. Each recommendation presented within Section 5.1 of this report and applic~ble to the grading, construction and landscaping of the site shall .abo be followed. 27. All ivy shall be cleared off and at least two feet from the trunks of retained trees. The removal of ivy, plants or shrubs beneath the canopy of a retained tree should be manually performed with great care taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Large shrubs beneath the canopies of retained trees and beyond the proposed home footprint should be cut to grade. 28. Supplemental water shall be provided to the retained trees prior to construction or demolition; the project arborist ~ determine the specific trees, amounts of water and application m~ods. 29: All tree pruning shall be performed under the direction of the project arborist, in accordance with the_ most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should also carry General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and shall abide by ANSI Z133.l-2006 (Safety Operations). All pruning should be limited to the removal of deadwood 2=1 in diameter; heavy limb weight reduction; and clearance for the home, vehicle~ and equipment. · 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 11of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( / David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arbarist February 15, 2010 EXHIBIT A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Tawn of Los Gatos Community Development Department l David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos EXHIBIT B: SITE MAPS (thi-ee sheets) Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ,I.: February 15, 2010 ,,.... .. -·--....__ / Not to Scale ff N 19 HIGH .LAND AVENUE (trees #1thru14 ) - .... : . '•' ·-; --·-· -..... , ..... ,~ ....... ,_ - t tO sca\e NO --· ·-"'-·· --·-·-... . • ( ( 1-9 HIGHLAND AVENUE (trees #42 thru 53) -------CURRENT APPtJCATION V. PREVIOl DESIGN 'BY MAiJRICll cAMA&GO/ . ARCHITECT: . SETBACI< INCREASED ~OM 21' TO • -88.2 Not to Scale ff N - 19 Hig~land Avenue -PROJECT D~TA ~- EXISTING PROPOSED ftEQUIREOI CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED Zoning district HR-2 1/2 same - Land use vacant Single-family - General Plan Designation hillside residential same - Lot size $ Gross square feet 45,240 same 40,000 sq. ft. minimum $ Net square feet 19,779 same - Exterior materials: $ siding N/A Cedar siding and - smooth stucco $ trim NIA none - $ windows N/A Fiberglass clad wood - $ roofing N/A Standing Seam metal - Building floor area: $ first floor N/A 2,571 $ second floor NIA 1,786 4,700 sq. ft. maximum $ garage N/A 720 400 sq. ft. exemption $ cellar NIA NIA exempt '· $ accessory structure(s) NIA N/A included in FAR $ total (excluding cellar) NIA 5,077 5,100 sq . ft . maximum Setbacks (ft.): $ front -190' 30 feet minimum $ rear -60' 25 feet minimum $ side -24' 20 feet minimum $ side -20' 20 feet minimum Average slope (%) 28.76 same - Maximum height(~.) 25'/35' 25'/35' 25 feet maximum Building coverage {%) no maximum Parking garage spaces -3 four spaces minimum in uncovered spaces 3 addition to two in garage - Sewer or septic sewer - N :IDEVIMomilA&SI 19 Highl llJld \project data. wpd EXHIBIT 1 O This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 22, 2016 Marni Moseley Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main·Street Los Gatos, California 95030 RE: 19 Highland Avenue Dear Marni, {~.. . I n.nthony J. Badame, MIJ DISEASES AND SURGERY OF THE SKIN 2025 Forest Avenue, Suite 9 SanJose,CA 95128 (408)297-4200 FAX(408)297-2503 www.badame.com Please review our assessment of the proposed development on 19 Highland Avenue. RECEIVED MAR .2 4.2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS . PLANNING DIVISION · We will not be able to attend the March 29th meeting due to constraints beyond our control. However, we would like our concerns addressed, an.d we are very much interested in your comments. If you have any questions or would like to speak with us for any reason, our contact information is shown below. Sincerely, ~C\~ ~4.~A1,~ Anthony and Melissa Badame 1 Highland Avenue Melissa cell/email: (408)828-0284/mf;!lissa@badame.eom Anthony email: anthony@badame.com :EXHIBIT 1 1 ( ( Site Plan Standards and Guidelines 1. Building sites should ~e located where they will have the least impact on adjacent properties and respect the privacy, natural ventilation and light, and views of neighboring homes. 2. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoor areas are placed to maintain privacy. 3. Relate building front and side setbacks to those on adjacent parcels 4. On adjoining properties, driveways should be spaced a minimum of 20 feet apart or located immediately adjacent to each other. 5. Shared driveways serving more than one lot are encouraged as a means of reducing grading and impervious surfaces. 6. . .. driveways... They should not greatly alter the physical and visual character of the hillside ... by defining wide straight alignments. 7. Driveways that serve mare than one parcel are encouraged as a method of reducing unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance. 8. Building sites shall be set back an appropriate distance from riparian corridors 1S ( Concerns 1. Parcel is long and rectangular. Adjacent parcels on either are similar in shape. The long border {south) facing the street would appear to represent t he front while the shorter borders (east/west) perpendicular to the street would represent the sides. However, plan documents depict the long boiders as the sides, and the shorter borders as the front and rear. By defining the borders as depicted in the plans, several concerns are raised: The building south face encroaches the street to -15 feet which is dramatically clos~r than the code allowed front setback of 30 feet. The .accompanyi ng retaining wall is even closer. This magnifies the mass and scale of the house which is already large to begin with {5100 sf). A side yard facade with a side yard retaining wall becomes the focal side from the street and consequently lacks a strong street presence. By extrapolation, the parcel to the right would seem to inherit the same setbacks causing issues with its neighboring parcels, especially 25 Highland. Further, would the parcel to the left have its setbacks redefined causing issues with remodelling or other development? The proposed house's great room with expansive glass accordion doors opens up to the plan's rear yard which directly faces the side yard of the adjacent parcel. This arrangement raises privacy Issues. The orderly harmony of house orientations as one travels down the street is compromised. In general, was the setback orientation manipulated to shoehorn this very large home into the parcel? 2S ( ( 2. Driveway and turnaround are substantial. The proposed driveway defines a long, wide straight alignment contrary to guideline recommendations. The proposed long driveway very closely parallels the adjacent driveway/street. Further compounding this crowding is the eventual recut of 1 Highland's driveway which is mandated by the fire marshal!. As a result, three long driveways will parallel each other for a significant distance creating a highly undesirable look, i.e. a three lane highway cutting through the bucolic woods. The turnaround and driveway, which will be elevated with retaining walls on the north side, may appear to give the illusion of a helipad and long landing strip. Has a documented effort been made to share the driveway and turnaround of 25 Highland in order to mitigate the impact of grading and impervious surfaces? 3. House appears precariously close to the creek. What criteria were utilized to determine an appropriate setback for the riparian corridor and were these criteria applied uniformly throughout the entire length of the parcel? Was an environmental study performed? 4. Is the site specific constraints analysis available for review regarding the establishment of the LRDA? What deviations from the HDS&G were allowed to establish the LRDA? 3S Grading and Drainage Plan Standards and Guidelines 1. . .. elimination of retaining walls is a priority. 2. Retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas. The limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading. 3. Retaining wa/Js should blend with the natural topography, follow existing contours, and be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. Retaining walls should not run In s straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting pocket to break up the long flat horizontal surface. 4. . .. blend the wall with the natural hillside environment and to promote a rural character. 5. Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet. 6. Terraced retaining walls should be separated by at least three feet and include appropriate landscaping. 7. The building site should be located to minimize grading. 8. Buildings shall be designed to conform to the natural topography of the site 1GD ,r- 1 Concerns 1. Heavy use of retain ing walls are employed to create a large flat building pad, driveway, turnaround, and yard area. Nearly the entire house, lengthy driveway, and turnaround are encircled with retaining walls. Such heavy use of retaining walls contradicts a building design which conforms to the natural topography of the site. 2. A 62.5 foot straight continuous retain ing wall traverses nearly parallel to and close to the street. 3. Type of interlocking block is not specified. Thi s should be specified to ascertain if it will blend with the natural hillside environment and promote a rural character. 4. Retaining wall net height at area labelled "rear yard" is 6 feet. (Terraced flat portion of wall is a walkway, not landscape.) 5. House foundation/retaining wall, which is contiguous with aforementioned retaining wall, soars to 10 feet. 6. -18,000 cubic feet of dirt will be moved . 2GD ( (,,.. Tree Inventory Plan Standards and Gui deli nes 1. Existing natural features shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible and integrated Into the development project 2. . .. preservation of trees ... is a priority. 3. Existing trees shall be preserved and protected in compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Regulations and any additional tree protection specifications adopted by the Town . 4 . If a tree is proposed for removal, or if the Town determines that a tree may not survive construction, information on the visual impact of the removal as well as the impact on adjoining trees shall be submitted with plans. Concerns 1. 16 mature trees are proposed to be removed. An additional 16 trees have been removed already from the previous failed project. Consequently, a total of 32 trees will be destroyed to build this house. 2. What information was provided on the visual impact of the removal? 1TI Architecture Standards and Guidelines 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment 2. respectful of the rural character of the hillsides 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors 4. Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out 5. Tradllional neighborhoods... Johnson Avenue; and near the southern end of Los Gatos Boulevard ... Traditional home designs of varying styles 6. Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood 7. Avoid selecting an architectural style which typically has roof pitches that are substantially different from others in the nearby neighborhood. 8. Utilize roof forms and pitches similar to those in the immediate neighborhood 9. Use materials that are consistent or compatible with the neighborhood 10. An all stucco house might seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but the predominant use of wood siding with some elements of stucco can often work · 11 . A variety of materials, textures, and architectural details ... should be used to add interest and to mitigate the visual Impact of large wall areas. Natural materials such as wood and stone will help soften the appearance of stucco and blend it with the natural setting 12. Homes will maintain a friendly presence to the street 13. Mitigate the impact of driveways on the streetscape 14. House entries shall be similar in orientation and scale to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. 1A 15. Relate building front and side setbacks to those on adjacent parcels 16. The maximum allowed height for homes in hillside areas shall be 25 feet 17. Avoid two story wall planes 18. Second stories should be stepped back so the difference in wall planes is visible from a distance 19. Massive, tall elements, such as ... turrets ... should be avoided 20. Avoid garages and carports that dominate a home's street frontage 21. Garages shall be subservient to entries 22. Umit the garage width to a maximum of 50 percent of the total facade width. 23. Set garages back from the front facade. 24. Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage facade 25. Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that de-emphasizes the garage doors. 26. Wood (garage) doors are encouraged. 27. If detached garages exist in the neighborhood, consider a detached garage at the rear of the lot to reduce the mass and scale of the house 28. Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume 29. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure ... shall not be more than four feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. 30. Three-story elevations are prohibited. 2A ( Concerns 1. Read Your Neighborhood Test: House to the left: Historic home built of wood and stone House to the right: Historic home built of wood and brick House to the front: Near-historic home built of wood and brick Proposed house: Contemporary architecture built predominantly of stucco with a paucity of natural materials. As designed, the proposed house does not appear to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, nor is it respectful of the rural character of the hillsides. 2. East Elevation labeled "front yard": Garage is set forward from front facade Garage door is all glass with mullions, not wood, and can be construed as having the appearance of a commercial firehouse door Garage width makes up -70% of front facade width. Garage doors are emphasized, not de-emphasized. Garage does not appear to be subservient to the entry. Was a detached garage considered given the fact that the neighborhood is replete with detached garages? House entry is not in similar orientation to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. Entry is a massive, tall, square turret meagerly mitigated by a small, low-sloped porch roof. Turret may appear to have the visual effect of a lighthouse with a small ground floor door and overpowering top windows which will cast a substantial amount of light at night. 3A Front facade soars to 35 feet violating the 25 foot limit. 3. West Elevation labeled wrear yard": Great room and integrated patio open up into the "rear yard· which faces the side property line of the adjacent property. This orientation not only generates a privacy concern with the adjacent neighbor, but also appears awkward from street view in that the "rear ya~" also faces the street. 4. North Elevation labeled "left side yard•: Center portion of house gives off the appearance, mass, and scale of a 3-story building. This contradicts the proscription of a 3-story elevation while also contradicting a building design which minimizes mass. bulk, and volume. Further, the height of this portion's finished floor appears more than four feet above the existing grade. 35 foot height 5. South Elevation labeled "right side yard·: Appearance is that of a side yard, but squarely faces the street and thus does not maintain a friendly presence to the street as would a typical front yard. -24 foot vertical stucco wall plates within 15 feet of street No appreciable setback of second story Certain windows appear haphazardly placed beyond the understood asymmetric placement seen in contemporary homes. Five diminutive windows. four of which are bathroom windows and one which is a closet window, face the street. Window styles and proportions vary widely thus effecting an overall lack of cohesiveness. 4A Varying directions of roof pitches appear confusing. Low...slope roof pitch of 2112 is dramatically lower than that seen in the nearby neighborhood. 5A References 1. Single and Two Family Residential Guidelines, Town of Los Gatos. Adopted by the Los Gatos Town Council, October 6, 2008. 2. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, Town of Los Gatos. Adopted by Council, January, 2004. 1R This Page Intentionally Left Blank DRCMinutes MIU'Ch 29, 2016 Page2 Required findings for CEQA: FINDINGS: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the ;site in 2009 and adopted by the Planmng Commissfon in 20 I 0. The proposed modifications to the previous project are in compliance with. the ertvitonmental analysis in 2009 and no .additional environmental review is required. The project will be condition~ to comply with the adopted mitigation monitonng and reporting plan from the :adopted MND. Complia'1ce witli llillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to located the residence away from the creek. This excep!ion was supported by the Planning Commission in 2010 . The project is otherwise in compliance with appltcable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a si~gle' family residence being de\leloped on an existing parcel. The propqscd development is consistent with the development criteria included in the.specific plan. CONSIDERATIONS: CoJ1sl.de.ratlons in review of Architecture & Site appli(ations: • As ~uir~ by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an archit~ture and site application were all ma4e iJi reviewing this project The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project is consistent with development on surrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials willbelp blend the new building into the site. There is limited visibility irito the site from suriOundmg hOmes and existing and proposed vegetation witl aid in scteening the new residence, arid outdoor spaees. 7. Tracy Staiger seconded, motion passed 3-0-1 , with Noal Grover absent. 8. Appeal rights were cited. OTHER BUSINESS NONE DRC Minutes March 29, 2016 Page3 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11: 15 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Committee is the following Tuesday. Marni Moseley, Associate Planner l) N:\DEV J>RC\Min 2016\3-29-16 Mins.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appeal of 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos CA; April 8, 2016 Justification of APPEAL of 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-0n by the Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding families 418/16 1. The project has received Inadequate environmental review. The project does not qualify for an exemption under CEQA because there are unusual circumstances applying to the project site, In that a) it is almost entirely within the floodplain of a seasonal aeek, and b) signtficant modifications have been made to the location of the creek without benefit of permits. The Los Gatos Planning staff has determined that all previous proposals for development on the site have not qualified for an exemption . Mitigations have been proposed as conditions of approval of this project. Projects that require mitigations do not qualify for an exemption from review under CEQA. • The appellants request that an Initial Study be prepared and circulated prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. 2. There are differing professlonal opinions regarding location of the stream-bed and top of bank, the value of the creek and adjacent vegetation, and the appropriate setbacks from the top.of bank. Significant grading has been done on the site to move the location on the aeek. The riparian vegetation along the aeek has been cleared frequently since the original development proposal. Planning Staff has stated that the minimal setback to the top of bank was appropriate given the compromised nature of the creek and the lack of riparian understory vegetation. • The appellarrts would like to have the opportunity to prepare an independent professional evaluation of the location and value of the creek and appropriate setbacks to the top of bank. • The appellants request the Planning Commission to require a robust mitigation planting plan to return the creek and the riparian buffer to its natural state. 