Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Attachment 5 ATTACHMENT 5A 13680 Page Mill Road Los Altos.Hills 94022 October 16,2015 Via Electronic Mail Suzanne Avila, Planning Director . Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road RECEIVED Los Altos Hills CA 94022 OCT 192015: Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Stirling Subdivision TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Dear Planning Director Avila, I am submitting this letter as an interested resident of Los Altos Hills to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the Stirling Subdivision. • After reviewing the MND,it is my position that the MND is deficient in failing to adequately address the environmental consequences of development that have the potential to block a critical wildlife corridor_a corridor that links this property to the open space of the Arastradero Preserve,to the open space of Poor Clare's and to Byrne Preserve. Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals, such as deer,fox, bobcat and coyote,are prevented by roads,fences, homes and other development from moving freely as they once did (in Los Altos Hills). Page 6—Wildlife Species and Habitat 315—Conservation Element of the General Plan. Additionally, preservation of open space in Los Altos Hills and the protection of local wildlife are viewed by residents as characteristics that define the Town. Every Town survey has confirmed open space preservation to be a top priority. The most recent 2011 survey revealed that residents highly value protection of the rural environment and wildlife(92.6%and 88.8%). See attached survey results. Listed as Principles of the Open Space Element of the Town's General Plan: a) to the maximum extent possible,all uses of land and structures in the planning area should be subordinate to the general open space quality of the planning area b) open spaces,to the extent possible,should be linked together visually and physically to form a system of open spaces Live Oak Associates "Wildlife Corridor Study" of December 2006 identified areas within the Town of Los Altos Hills that contribute to the regional movement of wildlife populations with a goal of identifying existing landscape linkages(i.e.wildlife corridors)within the Town. As explained in this document, "Habitat corridors are vital to provide terrestrial animals connectivity between core habitat areas(i.e., larger intact habitat areas where species make their living). Connections between two or more core habitat areas help ensure that genetic diversity is maintained . . .This is especially true in fragmented landscapes such as LAH:and the surrounding urbanized areas." "New subdivisions, residences, and barrier fence can result in the breaking up of large blocks of habitat into smaller,disconnected, isolated pieces. This habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to wildlife. Fragmentation reduces the area and the quality of habitat available to sustain healthy native wildlife populations;it prevents animals from moving between the remaining patches of habitat to access food,shelter, mates,and other resources. . . . Unless movement corridors are planned for and protected in advance of future development,this fragmentation will continue." Wildlife Management"—LAH Open Space Committee brochure. - r The 18+acre parcel at 28030 Natoma Road was identified as a site of environmental and biological importance by both the Town's Wildlife Survey conducted in 2005 and the Wildlife Corridor Study performed by Live Oak Associates. They confirmed the sensitivity of this site because of the variety and number of different kinds of wildlife found on this parcel (e.g. coyote, bobcat,black-tailed deer, mountain lion,fox,opossum,skunk and raccoon). The Initial Study/MND(Background-page 2) recognizes the above with the following statement: "Town resource documents indicate the potential for the site to serve as a wildlife passage corridor in that it links open space/open areas within this portion of the Town, including Byrne Preserve to the south and Poor Clare's just to the east along Natoma Road, with Arastradero Preserve in Palo Alto to the northwest." However,the Initial Study(Biological Resources 4d-page 30)with respect to the question—Would this project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident.. or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors.. ? --assigns the value Less Than Significant Impact. On the contrary,the value assigned should be Potentially Significant Impact or,at least, Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. Wildlife—deer in particular-have been using the open habitat of the meadow/field on this parcel