3 . Input has not been received from any responsible (permitting) agencies. Planning Staff has indicated that notice of 1he project had been sent to ACOE, CA Fish and Wildlife, The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District but no response was received. An Initial Study must be _prepared and circulated to these agencies. • The appellants would like to contact the responsible agencies to gain their input on the project prior to consideration by the Planning Commission . 4 . The location of the development on the site maximizes perceived bulk and vlaual Impacts and I• ln~nslatent with the neighborhood. The required setbacks on the site have been determined by Planning Staff based on the creek location and the shape of the lot. This determination ts inconsistent with setbacks on neighboring properties and brings the project very close to the private road. • The appellants request a re-evaluation of the yard determination by the Planning Commission . 5 . The locatlon of the development on the alte is the result of the Improper r.eocatlon of the creek. Illegal grading was done to move the creek away from Alpine Rd and included significant grading to buttress one of the homes along Alpine Rd. The relocation of the creek appears to be the justification for the selection of the current building site as opposed to the original building site presented to the Town before the aeek re-location . The original building site would have avoided at least two issues of serious ooncern: the removal of even more trees than was necessary for building at the original site and the excessive height of the home given the ~erraln and constralnts of the new location. • The appellants request that any environmental review investigate the feasibility of reversing the illegal grading and returni ng the creek to its originaf location and condition, which would allow the house to be built on a flatter portion of the lot. Paae 1of3 / \ Appeal of 19 Highland Avenue, l..o& Gatos CA; April 8, 2016 6. The proposed project will result In the loss of approximately 50% of the trees on site, which Is lnconststent with the hillside guldellr:tes. 16 mature trees have already been removed to accommodate a previous proposal and an additional 16-17 mature trees are proposed to be removed for this proposal. The loss of the flrs116 trees has already resulted in the loss of significant screening between neighbors of the devek>pment. Removing additional mature trees will further reduce habitat and make the project that much more visible. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission require that the project be re-designed to prohibit the removal of any more mature healthy trees and that buffer zones are maintained around these trees to Insure ~r viability. 7. The development should not have been approved without resolutton Of discrepancies between the submitted tree removal plan and the actual tree removal plan. Prior to the public hearing. appellant Roberts discussed with the applicant her concerns that the tree removal plan Included, among other concerns, removal of Tree 30, a large, double-trunked oak at the property line between 78 Alpine and the site. ·The applicant (who had r~-tied the trees at the site to show which ones would be removed but had not red-tied Tree 30) stated that the plan was mistaken and that Tree 30 would not be removed. After consultation with his civil engineer, he provided appellant Roberts with a new plan, which, according to his explanation, would take Tree 30 off the tree removal list but would also add two new trees, Trees 8 and 27, to the removal list. The Development Review Committee was made aware Of the foregoing and should have delayed further proceedings until review, re--notificatlon of neighbors, and approval of the new and corrected tree removal plan by the Town Staff had been completed. • The &ppellants request the re-evaluation of the tree removaj plan, Correction of errors, and submission and review of an accurate final plan including for the retention and protection of Tree 30 (~ well as other mature healthy trees on the site as set forth In point 6). a. Significant limitations on the site make the maximum size of the home Inappropriate for the site. The property has more limitations (slope, creek, and mature tree coverage) than nearby homes, yet it is proposed to be significantly larger than any in the vicinity. The appelfant recognizes the right of the developer to build a house on this site but the house should be appropriately sized for the site. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to significantly reduce the size of the proposed house to flt the site limitations. 9. Th• project reads as a thre.story structure on Its approach from Highland Ave and from the creek aide hOmes along Alplne Road. The location cloee to the road further maximizes the bulk or the bulldlng from thla angle. ·An homes In the area read as one or two story structures and are visually unobtrusiw from the front. The height of this proposed house creates an overbearing presence along the road and isincompatible with the neighborhood and the site. The topographic map and the elevation drawings of the site have been modified from the original submittal to the Planning Department In response to Planning Staff review. It is not clear if the site was re-surveyed to justify the changes to the topographical map and this brings the accuracy of the existing story-poles and the actual finished height Into question. This also brings Into question the accuracy of the proposed grading quantities. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to redesign the home reduce the structure next to the street to one story and step the rest of the structure down the slope. similar to construction at 25 Highland Ave. • If the Planning Commission does not request that the project is redesigned, the appellants request that the PlannJng Commission direct the applicant to: 1) Provide the Ptannlng Staff with the most recent site survey 2) Provide Planning Staff with an updated grading plan that Is reflective of the revised topographic map p~r to consideration by the Planning Commission. Paae 2 of 3 Appeal of 19 Higtlland Avenue, Los Gatos CA; April 8, 2016 • If the Planning Commission does not request that the project is redesigned, the appellants request that the story-poles be recertified to confirm that they accurately reflect the location and revised finished height of the proposed structure. 10. The architecture of the proposal Is neither compatibl.e with the surrounding neighborhood nor respectful of the rural character of the hlllsldea • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to choose an architecture more In keeping with the historic homes in the neighborhood and more respectful of tbe rural character of the hillsides 11 . The design of the proposed project results In excessive grading on the site~ which Is Inconsistent whh the hlllalde guldeliries end wlll result In significant visual impacts. The fire turnaround, the long driveway and extensive retaining walls will require a dramatic mutation of the site from its natural state. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to confer with neighbors and the Town Fire Marshal to reduce visual and grading impacts of the fire turnaround. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to eliminate the long driveway and consider a detached garage or other method of access to the property. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to re-design the project to keep grading to a minimum, and respect all significant natural features so that the development blends visually with adjacent natural areas. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to re-design the project to minimize the use of retaining waUs. 12. T"-e project la Inconsistent with the Town of Los Gatos General Plan. The project is in conflict with several policies outlined in the Environmental and Sustainability Element regarding the value and desire to protect urban streams and wildlife corridors. • The appellants are requesting the Planning Commission re-evaluate the project for consistency with the Town General Plan. Paae 3 of3 .. { MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY11, 2016 The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, May 11, 2016, at_7:00 pm . MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chair Badame called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mary Badame, Vice Chair D. Michael Kane, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Melanie Hanssen. Commissioner Matthew Hudes Absent: Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Tom O'Donnell P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE · Commissioner Erekson led.the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. WRITTEN COMMU.NICATIONS Desk Item for Items 2 and 3 . REQµESTED CONTINUANCES ~ ITEM 2 Chair Badame indicated that she would recuse herself front participating in tbe public hearing for Item 2 due to a perceived conflict of interest with one of the four appellants. PUBLIC HEARING~ 2. 19 Highland &verwa . Arohltecture and Site Application S-15-077 APN 529-37-033 Property Owner/Applicant: Ed Pearson Appellant~: Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families Project Planner: Marni Moseley Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee. approving an Architecture and Site Application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2'.h . Vice Chair Kane opened the public hearing. Commission members asked questions of staff. Dede Smullen Commented that she represents the appellants. They were not c:onsultefj about the hearing date of May 25, and three of the four appellants are not available on that day. They would like to continue the hearing to June or later, but May 25 will not work. They want to speak to this application in a public hearing with .all the appellants present. Commission m~bers asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Bess Wiersema Commented that she is Ed Pearson's architect. May 25 is an important date for them, as they have several professional consultants scheduled for that date: arbotist, geotechnical expert, ecological consultant, land use attorney, and architect. A time delay would not be in the best EXHIBIT 1 4 interest of her client, because as more time goes by it will be more difficult to begin construction as they enter the future potential rainy season. Vice Chair Kane closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. · Commission members asked questions of staff. Commission members discussed the matter. Vice Chair Kane reopened the publlc input portion of the hearing. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Cindy McCormick Commented that she is the applicanf s fiancee. She pointed out the third page of the desk Item indicates that the planner had spoken with Ms. Smullen two weeks eartier regarding a hearing date and that the appellants knew about the May 25 hearing date. Commission members asked questions of Ms. McCormick. Bess Wiersema Commented that they have gone multiple rounds on the project. The· project has ·been properly noticed . They have six professional people that they were able to organize for the May 25 date and hope the appellant goup can do the ~me. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Wiersema. Ed Pearson Commented that they could make a June 8 meeting, but they could not guarantee if any of the professional consultants could be available, so he would have to take his chances on that -date. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Vice Chair Kane closed the public Input portion of the hearing a·nd returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION.: MQt(on by Commlssion~r Erakso~ t~ continu~. the public hearing for 19 Highland Avenue to the meeting of June 8, 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Hanssen. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. Chair Badame returned to the hearing. SU~COMMITTEE REPORTS . Historic Preservation ·committee. Vice Chair Kane -The 5111 /16 CDAC llleeting considered four matters: 135 Johnson Avenue 1692 Kennedy Road 112 Los Gatos Boulevard 125 Wheeler Avenue VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) None. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2of6 May 11, 2016 '· ( CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approva l of Minutes-April 27, 2016 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Erekson to approve adoption of the Consent Calen dar. Seconded by commissi oner Hanssen. VOTE: Motion passed 5-4. PUBUC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) 3. 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Conditional Use Permit Application U-16-003 APN.51045-014 Property Owner': Ronald M. Tate Applicant: Ballard Schools, Inc. Project Plann er; Jocelyn Puga Requesting approval for a Cond itional Use Permit to ·operate group cooking classes (Cucina Bambini) with beer and wine service and alternative use of parking on property zoned C-2 . Cha ir Bada me o pened the public hearing. Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked quest~ns of staff. Rick Ballard Commented .that Cucina Bambinl has been open at their current location for eight years and offers cooking classes for all ages. Over half Of their business Is. private p&rties ~nd _events. They _ excited about this location b,c&use of the parking, and because It is across the street from a tanners market. They have served beer and wine at their current location for three years and have had no incidents; -Beer and wine is essential tO their business and . 8H<>Ws them to do eorpc>rate events, adult dinner·parties, et cetera. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Sallard. John Mfl<'.t,,~do Commented ttiat he and the property owner are very t}appy with Cuc\na Bambini. He visited the current location and received positive feedback frorrt"neighbOring retailers. They ll"ke the id&a that the restaurant's program caters to children and are educational classes . They feel this is a proper fit for Los Gatos · as It is not a formula retail . They believe this use will be there long term and serve the community. Ro n Tate Commented that he has owned the property for 18 years.·He S&id his building needs destination businesses such as Cucina Bambini to bring in foot traffic, because the area does not get very much. Eight retail tenants in his building have failed due to lack of traffic . He and his employees park in the Toll House parking lot where he leases parking spaces; they do not park on the site or impact its parking at au. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Tate. Page 3of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11 , 2016 Lee Quintana Commented that there are growing trends, emerging spaces, changing spaces from retail uses to less intensive retail with just a little bit of retail, and alcohol with practically everything; the Planning Commission needs to consider these issues. Rick Ballard . Commented that his use complies with the calculations and allocations within the parking district for businesses . Four to one is what restaurants use, that is men appropriate for them. that is why he is comfortable with their parking calculations, because most people come to his venue in groups, just like going to a restaurant. Drastic changes to the parking or refusal of alcohol would change their business model and likely make it untenable for them. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Ballard. Chair Badame closed the public Input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. Commission members asked questions of staff. Commission members d1$CUSsed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Hanssen to approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-16-003 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated May 11, 2016, with the added conditions that the applicant shall inform customers of alternate parking options in town; staff shall be present when there is a non-employee instructor leading a cooking class; alcohol shall not be served at events that include children; 19/1 and the 34/2 shall be eliminated from the chart in Exhibit 5. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated May 11, 201a. The motion failed due to lack of a second. MOTION: Motion by Comrriissloner Hud" to incorpgrate the elements from Commissioner Hanssen's motion and add the following conditions: There shall be a three-month, six-month and annual review; the numbers mentioned in the table shall be . maximum numbers in the Conditional Use Permit; the maximums shall be 16 students ~nd 2 instructors for daytime Lise, and 31 students and ·3 instructors for the eVeriing -and weeke,,q!i, anq a refere~ to the . ratio ch~rt; language shall be added to use the term "instructors and staff,• or, ·instructors/staff,· and •students and customers,· or, •students/customers"; and Cucina Bambini staff shall be present when a guest chef is teaching a class. Commission members asked questions of staff. Vice Chair Kane requested the motion be amended to include as a co.ndition that no alcohol service sh~ll be permitted In the drop-in space. The maker of the moti~n did not accept ttie amendment to the motion. Seconded by Vice Chair Kane. Commission members discussed the matter. Page 4of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2016 ( Commission members asked questions of staff. 4. VOTE: Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Erekson opposing. 101. 111. and 121 Albright Way Architecture and Site Application S-16-013 APNs 424-31-068, 424-32-079 and 424-32-082 Property Owner: LG Business Park Building 3 LLC, LG Business Park Building 4 LLC, and Wealthcap Los Gatos 131 Albright Applicant: James Abeyta, Form 4 Architecture Project Planner: Jocelyn Puga iii~·. ' . i • , .. Requesting approval to construct two elevated pedestrian bridges connecting the third ·1evels of Buildings 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 on property zoned Albright Specific Plan. - Chair Badame opened the publlc hearing. Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. James Abeyta Commented that the purpose for the walkways . Is to improve site circulation and connectivity between the buildings. The proposed bridges are very similar "to the existing bridge, although site constraints necessitated a change In some materials and proportions . Lee Quintana Commented that on sheet A-4.3, photO 2 she didn't understand what all of this is, because you can see all the parking spaces. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Abeyta . Chair Badame closed the publlc Input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION: VOTE: NEW OTHER BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Erekson to recommend approval of Architecture and Site Appilcation S-16-013 to Town Council, subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated May 11, 2016 and the development plans In Exhibit 7. The required - findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated May 11 , 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Hudes. Motion passed.~. 5. Report from Community Development Director, Joel Paulson • Town Council met 5/3/16; denied the appeal for 360 Bella Vista and remanded the applications back to the Planning Commission; granted an appeal for Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road project. 