as a corridor,allowing them access to the open space of Poor Clare's(albeit through a small opening in the existing fence). If development and/or fencing block this access,a major wildlife corridor will be negatively impacted. While the large riparian open space area is important for wildlife, restricting wildlife to creeks can make prey species more vulnerable to predators,such as mountain lion, coyote, skunk,fox,etc. For this reason additional open space areas (meadows and fields)are also needed for wildlife movement. The removal of the existing property-line fence and replacement by a wildlife-friendly fence on the northern and eastern boundary is welcomed. However,such fencing is rendered useless, if other barrier fencing is erected on individual properties. The Live Oak Associates"Analysis and Recommendations Regarding the Proposed Development"on the Stirling property(page 3)states: . . . deer will continue to access this site,regularly assuming that the individual lots are not surrounded by impermeable fencing. The elimination of the existing perimeter fence and replacement by a wildlife-friendly fence, while helpful,will not guarantee the continued use of this area by local wildlife and allow their safe passage to the open space areas to the east,to the south,and to the northwest. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED: In order to mitigate the impact of development on the open space character and on wildlife, it is being recommended by three Town committees that an open space easement or pathway easement between 25 and 30 feet wide be located on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property. An easement,combined with wildlife-friendly fencing and other measures to prevent future owners of individual lots from erecting impermeable fencing in this area,will facilitate wildlife flow through this area to the nearby open space. . CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I believe that the MND does not meet the goals of the Town's General Plan "to adequately assess the potential of this development to fragment and isolate significant wildlife habitats. (Goal 3. Program 3.3 of the Conservation Element). Nor does it comply with the Santa Clara County General Plan,which encourages"maintenance of migratory corridors and linkages between natural areas to compensate for fragmentation." If mitigation measures, as enumerated above, are taken to provide safe passage for wildlife through the property, rather than exclusively in the riparian area,the corridor will remain intact and wildlife will have been protected. The open space character of the Town will have been retained as well. Very truly yours, Nancy Couperus tra ; tvww.losaltoshilis_ea.gov,cbsctua,erv:;;annotaal%enaen?511 i';i�.[:unJej `curlu;0.1R; 21)L1 i i Z ji • Law Online Suirvey:2011 Fence Suevey tetzSurveyMonkey• • • ;I Co�youka�seo that_one hflont of a ur 1otmdlr g rt t nta w to Oe our NO: ct>avii onrrlont' • • • Reaponns Roaponsa Percent .Count • Ye* SMG% 5201 • 7.4% 42• unawetad welder' 503 skipped quasgen 80 . ' • : • • 11` 4i ouir 7ilriii o7w eamO?!t IIiidaliti`(>t' ,vlio i 4lwdE. itdr it to y 5i!' .• Rasrenne Roapenso i Pinesnl Coarct • � 502 Yes GanGan i' ilio 11.2% 63 u1a'1aztarod question 3115 {j • sipped question 17 • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • r 3`0,oyouagroo'Thatporipfieraf; a en sncos46sr10o *)cared jiYoperty Iliesci0iZolii - I grids ti tadvor3elyy4a3faottheTovv+ni' Intendedlliralic Liza or_ "wagihngin"gpaa112#1es; 1 roducing tiro o"peri aroblerice o(tlrs I b1oakliig tsk9 ii 3tfo v�oMdors Tat'Kaep, • + wlldll�o aiiroy fries rt dards andrr»llalch may a9ao do ce 3li n on to,iroads;dttl l if1 caprss;' • OPO. t3'!i'ii€i iis}i boss? . ities�b+etu�ert�rtalgh • Rosponao Response } -Portent Count • Yea 52.6% • 301 No37.1% 212 • }31 _.. .•{ No,Opinion 10.3% 59 • • • answered quoeUon 572 shipped quosUon 10 • 2007 Wildlife Corridor Map ATTACHMENT 5B ( Via Email and U.S. Mail RECEOVE Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant Los Altos Hills Planning and Building Department u . OCT 199 2015 Town Hall Office TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road . Los Altos Hills, CA,94022 crichardson@losaltoshills.ca.gov Dear Ms. Richardson, . My name is Benjamin Sloss and'I am submitting this written comment on the proposed ' mitigated negative declaration for,the Stirling Subdivision, 28030 Natoma Road ("the Project") on behalf of my spouse and myself. My spouse Christine Sloss and I reside at 28025 Natoma Road in Los Altos and we contend that the current proposed design of the vehicle and' pedestrian egress and ingress easement for the Project can and should be re-designed to minimize the removal of matured heritage oak trees fronting our property. We recently received a notice of Los Altos Hills intent to adopt the mitigated negative declaration,for the Project but did not receive a copy of the plans. After reviewing the access road improvementsplans for the Project on line, we discovered that 1) instead of the 1.7 feet wide roadway necessary, theproposed easement roadway for the Project is 22-feet wide along its entire length, and in some places wider; and 2) numerous matured heritage oak trees lining thefront of our,property will be removed to accommodate the egress and ingress easement for the Project. According to the Los Altos Hills General Plan for the Conservation Element adopted on April 26, 2007, heritage trees"are a valuable asset to,the community because they beautify landscapes, increase:property value, improve air quality, and reduce energy consumption." Additionally, the Town's Heritage Tree Ordinance protects large oaks and other trees determined to be of special significance. "Preserve and protect Heritage Trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property." Policy 2.3 in the Conservation Element. Accordingly, programs have beenestablished to enforce the Heritage Tree Ordinance including Program 2.4 in the Conservation Element to"[c]ontinue to refer site development applications to the Environmental Design.Committee and Open Space Committee for review and comment" Pages 4 and 5 of the Conservation Element Los Altos hills General Plan are attached for your..convenience.- These line of mature heritage oak trees that front our property provide us and several of our neighbors with shelter/shade and visuallyenhances the existing roadway. We believe that a re- design of the.proposed roadwayeasement could save several of these oak trees and would provide an amicable solution between the Project developer and their adjoining neighbors. We are requesting that the Town of Los Altos Hills requires the Project's planning engineer to work with a private architect, whom we will retain, to come up with an alternate design that will be acceptable to all parties. Also, we are requesting that the Project gets referred to the Environmental Design Committee and Open Space Committee for review and comment if that has not been done. Finally, we request that we be kept informed regarding the development and approval of the Project. Our concerns and requests are also supported by our neighbors who have signed the bottom of this letter indicating their concern about the removal of the Heritage trees. Thank you. Very truly yours, Benjamin Sloss 18 October 2015 Property Address Signature of PrQerty Owner Leo itetovut . tel k1t. I1► 13300 s v -) Lc C z u/ Lb 5, l-t-c 4; l 1s I,3 ',WiL5-13 ta23 it 0920 Pah �ar4IQ Adopted April 26,2007 GOAL 2 Protect native and naturalized trees and plants. Policy 2.1 Minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation. Policy 2.2 Preserve and protect native and naturalized plants, with special attention to preservation of unique, rare or endangered species and plant communities such as oak woodlands. Policy 2.3 Preserve and protect Heritage Trees,including native oaks and other significant trees,on public and private property. Policy 2.4 Encourage the planting of native trees and shrubs to provide a substantial buffer between the roadways and adjoining properties in harmony with the general character of the Town. Policy 2.5 Encourage the removal and prevention of the spreading of aggressive exotics such as Italian thistle, stinkweed, pampas grass, acacia, yellow star thistle, French broom, Scotch broom and eucalyptus. Policy 2.6 Encourage the removal of poison oak where allowed by law. Policy 2.7 Avoid the development of environmentally sensitive areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, such as areas of rare or endangered species of plants,or riparian areas. Program 2.1 Continue to enforce the Heritage Tree Ordinance, which protects large oak trees and other significant trees by requiring a special permit for removal. Program 2.2 Continue to require the replacement of any Heritage Oaks or other significant trees that are removed under special permit or as part of approved development projects. Program 2.3 Continue to limit development within the dripline of Heritage Oaks. Program 2.4 Continue to refer site development applications to the Environmental Design Committee and Open Space Committee for review and comment. Program 2.5 Encourage the dedication of conservation/open space easements or the public acquisition of areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature to ensure their protection. Program 2.6 In the landscaping of individual