6. Commission Matters • None. Page 5of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2016 Additionally, as a neighborly gesture, the applicant has offered to pay for new trees and landscape efforts on the Roberts property to provide further privacy and alleviate concerns about disturbance to the natural site . A new landscape plan has been developed in response to neighbors' concerns about tree removal and replacement, as well as privacy along the private access road I easement and the area near the proposed driveway turnaround . The proposed landscape plan replaces in entirety the proposed trees to be removed , with native species suited to the site conditions . See attached new plan for planting plan along driveway, private road , fire turnaround, and yard areas. The landscape plan has been designed to accommodate the standards listed in the Hillside Design Guidel ines VII, Section A, , #1-7 with plant selections that are native, fire safe, conserve water, protect existing native plant species , and the turf area is located immed iately adjacent to the home . No fences are proposed, and walkways and driveways are kept to a minimum . • See attachment #3 I Monarch Consulting Arborist Report dated May 10, 2016 • See attachment #4 I Landscape Plan by Ecotone • See attachment #5 I revised G-5 sheet with updated trees shown per new arborist report Grading, fire turnaround , driveway, retaining walls The topographic study from the 2010 planning commission approved project was used for this site. Some additional surveying needed specifically for this project was completed . Elevations were based on the Town of Los Gatos control monument LG38, elevation 556.86 ', NGVD 29. It took place around the immediate footprint of the home and west down the site encompassing driveway and fire turnaround areas . The applicant is unaware of any illegal grading that has taken place in past years . Regardless , the proposal responds to existing site conditions and constraints . With exception to some trees that have fallen by natural causes, the site essentially remains the same as when the site was purchased and an application was made . The proposed home has the same orientation and has a nearly identical footprint I building envelope (35' x 107') as the bu ilding site location that was app roved by the Planning Commission in 2010 . Grading has been reduced on the proposed plan in comparison to the 2010 approved plans, AND retaining wall heights have been reduced on the proposed plan in comparison to the 2010 approved plans (to comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines, unlike the previous submittal). • Previous I Proposed Grading o Cut = 342 I 272 o Fill= 385 / 351 o Import = 40 I 0 o Export = 0 I 0 • Previous I Proposed Retain ing Wall Heights o Max previously approved : 6'-6 " I max proposed 4'-0 " The fire turnaround is located at the flattest area I access to the site per the County of Santa Clara guidelines, and has been minimized to the best extent possible. Th is area also helps to alleviate guest parking on the private road area, easing traffic concerns of the neighbors . The driveway has been designed to follow the contours of the site to minimize grading and need for retaining walls, per the Hillside Design Guidelines VI Section C, #1 , 4, and 5. Per Hillside Design Guidelines VI, Section C: retaining walls have been minimized, and blend in more with the natural It is an interesting point to note that in the attached Roberts-Rohen letter dated 1217/2010, they end their letter of original support with a paragraph stating the following: ucandidly, there will always be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant wooded lot in their neighborhood to the construction of another home . Such a view does a terrible disservice not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home to live in, it creates the impression that the planning and building standards of the community are always subject to, and can be disregarded by, the will of a few neighbors who would utilize the public planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding. While the Commission can and should listen to all those interested in the application, we hope the Commission approves the application because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable addition to the neighborhood and our community." Unfortunately, at the most recent meeting on 517/2016 , only the Smullens showed. Mr. Pearson preferred to not have to bring this project to the Planning Comm ission , rather resolve any outstanding items with his ne ighbors and move forward in an honest and neighborly manner. After making such modifications to the plans as color, style, materials , new landscape efforts, additional biological , creek and civil work as well as add itional arborist studies, 30 mode ls, etc ., Mr. Pearson and his team were told by the appellants that their intent was to appeal, no matter what efforts have been made (unless "the size of the home was significantly reduced , and made single story"), that they are supporting one another in continuing the appeal to Town Counci l should the Commission uphold the Planning Department's and DRC approval of the proposed project. This relentless and un-neighborly approach requiring Mr. Pearson to spend significant extra money and time on specialists to continue to prove and re-prove that the project is consistent with Town and State guidelines on both technical and design fronts it frankly abhorrent. The proposed project is compliant with Hillside Guidelines, and efforts have been made to take into account neighbors needs and concerns . The applicant respectfully requests that the Plann ing Comm ission once again uphold the approval by the DRC , with limited , if any , conditions . • See attachment #10 I 2010 Letter of Support from Peter Rehon I Lisa Roberts • See attachment#11 I Qty:4 Neighbor Acknowledgement of Support Letters • See attachment #12 I Pearson summary of neighbor contact We appreciate your time in rev iewing the extensive information prov ided in this packet, as well as the drawings on record with the DRC approved application . Kind Regards, Bess Wiersema Principal , studio3 design , inc . STUDIDTHREE DES I GN 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 March 31, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (HTH # 1333-02) Dear Mr. Pearson: Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared an updated biological resources report for the site located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California. This report updates the previous biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997) prepared for the site with respect to existing biological conditions and evaluation of the current potential biological and regulatory constraints to the proposed development of the site in the context of applicable laws and regulations. Project Description and Location The 1.0-acre (ac) proposed Project site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1). The Project site is bounded by Highland Avenue to the south and residential development to the north, west, and east. The proposed Project entails the construction of a house and associated driveway. The following conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed Project to minimize potential effects on biological resources: Erosion control systems will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season. Erosion control measures will conform to the Association of Bay Area Governments standards or Town of Los Gatos standards. In the event of rain, all grading work will cease immediately and the site will be sealed in accordance with the approved erosion control measures. The contractor will be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control measures after rain storms. All cut and fill slopes will be protected by seeding and covered with straw mulch following completion of construction. Contractor will prevent any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of the paved road. Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 1 0 10.5 Miles Project Site Figure 1. Vicinity Map February 2016 N: \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 3 3 3 - 0 2 \ R e p o r t s \ B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s R e p o r t \ F i g 1 V i c i n i t y M a p . m x d 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) Napa Salinas Oakland San Jose StocktonMartinez Hollister Fairfield Santa Cruz San Rafael Redwood City San Francisco SANTA CLARA SOLANO ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARIN MONTEREY SONOMA SAN MATEO SANTA CRUZ SAN BENITO NAPA SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO MERCEDPACIFICOCEAN Detail California 0 20 Miles Project Vicinity 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Methods H. T. Harvey & Associates plant/wetland ecologist Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., and wildlife ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., characterized the existing biotic conditions on the Project site, including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. This assessment involved a review of relevant background information regarding biological resources in the vicinity of the Project site that might supersede or modify our previous assessment of constraints, as well as a site visit conducted on February 19, 2016. Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed, including information from the following sources:  California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2016)  Federally listed species information for the vicinity from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2016)  Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2016) was conducted for special-status plant and animal species occurring in the Los Gatos, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle within which the site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles (San Jose East, San Jose West, Cupertino, Castle Rock Ridge, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, and Santa Teresa Hills). In addition, for plants we reviewed the Online Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS 2016) for information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 that occur in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. Existing Biological Conditions General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Vegetation. Vegetation on the Project site has not changed substantially from the description provided in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). One biotic habitat type was identified on the Project site, coast live oak/California bay woodland. The overstory is dominated by native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and western chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Non-native bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) is also present in the overstory. The understory is dominated by non-native periwinkle (Vinca major). In addition, a drainage, best characterized as an ephemeral stream (defined as a waterway that conveys water surface runoff during and immediately after precipitation events in a typical year) crosses the site. At the time of the recent survey 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 (February 19, 2016), the on-site drainage supported flowing water from recent rains (approximately 1-inch of rain received on February 19, 2016); water in the drainage was approximately 18 inches across, on average, and was an estimated 4-6 inches deep. Flows within this drainage appear to be flashy and are likely to disappear into the relatively permeable Los Gatos and Mayhem soils that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall event. Wildlife. The coast live oak/California bay woodland produces mast crops that are an important food source for many birds as well as mammals, including the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), California quail (Callipepla californica), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). The oaks also provide breeding habitat for a variety of bird species, including the bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), while the understory provides habitat for the Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Mature trees also provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); however, no large stick nests were observed during the reconnaissance survey of the site. Common amphibians and reptiles in this habitat include the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Special-status Plant and Animal Species As described in Methods above, information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur on the Project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special- status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on the site. Figures 2 and 3 are maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general vicinity of the Project site, defined for the purposes of this report as the area within a 5-mile (mi) radius. These generalized maps are valuable on a historic basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions. While these records are not definitive, they show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously. Photo 1: Coast live oak/California bay woodland most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant robust spineflowerrobust spineflower San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita robust spineflowerrobust spineflowerarcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow hairless popcornflowerhairless popcornflower woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Dudley's lousewortDudley's lousewort San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia round-leaved filareeround-leaved filaree Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads white-flowered rein orchidwhite-flowered rein orchid smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistlemost beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya big-scale balsamrootbig-scale balsamroot Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistleHall's bush-mallowHall's bush-mallow smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Metcalf Canyon jewelflowerMetcalf Canyon jewelflower most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Bonny Doon manzanita Bonny Doon manzanita white-rayed pentachaetawhite-rayed pentachaeta most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 2. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Plants February 201619 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles LEGEND Project Site 5-mile Radius CNDDB Records Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Plants N: \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 3 3 3 - 0 2 \ R e p o r t s \ B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s R e p o r t \ F i g 2 C N D D B P l a n t R e c o r d s . m x d Crotch bumble beeCrotch bumble beewestern bumble beewestern bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee hoary bathoary bat black swiftblack swiftwestern bumble beewestern bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat Opler's longhorn mothOpler's longhorn mothCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Zayante band-winged grasshopperZayante band-winged grasshopper purple martinpurple martinsteelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterflyCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Hom's micro-blind harvestmanHom's micro-blind harvestman steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS pallid batpallid bat coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog An isopodAn isopod foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Opler's longhorn mothOpler's longhorn moth California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Yuma myotisYuma myotis Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS ospreyosprey California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander pallid batpallid bat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle burrowing owlburrowing owl burrowing owlburrowing owl California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderNorth Central Coast DrainageNorth Central Coast DrainageSacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTSCTSCTS CRLFCRLF North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast DrainageNorth Central Coast DrainageSacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverSacramento Sucker/Roach River western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU golden eaglegolden eagle coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Animals February 201619 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report (1333-02) 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles LEGEND Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Project Site Animals 5-mile Radius CNDDB Records N: \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 3 3 3 - 0 2 \ R e p o r t s \ B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s R e p o r t \ F i g 3 C N D D B A n i m a l R e c o r d s . m x d General Area Aquatic 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Special-status Plants A list of special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in the Los Gatos vicinity was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2016) and CNDDB records (CNDDB 20165) and reviewed for their potential to occur on the Project site. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with these species, all but three were determined to be absent from the Project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the Project site; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated. The three species which were analyzed further for their potential to occur on the Project site are discussed in more detail below. Maple-leaved Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malachroides). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR: 1B. Habitat for the maple-leaved checkerbloom includes broadleaved upland forests, coastal prairie, and north coast coniferous forest. The species often occurs within disturbed portions of these habitats. The blooming period for this perennial herb occurs from May through August. Aside from a historical occurrence within the Calaveras Reservoir quadrangle, no documented populations of maple-leaved checkerbloom are known from the vicinity of the Project. Although potential habitat for this species occurs within the Project site, the presence of dense mats of periwinkle preclude growth of the species. Therefore, maple-leaved checkerbloom was determined to be absent from the site. Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR 1B. Western leatherwood occurs within a wide range of habitats including: broad leaved upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. The blooming period of this deciduous shrub is from January through April. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, western leatherwood was not observed among the shrub component of the Project site. While out of the blooming period, this shrub is presently recognizable and if it occurred on site should have been detected. Therefore, this species was determined to be absent from the Project site. Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CRPR List: 1B. Santa Cruz manzanita is found in open areas within broadleaved upland forests and redwood forests below 2,300 feet. This species is endemic to the Santa Cruz mountains. The blooming period of this evergreen shrub is from November through April. This species is not known from the Los Gatos 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle in which the Project site occurs or the nine surrounding quadrangles. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, while out of the blooming period, this shrub would have been detected during the reconnaissance survey if it occurred on site. Therefore, Santa Cruz manzanita was determined to be absent from the project site. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Special-status Animals Based on our review of current CNDDB (2016) records (Figure 4) and other data sources, as well as our extensive experience with other projects in the Los Gatos area, we know that several special-status animal species are known to occur in the Project region. However, all of these species were determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or evidence that the species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others):  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of concern, and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened. The nearest known occurrence of the California red-legged frog is located over 4.5 mi from the Project site and the nearest known occurrence of the California tiger salamander is located approximately 3.9 mi from the Project site. Further, all potentially suitable aquatic breeding habitat for these species is separated from the Project site by extensive residential development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, neither of these species is expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern. Further, the Project site is separated from the nearest suitable aquatic habitat by extensive development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site and vicinity lack appropriate open habitat that could be used by foraging, nesting, or wintering burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern, and no burrows were present on the Project site. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend’s big-eared bat normally roosts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the top corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this species is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend’s big-eared bats. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  A focused survey for nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, failed to detect any nests of this species on the Project site. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Although the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) were previously identified as California species of special concern that might occur on the Project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997), both species have subsequently been removed from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) list of California species of special concern. Sensitive and Regulated Habitats The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFW sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Waters of the U.S./State. The ephemeral drainage that crosses the property meets the regulatory definition of an “other waters,” which is a category of waters of the U.S., and activities conducted within this feature are likely regulated by the USACE. Additionally, the drainage is considered a “waters of the State” which is regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. These conclusions are consistent with those described in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). CDFW Sensitive Habitats. To identify other potentially occurring natural communities of special concern, a CNDDB (2016) search within the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain or surround the Project site was performed. The CNDDB identified one sensitive habitats as occurring in the Project region: serpentine bunchgrass. However, no serpentine habitat is present on the Project site. Thus, none of the sensitive habitats tracked by CNDDB occur on the Project site. Biotic Impacts and Mitigation Overview The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: E. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” F. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” G. “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act” H. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” I. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” J. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Following is a brief summary of potential Project impacts on biological resources. No Impact Impacts on Special-status Plants and Animals. As described above, suitable habitat is not present on the Project site for any special-status plant or animal species. Therefore, there would be no impact on special-status plants or animals due to the proposed Project. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid the ephemeral drainage on the site and would not result in the direct disturbance or loss of wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies, such as the USACE, San Francisco RWQCB, and CDFW. In addition, with implementation of the conservation measures incorporated into the Project, no indirect impacts on jurisdictional habitats would occur. Further, given that the drainage on the Project site is seasonal and does not support wetland plants nor true riparian trees/shrubs; and that no special-status species are expected to make use of this habitat on the project site, it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize significant impacts on biological resources. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. The currently proposed Project would impact up to 1.0 ac of upland coast live oak/California bay woodland. The understory of this habitat type is dominated by non-native periwinkle, and the animal species that occur on the site are common species. Coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated plant and wildlife species are common and widespread in the San Francisco Bay area. Because the site supports only a very small proportion of the regional populations of common plant and wildlife species, the proposed Project would have very limited impacts on the regional abundance of these species. As a result, Project impacts on upland habitats and associated common plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would be considered less than significant under CEQA. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. The Project would result in the removal of several trees during construction. The Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, section 29.10.0950 to 29.10.0990) protects all trees having a trunk that measures 35 inches or more in circumference (12 inches in diameter) and all trees of the following species which have an 8-inch or greater diameter (25-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). In addition, the ordinance protects trees which have a 12-inch circumference (4 inches or greater in diameter) that are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property. The ordinance protects both native and non-native species. Heritage trees, defined as a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, are also protected. A tree removal permit or other Town approval is required from the Town of Los Gatos for the removal or pruning of ordinance-sized trees. The removal of ordinance or heritage trees, without mitigation, would conflict with the City’s ordinance protecting trees and would thus be considered a significant impact under Appendix G, Item I, as described above. Implementation of the following measures will reduce impacts on ordinance-sized trees to a less-than- significant level by bringing the Project into compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 1a: Conduct a Preconstruction Tree Survey. A tree survey will be conducted prior to prior to any site grading or construction work in order determine whether any trees planned to be severely trimmed or removed are Ordinance trees as defined by the City of Los Gatos. Mitigation Measure 1b: Obtain Tree Removal Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will seek a Tree Removal Permit from the Town for any Ordinance trees that would be removed or severely trimmed. The approval authority may impose replacement standards for each tree to be removed or trimmed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds Construction disturbance during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest on the Project site due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project on these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact to their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code: Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 31, 2016 Literature Cited [CNDDB] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed through October 2015. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ advanced.html. Accessed through October 2015. Google Inc. 2016. Google Earth [Software]. Available from www.google.com/earth. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. No 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, California Biotic Constraints Analysis. Prepared for Angelo Orphan. May 5, 2016 Alex H. Jewell, AICP, LEED AP Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Biological Evaluation Peer Review for the 19 Highland Avenue project, located in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California (PN 2035-01). Dear Mr. Jewell: At the Town’s request, we have prepared this peer review of H. T. Harvey’s Biological Constraints Analysis (1997) and Biological Evaluation (2016) for the approximately one-acre 19 Highland Avenue project site. The one-acre site is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Highway 17/Los Gatos Blvd. interchange at 19 Highland Avenue (APN 529-37-033) in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. As we understand it from the site plans provided, the project includes the construction of an approximately 5000 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, and associated driveway and landscaping. Background Review Prior to a site visit to evaluate existing site conditions, LOA completed an appropriate background review. In addition to a review of the biological constraints analysis and biological evaluation reports prepared by H.T. Harvey, sources of information relevant to the proposed project, the project site, and the site’s vicinity were reviewed, including the prior biological peer review report completed by Mike Wood of Wood Biological Consulting (2008), the 19 Highland Avenue Mitigated Negative Declaration (Town of Los Gatos 2010), the project site plans (Peoples Associates 2015), aerial photographs of the project site, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Maps (accessed April 19, 2016 on-line at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 (CDFW 2016). Existing Site Conditions On 20 April 2016, LOA ecologist Pamela Peterson conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit with the property owner, Ed Pearson, to evaluate existing conditions of the site. During the site visit, habitats present on the site were verified, including potentially suitable habitat for any special status plant or animal species that are known to occur, or once to have occurred, regionally. The site visit also evaluated the extent of potentially jurisdictional habitats present and proposed setbacks from the on-site creek. LOA did not conduct focused or protocol-level surveys for rare species or a formal wetland delineation. The project site is a long, irregularly-shaped one-acre property bordered to the south by Highland Avenue (which apparently is an easement on the property) and by existing single family homes estate lots on all other sides. On the south side and up the slope from Highland Avenue there also is an existing home. The proposed location of the home occurs on a north-facing slope between Highland Avenue and the on-site creek channel. Bank slopes along the side of Highland Avenue on the site are relatively steep, but then slopes become more gradual down to the on-site creek. Slopes on the north side of the on-site drainage then rise fairly steeply again. Elevations of the site vary from a low of 60 feet near the drainage channel to approximately 100 feet in the northwest portion of the site. Woodland dominated by California bay (Umbellularia californica) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the predominant habitat on the site. This woodland has a moderately open canopy in the area of the proposed home on the south side of the drainage and a relatively dense canopy on the remaining northwestern portion of the site. Other tree and shrub species observed on the site included non-native, invasive species such as blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and French broom (Genista monspessulana), and native species such as blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The herbaceous understory was dominated by periwinkle (Vinca major) a non-native ornamental groundcover. Other herbaceous species observed in the understory included primarily non-native annual forbs and grasses, including Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). An unnamed ephemeral tributary of Los Gatos creek traverses the site, flowing onto the site along the eastern boundary and meandering across the site in a westerly direction to the western boundary. During the April 2016 site visit, although there had been no rainfall in the site’s vicinity for at least a week, water was observed flowing in the low flow channel of the creek approximately two feet wide and between 2 and 4 inches in depth. Evidence of an Ordinary High Water (OHW) channel was present within the creek, varying in width from three to four feet. The width of the creek from top of bank to top of bank varied between six to more than ten feet. The creek banks were generally barren of vegetation with no wetland or riparian vegetation observed to be associated with it. This ephemeral drainage would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to the extent of the OHW mark on opposing banks, and the bed and bank of this feature would also be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing site conditions as observed by LOA during the April 2016 site visit are consistent with the existing site conditions found by H.T. Harvey biologists during their February 2016 site visit. Peer Review of Impacts and Mitigations H.T. Harvey categorized biological resources into three categories: No Impact, Less-than- significant Impact, and Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Additionally, they have a section Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site. We have organized our review to be consistent with these sections of their report. No Impact Impacts on Special Status Plants. H. T. Harvey concluded that special status plants are absent from the site and therefore that the project will have no impact on special status plants. We concur with H.T. Harvey’s conclusion. The dominance of the herbaceous understory by non- native grasses and forbs, including fairly dense mats of periwinkle would preclude special status plants from occurring on the site, and special status woody shrub species such as arcuate mallow and western leatherwood would have been identifiable if present on the site even outside of their blooming season and they were not observed. Impacts on Special Status Animals. H.T. Harvey concluded that the site does not provide habitat for special status animals that may occur in the project region and therefore that the project will not impact any special status animal species. We concur with H. T. Harvey’s conclusions. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. H.T. Harvey concluded that while the on-site creek would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW, the project as proposed will have no direct impact on the creek and, therefore, the project will have no impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state. We concur that there will be no direct impact (i.e., filling) to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and state as a result of the project, and, as such it does not appear that Section 401 or 404 permits will be required from the RWQCB or USACE, respectively, or a Section 1600 permit from CDFW. Additionally, H.T. Harvey states that “..it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize significant impacts on biological resources.” While we concur that there will be no direct impact to areas of the creek considered jurisdictional by the resource agencies, H.T. Harvey’s report lacks a more detailed discussion of creek setbacks. For instance, H.T. Harvey doesn’t cite the project plans that they evaluated (i.e., the preparer and date), although we assume they were the same site plans that we evaluated, and they do not discuss what the actual setback widths are that are reflected in the plans they evaluated and why those setbacks are adequate in their opinion. Based on our site visit and the locations of flags and story poles showing the outline of project footprints, and based on our review of the project plans (Peoples Associates dated November 30, 2015), setbacks from the proposed home to the top of the creek bank appear to be, at minimum, 12 feet from the top of the creek bank in the eastern portion of the site where a small oxbow occurs (the setback may originally have been greater in this location, but due to a tree falling into the creek this past winter and blocking flows, some erosion has occurred here, which appears to have brought the southern bank of the oxbow slightly closer to the proposed home site. Sheet G4 of the site plans indicate that the minimum setback in this location is 16 feet to the home itself, although stairs to a deck in this location occur closer and it is possible that in the field, the flags that were observed were for the outline of the stairs that were within 12 feet of the creek. The setback between the driveway and the creek bank appears to be less than 10 feet in a couple areas (Sheet G4 indicates that the setback is as narrow as 2 to 7 feet in these locations). Aside from these areas; however, overall, the setback along the vast majority of the reach of creek on the site is wider, and the average setback is likely more in the realm of between 20 to 25 feet or possibly greater. Typically, we would recommend a greater setback from a creek channel than 16 feet but overall, the few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10 feet for the driveway are not significant in our opinion, given that the vast majority of the remaining setback is at least 20 feet, which we believe is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. This is a highly constrained building site as a result of being bound by Highland Avenue to the south and the meandering creek channel to the north, and it appears that the Applicant has attempted to design the home to conform as best as possible to these constrained conditions. From a biological standpoint, the riparian influence of the creek appears to be restricted to the wetted portion of the channel. Because of underground culverting downstream and the lack of associated riparian or wetland vegetation, the creek itself provides foraging, shelter, and movement habitat for native species that is not greater in value than that of adjacent upland woodland habitats. The creek will continue to provide a seasonal source of drinking water for native species even after the project is built, and the few common species that may move through the site within the creek currently will also likely continue to do so after the project has been constructed. Further, potential water quality issues with regard to run off from new impervious surfaces have been addressed through the incorporation of five bioswales (Sheet G3 and G6) into the design, four of which occur between the proposed home and the creek, and the driveway has been designed utilizing permeable pavers. Additionally, any potential water quality issues during project construction are addressed through compliance with erosion control measures as detailed in the NPDES notes on Sheet G1 and erosion control methods detailed on Sheet G6. However, while we concur with H.T. Harvey’s conclusions regarding the adequacy of the setbacks, we would recommend that they revise their report to include a citation of the plans that they reviewed and a greater discussion as to what the actual setbacks are and why they are adequate in their opinion. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison. Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project would impact up to one acre of coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated common plant and animals and that this small loss of habitat would be a less-than-significant impact of the project. Because development will only occur on the southern portion of the parcel, the actual loss of woodland habitat on the site would be limited to approximately 0.6 acre or less, while woodland occurring in the northwestern portion of the site on the other side of the on-site drainage would be preserved. We concur that the loss of approximately 0.6 acres of woodland habitats on the site would be a less-than-significant impact of the project given the amount of similar habitat that occurs in the region. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. H.T. Harvey concluded that the project may have a significant impact on trees that are protected under the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, Section 29.10.0950 – 29.10.0990). According to the site plans (Sheet G5), approximately 14 trees will be removed as a result of the project. As we were not provided with a copy of the arborist report, it is unknown how many of these trees would be protected by the Town’s ordinance. Mitigations for loss of protected trees included: 1. Conducting a pre-construction tree survey, and 2. Applying for a permit and complying with permit requirements, which may require the planting of replacement trees. It should be noted that based on our site visit, opportunities for planting of replacement trees may be limited on the site (as areas of the site outside of the proposed project footprints are already wooded), so, it is possible that depending on the number of protected trees that will ultimately be removed and the replacement ratios that the Town may require, the project proponent may not be able to accommodate all replacement plantings on the project site. Therefore, additional measures for compensation for a loss of ordinance size trees may be required, such as in-lieu fees. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site H.T. Harvey has concluded that impacts to birds that may nest on the site during project construction are less than significant under CEQA, however, they have provided a regulatory overview for nesting birds and they provide measures to ensure that the project complies with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). These measures include avoidance (i.e., construction during the non-breeding season), pre- construction/pre-disturbance surveys if construction will occur during the breeding season, and measures to inhibit nesting, including removal of nest substrates during the non-breeding season. Although to some extent this is a simple matter of difference of opinion, impacts to nesting birds may also be considered under the category of Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation. However, as long as H.T. Harvey has provided measures to ensure compliance with MBTA and CFGC, and as long as these measures are incorporated into the project’s Conditions of Approval, then we consider this a moot point. However, for Measure 2, we would recommend that H.T. Harvey include that the pre-construction/pre-disturbance survey area include surveys of nesting substrates within a 300 feet radius of project footprints, as possible/accessible, since they indicate that buffers up to 300 feet may be necessary depending on the nesting bird species. LOA Summary and Recommendations In general, LOA concurs with H.T. Harvey’s assessment of the existing conditions of the site as well as their evaluation of potential impacts and the mitigations that they have provided to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA. Therefore, our recommendations are fairly minor and include the following: 1. That H.T. Harvey modify their 2016 letter report to discuss the actual setbacks as indicated on the Peoples Associates November 2015 site plans between the top of the bank of the creek and the home and driveway areas, and provide a more detailed analysis as to why these setbacks are adequate. We would recommend that this discussion include calculations/ estimations of average setbacks for the home and driveway features, and calculations/estimations of the linear feet of setback between the home and the creek bank that is both less than 20 feet and that is 20 feet or greater, for comparison, and less than 10 feet and greater than 10 feet for the driveway setback. 2. Revise Measure 2 for nesting birds to state that all trees and other potential nest substrates within a 300 foot radius of the project be surveyed to the extent possible/accessible, and that the Town ensures that all three measures for nesting birds become part of the project’s Conditions of Approval. That completes our peer review. We appreciate you considering Live Oak to provide ecological services for you on this project. If you wish to discuss any of our findings, conclusions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 408-281-5884 or Rick Hopkins at 408-281- 5885. Sincerely, Pamela Peterson Senior Project Manager Tree Inventory, Assessment, And Protection 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared for: Ed Pearson May 10, 2016 Prepared By: ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA -Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ©Copyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2 016 19 Hig hland Attachment # 3 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May10,2016 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 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 3 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 4 Influence Level ........................................................................................................ 5 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 7 Critical Root Zone ................................................................................................... 8 Bridging with Mulch ................................................................................................ 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 1 O Recommendations .............................................................................................. 11 Protection during demolition/grading .................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ............................................................................................... 11 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 12 Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................. 13 Append ix A: Site Map ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix B: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables ................ 15 B1 : Inventory and Assessment Table .................................................................... 15 B2: Disposition Table ............................................................................................ 19 Appendix C: Photographs ................................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines .......................................................... 28 Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Additional tree protection measures : .................................................................... 29 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 101 o, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1: English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ............................................................................. 33 ~,. i Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Summary The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos . The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of IO different species with bay laurel (35 percent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the majority of trees with 74 specimens total . Most of the trees (80) are in fair condition while five are poor, five are in good shape, and one is unstable. Fourteen (14) trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4 located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to b e removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Introduction Background Ed Pearson asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations. Assignment 1. Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. 2. Provide tree protection specifications and influence ratings for trees that will be affected by the project. Limits of the assignment 1. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the site and trees during my inspections on April 22 and 26, 2016. No tree risk assessments were performed. No tree appraisals were performed. 2. The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: Site Plan G2 provided by Peoples Associates dated November 30, 2015. No grading, drainage, utility, or landscape plans were reviewed. ~' .... I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 101 o, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1of33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the tJ:ees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by Ed Pearson and his agents as a reference for existing tree and s ite condition s . Observations The site is located along Highland Avenue in Los Gatos . The property has a seasonal creek running through it and hills on both the east and west sides. There is a level area at the bottom of the drainage and currently there are story poles to indicate the proposed location of the site improvements. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The plans indicate a driveway extending from the northern part of Highland Avenue and the structure set bak farther to the south. within the plan area there are thirty trees and fourteen within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Fourteen (14) trees are within the footprint of the proposed improvements . • Sixteen (16) trees are in close proximity to the proposed improvements. • Sixty-one (61) trees are not near any proposed improvements. • Four (4) trees assessed are on the adjacent site to the south. • Valley oak #30 is fifteen feet from the proposed structure. • Coa st live oak #56 is in irrev ersible decline/unstable and has signs and symptoms consistent w ith ambrosia beetle (Monarthrum scutellare ) attacks on its trunk. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.0 Box 101 o, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arbori st Assessment May 10, 2016 Discussion Tree Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos located on the site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. The Town of Los Gatos protect s all trees with a trunk diameters greater than (4) four inches at (54) fifty-four inch es above grad e on vacant or underdeveloped lots (Appendix A and B). Aluminum tree tags have b een affixed to all trees li sted in the inventory except for those on the eastern hills ide which are arbitrarily numbered form south to north for the purposes of this report. The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (35 p ercent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the m ajority of trees with 74 specimens total. Bay laurel (Umbellu laria californica) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) 0 Chart 1 : Species Distribution • Quantity 10 20 30 40 .32 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 50 3 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arbori st Assessment May 10, 2016 Condition Rating A tree 's condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects: Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • Good = No apparent problems, good structure and health, good lon gevity for the site. • Fair = Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems, irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead. Most of the trees are in fair condition which is typical of an unmaintained woodland . Six trees are in poor condition and five are in good shape. Trees in poor condition include bay tree 46 has some decay at the base, blue gum 44 has codominant stems and a defective stem about 40 feet above grade. Coast live oak 56 bas ambrosia beetle attacks on its trunk is half dead and unstable. Coast live oak 66 has been repeatedly hit by vehicles and bas trunk damage. 0 Chart 2: Condition Rating • Quantity 20 40 60 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 80 4 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10 , 2016 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree , and is described as low, moderate, or high . The following scale defines the impact rating: • Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate= The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Fourteen trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4 located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. The charts below indicate the quantity of trees for each construction impact category (Chart 3). 0 Chart 3: Impact Ratings • Quantity 14 28 42 56 70 Chart 4 : Construction Impact Percentages • High • Moderate Low High Ill Moderate Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 5 of 33 19 H ighland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D ). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances (Figure 1). Tree protection z ones and type of tree protection will vary depending on what may be impacting the trees . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath. Siurd~ TPZ Fencing 6 ft. high Figure 1: Tree protection distances Wiap trunks with straw wattle up to 6 feet Figure 2: Trunk protection with straw wattle Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com Straw Wattle 7 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Bridging with Mulch Valley oak #30 is approximate ly 15 feet from the proposed structure and to building the structure placing fence around this tree is not practical. For this tree I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping its trunk with wattle for protection. Because the highly influenced trees are close to the proposed construction the CRZ and the TPZ may be the same distance in these instances. It may be impractical to fence off the TPZ near the construction because there will be limited room to work in the vicinity of the trees . Placing mulch and plywood over the CRZ!TPZ will create a work platform that can be u sed to help protect the roots from compaction (Figure 4). Once the much i s spr ead under the trees the plywood can be placed on top and compaction of the root z one will be limited as pressure on the soil is now dispersed. 314 inch rood 4 inches of mulch, bark or ~ ~ wood chips under / / . plywood. Figure 4: The image above depicts bridging for a work platform under the trees. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 9 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Conclusion The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The inventory contains 91 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (35 percent) and coast live oak (46 percent) making up the majority of trees with 74 specimens total. Most of the trees (80) are in fair condition typical of trees growing within a stand in a woodland setting. Five trees are in poor condition, five are in good shape, and one unstable. Fourteen trees will be highly impacted and will require removal while an additional sixteen trees will be moderately impacted and require some tree protection. The remaining 61 trees including 4 located on the adjacent property will not be affected at all by the proposed project. Eighty-five (85%) of the trees inventoried are to be retained while fifteen percent (15%) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Eighteen percent (18%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Because most of the trees will only be influenced on one side the CRZ will in effect b e the TPZ for this project and particularly for valley oak #30. Valley oak #30 is approximately 15 feet from the proposed structure and to building the structure placing fence around this tree is not practical. For thi s tree I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping its trunk with wattle for protection. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 10 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits from the Town of Los Gatos prior to removing or significantly altering any tree . Remove Coast live oak #56 due to its current diseased condition. Refer to Appendix D of this document for general protection guidelines and specifications. Protection during demolition/grading 1. Wrap moderately influenced trees with straw wattle to help prevent mechanical damage to the trunks where fence is impractical. Trees 8, 11, 14, 18 , 23 , 29, 30, 32, 33 , 34, 41 , 47, 56, 59, 63, and 65 . Construction Phase 1. Remove all trees to be removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. 2. Provide a copy ofthis 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. 3. 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. 4 . Tree Pruning: If tree pruning for overhead clearance is required or necessary pruning specifications shall be in writing prior to any cutting. Cutting shall be performed by a qualified tree care professional or supervised by the project arborist. No limbs greater than four inches ( 4 ") in diameter shall be removed. 5 . Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within five times the trunk diameter distances . 6. Valley Oak #30: Create a working platform with mulch and three quarter inch plywood around tree #30 to help reduce root zone impact. 7. Utility Trenching: Where possible trenches shall be dug under existing roots and utilities should be ''snaked" under the roots. When large roots, greater than 4 inches in diameter, are encountered they shall be excavated by hand or with pneumatic excavating tools such as an Air Spade® or Hydrovac®. ~1 l Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 11 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 8. Root removal: Prior to removing roots greater than two inches (2") in diameter each tree shall be evaluated by the project arborist to help determine its likelihood of failure afte r 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 crushe d or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, expose d roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. No roots shall be cut within six times th e trunk diameter distance in feet on one side without arborist approval. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition and have the trees assessed for risk. 2. Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations : Tree , Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W . Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones . Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Glossary of A rboricultural Te nns. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2011. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land developm ent. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 . Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tre e Risk Managem ent. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Glossary of Terms Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4 .5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for 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) a bove ground in UK arboriculture. Drip Line: Imaginary line defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradabl e materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. 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. ~' ... Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Appendix B: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables 81: Inventory and Assessment Table Table 2: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tree Species Blue elderberry ( Sambucus caerulea) Number Trunk Diameter 1 14, 4, 2.5, 2 .5 Condition Good ------------ I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia , californica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) -· --, Bay laurel ( Umbe//ularia ca/ifornica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbe//u/aria californica) Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria californica) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia calffornica) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ca/if ornica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel (Umbellularia ca/if ornica) Valley oak ( Quercus /obata) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Valley oak ( Quercus lobata) Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) Valley oak ( Quercus /obata) I Bay laurel (Umbellularla I californica) I ! I I \ I I ' I l i I I I I 2 8 9 11 I ~ 13 I 14 I 1s I 10, 10 I 17 18 20 I I 21 I 22 I 23 2s I 27 122, 14 29 111, 6 30 20, 16 I 31 I 10, 7 ! 9.5 1 Fair 14 I Fair 14 1 Fair I F. 9 j air a I Fair 8.5 ! Fair I i Poor ~Fai r Fair I I 11 j Poor 19 Fai r 18 Fair 8 Poor 14 j Fair I Fair I Fair _I I , Fair ' - j Fair Suitability for Influence Preservation Level Good I Low I --,---- Fair I Low Fair j Moderate J ----------- 'Fair I High I Fair I Moderate I Fair I High --, I I : Fair Moderate j Poor I High I I I Fair I High I I I I Fair I Moderate I I . I l Poor I Low 1 I Poor High I I J Fair , High I Poor Moderate I Fair High I I I Fair I High I Moderate I Poor I I -I I 1 Fair Moderate I j Fair I Low j ____ _J ___ __J ,~, I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 15 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Tree Species Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria ' californica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) ------------ Arborist Assessment Number Trunk Condition 57 59 60 61 62 I I I I Diameter 15 Fair I ---- - 14 Fair ----------- 12 Fair 12 ' Poor 11 .5 Fair May 10, 2016 Suitability for Influence Preservation Level Poor Low ---I Fair I Moderate Poor High I ----I Poor I High Fair ! High I -,-----·,--·--1 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 63 15.5 Fair , Fair Moderate 1 ---------------, Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 65 8 Fair Poor I Moderate I t-C_o_a-st ~;e oak (Quercus agrifolia) 66 --1-2-.5-'. Fair ----1-P-o-or _____ j Low --, _c_o_a_s_t _liv_e_o_ak_(O_ue_~_c_us_a_g_rm_o_lia_)_.,._ __ 1_0 _1 7 '. ____ a_F_a_i_r ___ ~l_F_a_ir ____ I Low I 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 102 i 12 1 Fair 1 Fair j Low __ [I f--____ __, ___ ___;_ --......; I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 103 i 12 1 Fair I Fair 1 Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 104 j 4 1 Fair I Fair j Low I --------, ------ 1 I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 105 I 4 Fair Fair I I 12 I Fair I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 106 1 Fair I I I Coast hve oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 107 8 1 Fair Fair I ' I I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia I 108 14 and 4 Fair Fair l californica) I I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 109 1 10 1 Fair Fair -I 110 ' I - Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 21 j ~Fair Bay laurel (Umbellularia 111 I a I Fair Fair ca/ifornica) I Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria I 1121---:!] Fair I Fair ca/ifornica) I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I 113 1 12 1 Fair I Fair I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) - 12 I Fair I 114 j Fair I I l Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria 115 I 5 Fair Fair californica) I I Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria I 116 1 4 1 Fair 1 Fair californica) I I 117 ! I I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 4 : Fair 1 Fair I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com Low Low ! Low I I Low I I Low I I Low Low Low Low Low Low 1Low j I Low I ! 17 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment 82: Disposition Table Table 3: Disposition Table Tree Species Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia ca/ifornica) Number Trunk Influence Diameter Level ' 4, 4 , 2 .5, 'Low 2.5 I 2 9.5 ' Low ------ 8-'-~ 14 Moderate ---' ---- 9 ' 14 l High I --1- 9 i Moderate 11 May 10, 2016 Remove or Retain Retain Retain -----~- Retain/Protect I Remove Retain/Protect I 1 Remove Valley oak ( Quercus_l_ob_a_t~)-----!-----27-+-_2_2 ,_1_4 I H _ig_h ____ -+--R_em_o_ve ___ __, Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia ca/ifornica) 29 1 11, 6 jModerate Retain/Protect I -Valley oak ( Quercus /obata) I 30 20, 16 'Moderate I Retain/Protect I 31 j 10. 7 ! Low Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria ca/ifornica) Retain I ' Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) 32 J 15 I Moderate Retain/Protect Valley oak ( Quercus lobata) I I I I Retain/Protect ~ 33 I 14 i Moderate I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I 34 j 16, 10, 6 I Moderate I Retain/Protect I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 35 j 11 I_ Low : Retain I 36 1 I i Retain ! Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 11 I Low I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 38 1 I I I 7 1 High I Remove ~ -- Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia ca/ifornica) I 39 1 20 ! High I I Remove 40i---- I __, Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I 10.5 : High I ! Remove I I I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 19 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Tree Species Bay laurel (Umbel/u/aria californica) j Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria californica) rvaney oak ( Quercus /obata) I I Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) I California buckeye (Aescu/us californica) ------------- · Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) I Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) ' Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) r ------ ! Valley oak (Quercus lobata)" I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) California buckeye (Aesculus californica)" Valley oak (Quercus lobata)* Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia)* Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia cafifornica) Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Number 41 Trunk Diameter Influence Level 20 Moderate 42 10, 8 .5 Low Remove or Retain Retain/Protect Retain ----------- 43 , 20, 11 Low ·Retain 44 1 46 1 Low Retain I 45 8 , 7 , 5 .5, Low Retai n 4 .5 --------··-----~ ·----' 46 • 15, 8 Low Retain 47 I 15 1 Moderate 48 ·i----2-5 I Low Retain -,-----r--_____ _J 49 ; 23.5 l Low ! Retain 1 Retain/Protect I 50 7.5 1 Low I I Retain 51 [ 5 \Low I I 1 Retain 52 I __ 15_r Low J_R_e_ta_in ____ ----< 53 I 5.5 1 Low I Retain 54 , 7, 4 I Low Retain ---~------'------- I disease 56 I 32 i Moderate~ Remove due >--------------~-----+-----'------------ Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 57 15 Low Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 59 14 Moderate Retain/Protect Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 60 12 High Remove Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) 61 12 High Remove Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 11 .5 High Remove Valley oak ( Quercus lobata) 63 15.5 Moderate I I Retain/Protect Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 65 8 Moderate Retain/Protect Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 12.5 Low i Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 101 8 Low I Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 102 12 j Low I • Retain 12 1 Low I Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 103 l f----------------1----'-----·------'-------- Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 104 j I 4 Low 1 Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 105 1 4 1 Low I Retain Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 20 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Number Trunk Diameter Influence Level Remove o r Retain ' Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 106 l 12 i Low Retain ------------I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 107 8 Low Retain ---------------------- Bay laurel ( Umbelfularia ca/ifornica) 108 1 4 and 4 Low . Retain ,-----------------------1 , Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 109 ' 10 i Low , Retain ------ ' Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 11 O 1 21 Low Retain ~---------- 'Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) I 111 ! 8 1 Low -----------------1---------- . Retain : Bay laurel ( Umbellufaria californicaG ___ 11_2_.i _____ 4-;1._L_o_w ____ .:!_ R_e_t_a_in ___ _ i Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) : 113 12 j Low I Retain r Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 114 12 l Lo-w---~1._R_e_t-ai_n__ I 1 B I ( U b II I · ft. · ) 115 l 5 1 _L_o_w ____ _J~_et_ain ___ _j ay aure m e u ar1a ca 1 ormca I I 116 1 Low j Retain I Bay laure l ( Umbellularia californica) I 4 I Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 117 4 --I Low I Retain ----~--------! Low j Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 118 4 Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 119 15 1 Low I Retain r-- Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 120 24 I ~ Low I Retain 1 Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ca/ifornica) 121 8 and 8 j Low -----.,--A-et-a-in ___ _ r-B_a_y_l_a_ur_e_I _( u_m_be_1_1u_1a_r1_·a_c_a_fifi_o_rn_ic_a_) __ ,__ ___ 12_2-+-I -4 Low I Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) Retain Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Retain Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) I Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I j Retain I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) I Retain Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) I i-------------~-----+--------"1-----1----------' Black walnut (Jug/ans nigra) Retain Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria ca/ifornica) Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 1 Retain Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 101 o, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 21 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Tree Species Number Trunk Influence Remove or Diameter Level Retain Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 136 I 30 Low Retain ---- Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 137 33 Low Retain -------------------·--· -----------~ Bay laurel (Umbe!lularia californica) 138 10 and 2 Low Retain -------1 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) I 139 1 18 and 16 Low Retain _,__ Madrone (Arbutus menziesit) 140 I 11 Low I Retain ----------- Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) 141 I ~1 Lo~--, Retain ------- ---'-------- /J .1 l Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 22 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix C: Photographs Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 23 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com M ay 10, 2016 24 of 33 19 High land Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 25 of 33 19 Highla nd Avenu e Arborist A ssess ment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @monarc harborist.com May 10, 2016 26 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 27 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1 005. -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 diiven 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 pl.an, 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 TI: Enclosure for street trees Located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches . Type ill: 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, ill fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-This fence shall not be removed and is subj ect to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025 ." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of constrnction, 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 drip line when feasible . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7. The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Additional tree protection measures: Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified according to ANSI A-300A standards and limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices , and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 29 of 33 19 Hig hland Avenu e A rborist A sse ssment Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1 : Engl ish (I) c 0 N C> c c .2 ·-..... c (.) I.. (I) ~2 D.. (I) (I) I.. I- ~ "'C O> Q) c: > ·-0 "'C E 0 LO Q) (.) C\J a: (.) 0 Q) <( .,- cc ~o -.,- +-' Cd . 0 c: O> z Q) C\J -Cl. Q) ca o -c ..c: F o (/) ..... () Q) ~ c: (.) ·~ > c: ..0 ;> Q) :l ~ u. (/) CJ) CJ) ·--..c: "'C I-c: <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.c om May 10, 2016 30 of 33 19 H ighland Avenue E2: Spanish Arborist Assessment 0 ,, ·-• L Q) ..... Q) I.. OD.. -g 0 ,, ..a ·-I.. :l <C 0 Q) c ca c 0 N Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com May 10, 2016 31 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to b e 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 b e 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 ill the future . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment May 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected tbe 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 rep01i 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 Arboris t® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept an d 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-434 lB ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express u ses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retri eval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission oftbe autho r. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 33 of 33 I ' ' I • Comparison Of Existing Neighborhood Lots With Slope Study 19 Highland Attach men t# 7 To Proposed Development Of 19 Highland Ave. By LIDAR From USGS 2006 Data 1. FAR is calcu lated using the following formula: The allowable FAR for all structures (excluding garages} on lots between 5,000 SF and 30,000 SF shall be determined by the following formula : FAR= .35 -( f A -5] x .20) 25 Calculating FAR for sloping lots For all residential projects, if a slope is greater than 10% Then the net lot area shall be reduce d according to the Following standard : Average lot slope % of net site to be dedut.ted 10.01 -20% 10% plus 2% for each 1% of slope Over 10% 20.01-30% 30% plus 3% for each 1% of slope over 20% Ov;er 30% 60% Note: The net site area after this deduction is calcu la ted shall be used to Calculate the FAR for this site. 19 Highland Attachment # 9 • TOWN OF L OS GAT OS PLANNING COMMISSI ON STAFF REPORT Meeting Dat e: December 8, 2010 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO: LOCATION : APPLICANT : PROPERTY OWNER: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner hbradley@losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-03-049 19 Highland Aven ue John Lien, Architect Angelo Orphan 19 Highland Attac hme nt # 10 I TEM NO: 2 D ESK ITEM APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR-2Yi. APN 529-37 -033. RECOMMENDATION: Soft Approval. EXHIBITS: 1-11 . Previously Received 12. Letters of support (two pages) -Peter Rehon. 78 Alpine Ave (received 12/8110) REMARKS : Attached is a letter of support for the proposed project (Exhibit 12). ~~~I ~: Heather Bradley Contract Planner WRR :HB:cgt N:\DEV\PC REPOR TS\20IO\Highlaod_19 _ Dsk.Item.doc ~~~~y:~~-=~~-~ R. Rooney Director of Community Development i . i I ; I ! I 78 Alpine Avenue Los Gatos, Callforn la 95030 December 7, 20 10 V IA EMAIL [c/o h bradleV@los gat osca.gov1 J ohn Bourgeois, Chair Marica Sayoc, Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner Marcia Jensen, Commissioner Ph il Micciche, Commissioner J oanne T alesfore, Commissioner Thomas O'Donnel~ Commissioner Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re : 19 Highland Avenue . Architecture and Site Application S-03-49 · Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED DEC 8 -2010 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION My wife, Li sa Roberts , and I live immediately adjacent to 19 Highland Avenue and write this letter to express our· strong support for the above application. We regret that we will not be able to attend tomorrow's hearing, since we both have pre-.existing commitments (a client function in Hollister and a band concert at Fisher Middle School) Which prevent us from attending the hearing and showing our support. Our home of 21 years is cm the north boundary of the property across the tributary of Los Gatos Creek,·and, as a .result, w~ are in an excellent position to judge its impact on the site and its environment, including the trees and flora on-site and the creek between o~r two properties, and the surrounding neighborhood: The home and landscapi ng · prop~sed by Dr. Orphan and his architect are sensitive, t houghtful, and aesthetically pleasing, and represent an excellent .example of wh at can be achieved when a home is designed and tailored to a unique site like this. The proposed home is also very compatible with the neighborhood i n terms of size1 mass, and design, and in fact, would represent a significant improvement when compared to other homes i n t he neighbomood. A beautif ully and sens itively designed honie of this character and quality would , in our estimation , only en hance the ne ighborhood which is another reason we strongly support this application. 1 I ! I I· l Planning Commission Of the Town Of Los Gatos December 7, 2010 Page2 Dr . Orphan has also proven to .be a very thoughtful neighbor and a ca reful caretaker of this property and its resources . He has been diligent in maintain ing the property even though he does not live there, and has worked hard to protect the condition of the property and its flora and the integrity of the adjoining creek. Dr. Orphan has shown himself to be an excellent steward of this property and its unique natural setting , and the Town should approve the application only to insure that he will continue his stewardsh ip. The WOl"$e thing the Town could do would be to disapprove the application, and force the current owner to sell the property to another, less careful, owner who might allow it to languish or be developed by a speculative home developer. Cand idly, there will always be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant wooded lot in their neighborhood to the construction of ano ther home . Such a view does a terrible disservice not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home t o live in, it creates the impression t hat the planning arid build ing standards of the community are always subject to, and can be disregarded by , the will of a few neighbors who would utilize the pub lic planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding . While the Com miss ion can and should listen to all those in terested in t he application, we hope the Commission approves the application because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable add ition to the neighborhood and our community. T hank you for your attention to the foregoing. Sincerely, l!\AA-- Peter M. Rehon Cc: Heather Bradley, Planner· Dr. Angelo Orphan (via email) John Lien , Arch itect (via email) 1 9 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Neighbor Acknowledgment of Support To: Homeowners adjacent to 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos 19 Highland Attachment # 11 f/We, netghbors of the proposed project at 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos have reviewed the architectural plan renderings for the proposed new single family home on this site. I/We are in support of this project and look forward to seeing this enhancement to the neighborhood. Signature Date 5/10/16 Neighbor contact and meetings 19 Highland Attachment# 12 1. 3/11/2016 Met with Teresa Spalding and presented project to her. We discussed project for about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if I could screen it with some tree cover. I agreed and said it would be in my final landscape plan. She then gave me a letter dated 3/11/2016 stating her approval and support for the project. 2. 3/12/2016 met with Badame and his wife. Presented project to him, they both loo ked at it and had no comments. Said they would get back to me in a couple days. Badame sends 12 page opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29/2016. He did not contact me with any feedback whatsoever. 3. 3/19/2016 Met with Peter Re hon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home. He mentioned that he fully supported the past owner Dr. Orphan and his project in 2010. He stated that he fully supports me being able develop my site and looks forward to having a new neighbor. Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to meet with her. Her main concern was the retention and protection of tree #30. We emailed several times during the first week of April 2016, that is when she sent me the tree #30 contract. 4. Setup meeting with the four appellants on 3/26/2016 at the smullen's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were in attendance. Badame and Spalding did not attend. S. Setup meeting with Dede Smullen on 4/6/2016 at her home to discuss issues regarding the easement that runs through my property. The Smullen 's use this easement for ingress/egress to access their home at 25 Highland. We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all where easement states it is . I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into it. To date, she has not contacted me in any way concerning this issue . 6. Setup meeting with the four appellants for 5/7 /2016 at the Smullen 's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts , Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding were not in attendance. After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot of time preparing presentation and received no response . At 2 :45 on the same day, Anthony Badame sent text saying sorry he missed meeting and would like to meet. I replied at 2 :46 saying "I would be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime. It is now 3 days later, 5/10/2016 and have gotten no reply. 