sites and replanting where original vegetation has been destroyed or removed, encourage the use of native rather than exotic plants. In those areas of high fire risk,however,it may be preferable to introduce carefully chosen exotics with high fire resistance characteristics. Program 2.7 Develop a programto manage and control invasive species, particularly along creeks and their associated riparian corridors. Conservation Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page 5 ATTACHMENT 5C Pathways Committee Town of Los Altos Hills October 20, 2015 RECEIVED Suzanne Avila, Planning Director - o 2015 Town of Los Altos Hills �c' } 26379 Fremont Road TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Stirling Sudivision Assessor's Parcel 182-10-057 Dear Suzanne, At our meeting on October:19,2015,the Pathways.Committee (PWC)voted unanimously(with Sue Welch recusing herself) to submit the following response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) filed on behalf of the Stirling Subdivision. The PWC reviewed the project in 2012; 2013 and 2014,and:minutes of these meetings are available. Purpose of the reviews was to recommend how to integrate the project into the Town's existing pathway system. The recommendations below reiterate the majority vote on the issues listed. The maps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) submitted on behalf of the Stirling Subdivision by EMC Planning Group Inc. of Monterey, California fail to reflect previous PWC recommendations. Significant negative impacts to the immediate neighbors,the community at large andthe land underlying the project will result if the PWC recommendations are not incorporated into the Tentative Map and MND. Specifically,the project,as shown,would have significant negative effects with respect to: Aesthetics Geology/Soils (Geotechnical Hazards) Hydrology Land Use/Planning Aesthetics The Stirling Subdivision is one'of the last large subdivisions possible in Los Altos Hills. For this reason it is imperative that it not violate the rural,residential character that has existed in Town since incorporation. Part of that character is created by the pathway system. Paths may run beside the roads but are often separated from the pavement for safety and aesthetic reasons. Off-road paths connect neighborhoods, create pleasant recreational loops and are essential as an alternative to roads in emergencies.Though they function as sidewalks,paths help preserve the open,rural aspect of the Town,especially when built to meander around trees and other natural features. The pathway easementsshown in the MND arenot wide enough to create the necessary meandering, open character required to make this development consistent with the Town's look and.feel. Wider easements are necessary to prevent loss of mature trees,loss of passageways for wildlife and to create a buffer between existing homes and those to be built. The PWC recommends a 30' easement along the eastern property boundary of the project. The 30' easement should continue from the northeast corner,along the north property boundary until it joins the open space easement on Lot 5. A 30'easement is necessary. Without it,the project will have a significant negative effect through loss of mature trees,narrowing of a wildlife corridor and loss of an adequate buffer between existing and new homes. Geology/Soils (Geotechnical Hazards) In 2014,the Pathways Committee recommended that the pathway easement along the project north boundary widen to become contiguous with the open space easement on Lot 5. A very wide easement is necessary in order to build a safe connection to the bridge over Matadero Creek and the Wallace Stegner Path. The terrain on Lot 5 becomes very steep,and switchbacks will be needed to navigate:the slope. The PWC was unaware of two dormant landslides on Lot 5 and the mitigation measures proposed. Because of the slides and the need for mitigation measures,the PWC now recommends that the pathway easement be contiguous with the open space easement on Lots 5 and 6. With greater leeway,the path can negotiate the slope and avoid areas of disturbed soils on Lot 5. Hydrology/Water Quality The Town's pathway system is built slowly over many years as properties are developed,so it is very important to build connections as.the opportunities occur. Now is the time to create the:link across Matadero Creek to the Wallace Stegner Path. The PWC recognizes the steep slopes on the portions of the project near the creek. The PWC also recognizes the need to minimize erosion from the path. Having a very wide easement allows the path to be engineered to avoid erosion uphill.of the riparian corridor. Land Use/Planning In