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 May 13, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report - Revised (HTH # 1333-02) Dear Mr. Pearson: Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared an updated biological resources report for the site located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California. This report updates the previous biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997) prepared for the site with respect to existing biological conditions and evaluation of the current potential biological and regulatory constraints to the proposed development of the site in the context of applicable laws and regulations. Project Description and Location The 1.0-acre (ac) proposed Project site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos, California (Figure 1). The Project site is bounded by Highland Avenue to the south and residential development to the north, west, and east. The proposed Project entails the construction of a house and associated driveway. The following conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed Project to minimize potential effects on biological resources:  Erosion control systems will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season.  Erosion control measures will conform to the Association of Bay Area Governments standards or Town of Los Gatos standards.  In the event of rain, all grading work will cease immediately and the site will be sealed in accordance with the approved erosion control measures.  The contractor will be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control measures after rain storms.  All cut and fill slopes will be protected by seeding and covered with straw mulch following completion of construction.  Contractor will prevent any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of the paved road. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 1. Vicinity Map 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Methods H. T. Harvey & Associates plant/wetland ecologist Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., and wildlife ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., characterized the existing biotic conditions on the Project site, including the presence and distribution of biotic habitats, potentially regulated habitats, and special-status species. This assessment involved a review of relevant background information regarding biological resources in the vicinity of the Project site that might supersede or modify our previous assessment of constraints, as well as a site visit conducted on February 19, 2016. Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur in the Project region was reviewed, including information from the following sources:  California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2016)  Federally listed species information for the vicinity from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2016)  Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2016) was conducted for special-status plant and animal species occurring in the Los Gatos, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle within which the site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles (San Jose East, San Jose West, Cupertino, Castle Rock Ridge, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, and Santa Teresa Hills). In addition, for plants we reviewed the Online Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS 2016) for information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 that occur in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. Existing Biological Conditions General Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Vegetation. Vegetation on the Project site has not changed substantially from the description provided in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). One biotic habitat type was identified on the Project site, coast live oak/California bay woodland. The overstory is dominated by native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and western chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Non-native bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) is also present in the overstory. The understory is dominated by non-native periwinkle (Vinca major). In addition, a drainage, best characterized as an ephemeral stream (defined as a waterway that conveys water surface runoff during and immediately after precipitation events in a typical year) crosses the site. At the time of the recent survey 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 (February 19, 2016), the on-site drainage supported flowing water from recent rains (approximately 1-inch of rain received on February 19, 2016); water in the drainage was approximately 18 inches across, on average, and was an estimated 4-6 inches deep. Flows within this drainage appear to be flashy and are likely to disappear into the relatively permeable Los Gatos and Mayhem soils that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall event. Wildlife. The coast live oak/California bay woodland produces mast crops that are an important food source for many birds as well as mammals, including the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), California quail (Callipepla californica), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). The oaks also provide breeding habitat for a variety of bird species, including the bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), while the understory provides habitat for the Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Mature trees also provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); however, no large stick nests were observed during the reconnaissance survey of the site. Common amphibians and reptiles in this habitat include the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Special-status Plant and Animal Species As described in Methods above, information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that could occur on the Project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special- status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on the site. Figures 2 and 3 are maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general vicinity of the Project site, defined for the purposes of this report as the area within a 5-mile (mi) radius. These generalized maps are valuable on a historic basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions. While these records are not definitive, they show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously. Photo 1: Coast live oak/California bay woodland 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 5 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 2. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Plants 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Map of Special-status Animals 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Special-status Plants A list of special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in the Los Gatos vicinity was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2016) and CNDDB records (CNDDB 20165) and reviewed for their potential to occur on the Project site. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with these species, all but three were determined to be absent from the Project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the Project site; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated. The three species which were analyzed further for their potential to occur on the Project site are discussed in more detail below. Maple-leaved Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malachroides). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR: 1B. Habitat for the maple-leaved checkerbloom includes broadleaved upland forests, coastal prairie, and north coast coniferous forest. The species often occurs within disturbed portions of these habitats. The blooming period for this perennial herb occurs from May through August. Aside from a historical occurrence within the Calaveras Reservoir quadrangle, no documented populations of maple-leaved checkerbloom are known from the vicinity of the Project. Although potential habitat for this species occurs within the Project site, the presence of dense mats of periwinkle preclude growth of the species. Therefore, maple-leaved checkerbloom was determined to be absent from the site. Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). Federal Status: None; State Status: None; CRPR 1B. Western leatherwood occurs within a wide range of habitats including: broad leaved upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. The blooming period of this deciduous shrub is from January through April. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, western leatherwood was not observed among the shrub component of the Project site. While out of the blooming period, this shrub is presently recognizable and if it occurred on site should have been detected. Therefore, this species was determined to be absent from the Project site. Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CRPR List: 1B. Santa Cruz manzanita is found in open areas within broadleaved upland forests and redwood forests below 2,300 feet. This species is endemic to the Santa Cruz mountains. The blooming period of this evergreen shrub is from November through April. This species is not known from the Los Gatos 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle in which the Project site occurs or the nine surrounding quadrangles. Because the understory of the parcel is densely shaded by the multi-storied canopy of trees, the habitat on site for this species is marginal. Further, while out of the blooming period, this shrub would have been detected during the reconnaissance survey if it occurred on site. Therefore, Santa Cruz manzanita was determined to be absent from the project site. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Special-status Animals Based on our review of current CNDDB (2016) records (Figure 4) and other data sources, as well as our extensive experience with other projects in the Los Gatos area, we know that several special-status animal species are known to occur in the Project region. However, all of these species were determined to be absent from the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or evidence that the species does not occur in the Project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others):  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of concern, and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened. The nearest known occurrence of the California red-legged frog is located over 4.5 mi from the Project site and the nearest known occurrence of the California tiger salamander is located approximately 3.9 mi from the Project site. Further, all potentially suitable aquatic breeding habitat for these species is separated from the Project site by extensive residential development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, neither of these species is expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site lacks suitable aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern. Further, the Project site is separated from the nearest suitable aquatic habitat by extensive development and numerous two-lane residential streets that serve as impediments to dispersal. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Project site and vicinity lack appropriate open habitat that could be used by foraging, nesting, or wintering burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern, and no burrows were present on the Project site. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend’s big-eared bat normally roosts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the to p corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this species is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend’s big-eared bats. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the Project site.  A focused survey for nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, failed to detect any nests of this species on the Project site. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Although the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) were previously identified as California species of special concern that might occur on the Project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997), both species have subsequently been removed from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) list of California species of special concern. Sensitive and Regulated Habitats The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFW sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Waters of the U.S./State. The ephemeral drainage that crosses the property meets the regulatory definition of an “other waters,” which is a category of waters of the U.S., and activities conducted within this feature are likely regulated by the USACE. Additionally, the drainage is considered a “waters of the State” which is regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. These conclusions are consistent with those described in the 1997 biotic constraints analysis (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997). CDFW Sensitive Habitats. To identify other potentially occurring natural communities of special concern, a CNDDB (2016) search within the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain or surround the Project site was performed. The CNDDB identified one sensitive habitats as occurring in the Project region: serpentine bunchgrass. However, no serpentine habitat is present on the Project site. Thus, none of the sensitive habitats tracked by CNDDB occur on the Project site. Biotic Impacts and Mitigation Overview The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: E. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” F. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” G. “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act” H. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” I. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” J. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Following is a brief summary of potential Project impacts on biological resources. No Impact Impacts on Special-status Plants and Animals. As described above, suitable habitat is not present on the Project site for any special-status plant or animal species. Therefore, there would be no impact on special-status plants or animals due to the proposed Project. Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid the ephemeral drainage on the site and would not result in the direct disturbance or loss of wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies, such as the USACE, San Francisco RWQCB, and CDFW. In addition, with implementation of the conservation measures incorporated into the Project, no indirect impacts on jurisdictional habitats would occur. Based on the proposed improvement plans (Peoples Associates, November 2015), that were recently revised (May 2016) to reflect the topographic top-of-bank as determined by H. T. Harvey & Associates, the average setback distance between the top-of-bank and the building envelope/deck as shown on the improvement plans is approximately 27 feet (this value is an average of seven measurements taken approximately every 20 feet from one end of the proposed building to the other; 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 values range from 15 to 36 feet). Between the proposed entrance road and the top-of-bank, the average setback distance is 20 feet (thirteen separate measurements were taken; values range from 4 to 40 feet). Riparian setback buffer widths are generally driven by a consideration of the ecological functions and values provided by the habitat, as well as the habitat quality. Typically, setbacks are greater for waterways that are perennial, support a diverse, broad, multi-storied canopy of native trees and shrubs, are adjacent to high-quality upland habitats, and are continuous in nature. Setbacks are reduced for intermittent/ephemeral drainages that are situated directly adjacent to existing development, do not provide connectivity upstream and downstream, do not support a diverse assemblage of wetland/riparian species, and do not support special-status wildlife species. Therefore, given a consideration of all of these factors, including (1) the drainage on the Project site is seasonal and does not support wetland plants or true riparian trees/shrubs, (2) the drainage is culverted immediately downstream of the Project site, (3) no special-status species are expected to make use of this habitat on the Project site, (4) common wildlife species are expected to continue to make use of this seasonal water source following Project construction, and (5) potential water quality issues with regard to run off from new impervious surfaces have been addressed through the incorporation of five bioswales, it is our opinion that the current setback from the top of bank reflected in the site plans is sufficient to minimize impacts on biological resources. Less-than-significant Impacts Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. The currently proposed Project would impact up to 1.0 ac of upland coast live oak/California bay woodland. The understory of this habitat type is dominated by non-native periwinkle, and the animal species that occur on the site are common species. Coast live oak/California bay woodland and associated plant and wildlife species are common and widespread in the San Francisco Bay area. Because the site supports only a very small proportion of the regional populations of common plant and wildlife species, the proposed Project would have very limited impacts on the regional abundance of these species. As a result, Project impacts on upland habitats and associated common plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would be considered less than significant under CEQA. Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Impacts on Protected Trees. The Project would result in the removal of several trees during construction. The Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance (Los Gatos Town Code, section 29.10.0950 to 29.10.0990) protects all trees having a trunk that measures 35 inches or more in circumference (12 inches in diameter) and all trees of the following species which have an 8-inch or greater diameter (25-inch circumference) located on developed residential property: blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). In addition, the ordinance protects trees which have a 12-inch circumference (4 inches or greater in diameter) that are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property. The ordinance protects both native and non-native species. Heritage trees, defined as a tree or grouping of trees specifically designated by action of the Town Council, are also protected. A tree removal 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 permit or other Town approval is required from the Town of Los Gatos for the removal or pruning of ordinance-sized trees. The removal of ordinance or heritage trees, without mitigation, would conflict with the City’s ordinance protecting trees and would thus be considered a significant impact under Appendix G, Item I, as described above. Implementation of the following measures will reduce impacts on ordinance-sized trees to a less-than- significant level by bringing the Project into compliance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Tree Protection Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 1a: Conduct a Preconstruction Tree Survey. A tree survey will be conducted prior to prior to any site grading or construction work in order determine whether any trees planned to be severely trimmed or removed are Ordinance trees as defined by the City of Los Gatos. Mitigation Measure 1b: Obtain Tree Removal Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will seek a Tree Removal Permit from the Town for any Ordinance trees that would be removed or severely trimmed. The approval authority may impose replacement standards for each tree to be removed or trimmed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds Construction disturbance during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest on the Project site due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project on these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact to their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code: Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. The survey should include the entire work area and surrounding 300 feet for raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, and falcons) and 100 feet for other nesting birds, as access allows—these distances are equivalent to the maximum recommended buffers around active nests of these species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. 19 Highland Avenue Biological Resources Report 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 13, 2016 Literature Cited [CNDDB] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed through October 2015. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ advanced.html. Accessed through October 2015. Google Inc. 2016. Google Earth [Software]. Available from www.google.com/earth. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. No 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, California Biotic Constraints Analysis. Prepared for Angelo Orphan. 3 "appropriate size for the property" Maximizing FAR with multiple site constraints is not appropriate. Maximizing bulk , mass . and volume extremely close to the street is not appropriate. Granting a substantial LRDA exception to accommodate maximum FAR is not appropriate. 4 "consistent with development on surrounding residential properties" Anomalous architecture incompatible with surrounding properties . Requests 1 . Return Creek and Riparian Buffer to Original State 2 . Enforce Development Within LRDA 3. Minimize Grading and Retaining Walls 4 . Prohibit I Minimize Further Removal of Trees 5. Reassess Setbacks: Front/Rear 5 "limited visibility into the site from surrounding homes" Wrth 37 mature trees removed, visibility will dramatically increase . 6 "proposed vegetation will aid in screening" It will take decades to achieve the same screening that the existing mature trees provide. 6 . 7. 8. 9. Compliance with General Plan not cited Not applicable? Requests Continued Reduce Driveway Impact Choose Appropriate Architecture : Compatible and Respectful Reduce FAR Reduce Bulk , Mass and Volume 10. Provide Complete, Accurate Plans For Public Review This Page Intentionally Left Blank 19 Highland Avenue G4 submitted to Development Review Committee RECE\VED I I~ -2 /\1\b TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING D!VIStON On 3/21/2016 HT Harv ey & Associates comp leted a Field survey to flag th e top of bank along the ephemeral drainage that crosses the parcel located at 19 Highland Avenue . Top of bank was demarcated in the field on March 21 , 2016 by Patrick Boursier using methodologies developed and approved by resource and regu latory agencies with jurisdiction within such drainages. Thirty inch yellow pin flags were placed along top of bank drainage. Immediately following Peop les associates surveyed the newly placed markers at top of bank. Sheet G4 reflected the newly surveyed top of bank and was also l abe led with two di stances nearest to house footprint. It was then sent by PDF file to Town Of Los Gatos prior to the DRC meeting held on 3/29/2016. Ed Pearson EXHIBIT 1 7 19 Highland avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 APN # 529-37-033 Site Visit BY Commissioners, Dear Commissioners, 6/1/2016 RECEIVED JUN - 2 20f6 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I wanted to write you a brief letter concerning your site visit to my property. First, I would recommend parking at the turnout across the street from 15 Highland. This is where Highland goes to the right and the private road that my site is on goes to the left. There is a no parking sign there but I have spoken with the owner, Mr. Sawyer and he has told me that it is fine for you to park there. Also, recently I have put up a few no trespass signs on the property due to someone dumping there. Please ignore these signs, if you choose to walk around on the site. About halfway up the site, there are two red stakes that mark a good walking trail to enter the site. Lastly, I have included a group of photos taken from the appellants homes looking toward my proposed home. I felt in order to do a thorough vetting process these photos would be helpful if access to all the appellants home sites was not possible. I felt this is absolutely necessary in showing how my proposed home has very little or no impact whatsoever on their properties. Thank you, Ed Pearson -· ...... ~.- 78 Alpine ave. Roberts 3 I N D E X T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s t o c o n s t r u c t a s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e i n a n H R - 2 1 / 2 z o n e . T h e s i t e i s o n a p r i v a t e r o a d o f f H i g h l a n d A v e . S u r r o u n d i n g p a r c e l s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 / 4 a c r e t o 3 a c r e s . H o m e s i n t h i s a r e a t y p i c a l l y r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 , 3 0 0 s q . f t . t o 5 , 5 0 0 s q . f t . W h i l e t h e p r o j e c t d i f f e r s f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d h o m e f o r t h i s s i t e , t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e h o m e w i l l r e m a i n t h e s a m e a n d t h e f o o t p r i n t w i l l r e m a i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p a s t a p p r o v e d h o m e . U n l i k e t h e p r e v i o u s a p p r o v a l , t h i s d e s i g n w i l l f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h t h e m a x i m u m h e i g h t f o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e H D S + G g u i d e l i n e s . T h e v e r y m i n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e f o o t p r i n t w e r e d e s i g n e d t o s t a y a l m o s t e n t i r e l y w i t h i n t h e L R D A . T r e e r e m o v a l w i l l f o l l o w t h e p r e v i o u s l y c o m p l e t e d a r b o r i s t r e p o r t a n d n e w l a n d s c a p i n g w i l l b e c o m p r i s e d e n t i r e l y o f a l m o s t a l l n a t i v e s p e c i e s . T h e s t y l e o f t h e h o m e i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d a s c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h s o m e r u s t i c e l e m e n t s . I t w a s d e s i g n e d w i t h a s t e p p e d f o u n d a t i o n ; k e e p i n g a l o w p r o f i l e w h i l e r u n n i n g p a r a l l e l t o t h e c o n t o u r s o f t h e e x i s t i n g h i l l s i d e . V e r y l o w p i t c h e d 2 : 1 2 s h e d r o o f s w i l l b e u s e d t o m i n i m i z e a e s t h e t i c i m p a c t s . E x t e r i o r m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e a m a i n l y t a u p e c o l o r i n t e g r a l s t u c c o w i t h a c o m p l e m e n t i n g p e w t e r / g r e y o n t w o o t h e r a r e a s w h i c h b o t h f a l l b e l o w t h e L R V v a l u e o f 3 0 . K e e p i n g f u r t h e r w i t h t h e d e s i g n s t y l e , a n a d d i t i o n a l t w o a r e a s w o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e a h o r i z o n t a l w o o d s i d i n g . T h e r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l w o u l d b e a c o m b i n a t i o n o f a d a r k c h a r c o a l c o m p o s i t i o n s h i n g l e w h i l e o t h e r a r e a s w i l l u s e a d a r k b r o w n s t a n d i n g s e a m m e t a l . L O C A T I O N M A P P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N O w n e r : E d P e a r s o n 2 3 9 T h u r s t o n S t . L o s G a t o s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 0 ( 4 0 8 ) 2 0 5 - 7 3 0 5 A 2 . 2 P r o p o s e d F l o o r P l a n s A 2 . 1 C o v e r S h e e t : G e n e r a l N o t e s + I n f o r m a t i o n A 1 . 1 P R O J E C T I N F O . P r o p o s e d R o o f P l a n P R O J E C T D A T A P A R C E L M A P A 3 . 2 P r o p o s e d N o r t h + S o u t h E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s P r o p o s e d E a s t + W e s t E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 Z O N I N G = H R - 2 1 / 2 F L O O D Z O N E = N O N E H I S T O R I C Z O N E = N O N E O C C U P A N C Y = R 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y D W E L L I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E = V - B R E Q U I R E D P A R K I N G : 2 C O V E R E D G A R A G E S P A C E S A L L O W E D P R O P O S E D S E T B A C K S : F R O N T S E T B A C K : 3 0 ' - 0 " > 3 0 ' - 0 " R I G H T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " L E F T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " R E A R S E T B A C K : 2 5 ' - 0 " > 2 5 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 2 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 0 " ( B U I L D I N G H E I G H T D E R I V E D F R O M A V E R A G E G R A D E E L E V A T I O N A L O N G B U I L D I N G E D G E A N D R I D G E E L E V A T I O N ) G R O S S L O T A R E A = 1 . 0 4 A C R E S = 4 5 , 2 4 0 S F A V E R A G E S L O P E = 2 8 . 7 6 % N E T L O T A R E A / L O T A R E A R E D U C T I O N : ( 1 0 0 % - ( 3 0 % / ( 3 X 8 . 7 6 ) X 4 5 , 2 4 0 = 1 9 , 7 7 9 S F G R O S S F L O O R A R E A P E R H D S T A N D A R D S / F A R : A L L O W A B L E F L O O R A R E A = 4 , 7 0 0 S F G A R A G E A L L O W A N C E = 4 0 0 S F M A X I M U M A L L O W E D T O T A L = 5 , 1 0 0 S F M A I N L E V E L : 2 , 5 7 1 S F U P P E R L E V E L : 1 , 7 8 6 S F T O T A L H A B I T A B L E H O U S E : 4 , 3 5 7 S F G A R A G E : 7 2 0 S F T O T A L : 5 , 0 7 7 S F T O T A L S I T E C O V E R A G E : 3 , 7 7 6 S F ( 9 % ) H A B I T A B L E H O U S E : 2 , 2 7 2 S F ( 5 % ) G A R A G E : 7 2 0 S F ( 2 % ) C O V E R E D P O R C H : 9 4 S F ( 0 % ) D E C K : 3 0 2 S F ( 1 % ) C O V E R E D P A T I O : 2 9 9 S F ( 1 % ) C O V E R E D B A L C O N Y : 8 9 S F ( 0 % ) H O A / C C R : N O N E W E L O R E Q U I R E M E N T S : N O T A P P L I C A B L E , U N D E R 5 0 0 S F O F I R R I G A T E D T U R F A N D N O P R O P O S E D P O O L O R F O U N T A I N O N S I T E . C i v i l E n g i n e e r : P e o p l e s A s s o c i a t e s C o n t a c t : V e l i m i r S u l i c 1 9 9 6 T a r o b C o u r t M i l p i t a s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 0 f a x : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 1 C O V E R S H E E T I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : N T S S t r u c t u r a l S - 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 2 D e s i g n e r : S t u d i o 3 D e s i g n C o n t a c t : B e s s W i e r s e m a 1 5 8 5 T h e A l a m e d a # 2 0 0 S a n J o s e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 1 2 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 2 9 2 - 3 2 5 2 f a x : ( 2 5 3 ) 3 9 9 - 1 1 2 5 S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 1 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 L a n d s c a p e P l a n L - 1 T h e f o l l o w i n g c o d e s a r e c u r r e n t l y i n e f f e c t : 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a R e s i d e n t i a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a P l u m b i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a M e c h a n i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E l e c t r i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a F i r e C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a G r e e n B u i l d i n g S t a n d a r d s C o d e C O D E S U S E D GENERAL NOTES 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R T h e r e s i d e n c e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e p a s s i v e a n d a c t i v e s u s t a i n a b i l i t y m e a s u r e s b y b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o s o l a r e x p o s u r e o n c e r t a i n f a c a d e s , m a t e r i a l s s e l e c t i o n s a n d L O W - E g l a z i n g . T h e h o m e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e H i l l s i d e D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s : p l a c e m e n t o f t h e b u i l d i n g i s a s p a r a l l e l t o g r a d e a s p o s s i b l e , t h e r e b y m i n i m i z i n g g r a d i n g a n d e x i s t i n g s l o p e s . T h e f o u n d a t i o n a n d b l u e p r i n t a l s o s t a c k b a c k f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s . M a t e r i a l s a r e e a r t h t o n e i n c o l o r s a n d m e e t o r e x c e e d L R V r e q u i r e m e n t s t o b l e n d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S h e d r o o f s a n d s h i f t s i n m a s s i n g a r e u s e d t o l e s s e n t h e o v e r a l l b u l k a n d m a s s . T h e h o m e i s n o t a t h r e e s t o r y h o m e , r a t h e r a s p l i t l e v e l s e t u p t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e h i l l s i d e g r a d e d i f f e r e n c e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t h e g a r a g e a r e a . A t n o p o i n t a r e 2 s t o r i e s o f h a b i t a b l e s p a c e s t a c k e d o v e r t h e g a r a g e a t t h e l o w e s t l e v e l . T h i s s t a g g e r e d e f f e c t h e l p s t o m i n i m i z e g r a d i n g a t t h e h i l l s i d e f o r b o t h t h e h o m e i t s e l f a n d t h e d r i v e w a y a c c e s s . 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y F I R E N O T E S 1 . T h i s p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e d e s i g n a t e d W i l d l a n d - U r b a n I n t e r f a c e f i r e a r e a . T h e b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e ( C B C ) C h a p t e r 7 A . V e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h C B C S e c t i o n 7 0 1 A . 3 . 2 . 4 . 2 . A n a u t o m a t i c r e s i d e n t i a l f i r e s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d t y p e 1 3 D . S e c t i o n R 3 1 3 . 2 a s a d o p t e d a n d a m e n d e d b y L G T C . 3 . P o t a b l e w a t e r s u p p l i e s s h a l l b e p r t o t e c t e d f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n c a u s e d b y f i r e p r o t e c t i o n w a t e r s u p p l i e s . T h e o w n e r a n d a n y c o n t r a c t o r s / s u b c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l c o n t a c t t h e w a t e r p u r v e y o r s u p p l y i n g t h e s i t e o f s u c h p r o j e c t , a n d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h a t p u r v e y o r . 2 0 1 3 C F C S e c t i o n 9 0 3 . 3 . 5 a n d H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y C o d e 1 3 1 1 4 . 7 . 4 . A p p r o v e d h o u s e n u m b e r s s h a l l b e p l a c e d i n s u c h a p o s i t i o n t o b e p l a i n l y v i s i b l e a n d l e g i b l e f r o m t h e s t r e e t f r o n t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . N u m b e r s s h a l l b e 6 " t a l l a n d i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e i r b a c k g r o u n d . C F C S e c t i o n 5 0 5 . 5 . C o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h a l l a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C F C C h a p t e r 1 4 , i n c l u d i n g F i r e D e p a r t m e n t S t a n d a r d D e t a i l a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n S 1 - 7 . SHADOW STUDYN.T.S.1. All material and workmanship shall conform with requirements to the 2013 CRC, 2013 CBC,2013 CEC, and 2013CMC.2. Notes and details on drawings shall take precedence over these General Notes.3. Dimensions as indicated are the dimensions to be used. Do not scale the drawings.4. No changes are to be made on the plans without the knowledge of the Engineer whose signature appears herein.5. The design adequacy and safety of the erection, bracing, shoring, and the temporary supports is the soleresponsibility of the Contractor.6. The General Contractor shall insure that there is a full time, qualified Superintendent at the job site at all times.7. Provide special inspection for all times as required by IBC and Local Code authority.SPECIAL INSP E C T I O N N O T E S FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A p a d c e r t i f i c a t e p r e p a r e d b y a a l i c e n s e d C i v i l E n g i n e e r o r L a n d S u r v e y o r s h a l l b e submitted to the project Building I n s p e c t o r a t f o u n d a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n . T h i s c e e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l c e r t i f y c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e recommendations as specified in t h e s o i l s r e p o r t a n d t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g p a d e l e v a t i o n a n d o n - s i t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l l o c a t i o n s and elevations have been prepar e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a p p r o v e d p l a n s . H o r i z o n t a l a n d b v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l s s h a l l b e s e t a n d certified by a licensed Surveyor or r e g i s t e r e d C i v i l E n g i n e e r f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : a. Building pad elevationb. Finish floor elevationc. Foundation corner locationsd. Retaining wallsPRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: P r o v e a l e t t e r f r o m C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t o r L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t c e r t i f y i n g t h e landscaping and vegetation clear a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d p e r t h e C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4291 and Government Code Sect i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE / F I R E B R E A K L A N D S C A P I N G P L A N : P r e p a r e d b y C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t o r Landscape Architect in conforman c e w i t h C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 a n d G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 51182.BUILDING MAT E R I A L S ROOFING: Standing seam metalGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS: G a l v a n i z e d m e t a l ( s q u a r e s h a p e ) EXTERIOR LIGHTS: Downward / d o w n w a r d d a r k s k y EXTERIOR FINISH: Stucco and w o o d s i d i n g ENTRY DOOR: (Selection by Ow n e r ) GARAGE DOOR: Carriage Hous e ( S a n M a t e o S e r i e s ) ROOF SOFFITS: "Longboard" no n - c o m b u s t i b l e , 6 " , l i g h t w a l n u t , a l u m i n u m s i d i n g ROOF/ FOUNDATION VENTS: " B a n g u a r d V e n t s " u n d e r e a v e / s o f f i t v e n t s , r i d g e v e n t s , a n d f o u n d a t i o n v e n t s S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r : C o r n e r s t o n e S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p , I n c C o n t a c t : C h a d 4 0 F e d e r a l S t r e e t S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 0 7 p h : ( 9 1 6 ) 8 9 7 - 9 6 4 9 e m a i l : c h a d g @ c o r n e r s t o n e s t r u c t u r a l . n e t T i t l e 2 4 : F R I E n e r g y C o n s u l t a n t s , L L C C o n t a c t : N i c k B i g n a r d i 2 1 N . H a r r i s o n A v e . , S u i t e 2 1 0 C a m p b e l l , C A 9 5 0 0 8 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 8 6 6 - 6 8 3 2 e m a i l : n i c k @ f r i c o n s u l t i n g . c o m D o o r + W i n d o w S c h e d u l e A 5 . 1 M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n M E - 1 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 1 B l u e p r i n t f o r a C l e a n B a y A 1 . 2 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 2 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 G 2 T i t l e S h e e t G 1 S i t e P l a n G 4 U t i l i t y P l a n G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n G 3 T r e e I n v e n t o r y P l a n G 5 S e c t i o n s a n d D e t a i l s G 6 E r o s i o n C o n t r o l P l a n G 7 C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( P e n d i n g ) G 8 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 1 8 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R P R O P O S E D R O O F P L A N I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 N O R T H + S O U T H E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 E A S T + W E S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R S E C T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 4 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R S E C T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 4 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 5 . 1 L A N D S C A P E P L A N I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : 1 " = 4 0 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N l - 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6