the future,when all the homes are built,residents of the project will want to connect with the paths closest to their homes. The PWC recommended a 20' pathway easement from the bulb of the cul-de-sac on Charles Avenue to the easement along the north boundary of the project Such a connector is consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Pathways Element of the Town's General Plan. In 2012;the PWC discussed the pathway easement between Natoma Road and Charles Avenue and recommended,a I.IB path,meandering within the 20' easement and separated from the pavement Construction of nine homes is likely to take ten or more years,with the result that Charles Avenue will be full of trucks and construction equipment for the foreseeable future. This very significant negative_ impact can only be somewhat mitigated by building a connector to Natoma as far off the pavement as possible.The path should meander to avoid cutting down mature trees. To mitigate the significant negative effect of years of construction activity,the PWC recommends that the paths be built as part of the subdivision improvements and not wait until after completion of the homes. The PWC further recommends that allpaths be staked and inspected by the PWC before construction. The PWC notes a 50' scenic and pathway easement on properties outside the western boundary of the Stirling project along Matadero Creek. The PWC wanted to drawattention to the kinds of requirements used to integrate other subdivisions into the pathway system and to safeguard the rural character of the Town. Yours sincerely, 64, Ann A.Duwe, Chairman Pathways Committee ATTACHMENT 5D Alan L. Kaganov and Carol M. Kaganov 13300 Simon Lane kscE ® Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone.(650) 947-3939 OCT.21 2015 Fax (650) 941-8066. E-mail:ckaganov@ aoLcom TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS so nna, nv 11 c) To: eygtistirairhant 4)1 n G ,Iiirrzier 0 I-- Los Altos Hills Panning and Building Department Date: October 19,2015 Re: Stirling Subdivision We are submitting this written comment on the proposed_mitigated negativedeclaration for the Stirling Subdivision, 28030 Natoma Road. We reside at 13300 Simon Land,and the western edge of our property backs up to Charles Avenue. (This is a misnomer—it should be called Charles Path,or Charles Lane, or'Charles Road—it can hardly be described as an "avenue,"which is defined in the dictionary as"a broad road,""a wide street,""a thoroughfare.") We recently received a notice of Los Altos Hills' intent to adopt the mitigated negative declaration for the Project, and we reviewed the access road plans online. We contend'that'the current proposed design of the egress and ingress easement for the project can and should be re-redesigned to minimize the issues we see: (1) We discovered that instead of a 17-foot wide roadway,the proposed easement is now.22 feet wide along its entire length,and in some places wider. This will result in the removal of numerous mature Heritage Oak Trees that • line the road and provide shade, shelter and visual enhancement to the existing roadway and homes. These trees add wonderfulgreenery on our property,and directly affect our view to the west. (2) In addition,we hear that the road is being widened to accommodate a proposed walking pathway that parallels Charles"Avenue."This is of utmost concern to us! In our'previous home at 190 Cherokee Way in Portola Valley, there was a walking path directly along the rear of our property,and it was one of the main reasons we sold our house and moved to Los Altos Hills! Having pedestrian activity within view, and earshot,negatively affected the enjoyment of our home, inside and out. People walking on the town path added noise, lessened our feeling of privacy,and it led to loss of sleep and mental and physical stress. We could see and hear the people,their horses, and their dogs,and we noticed that one dog's bark led to all the neighbors' dogs barking in turn. Also,we felt it created a security risk! This is true in LAH,too,because the County Sheriffs rarely patrol our small streets. (3) Adding a construction zone on a narrow road behind, and adjacent to, our house will bring a lot of extra traffic with noise, dust and dirt--during the building phase, and it will forever bring dozens of cars,trucks, and other vehicles to the narrow road along our backyard.This is sure to have a negative effect on the property value of our home. These are all serious concerns,and we would appreciate your taking them into consideration when evaluating the merits of your subdivision--its ingress and egress on Charles,widening the road,and creating an unnecessary walking path. Our aim is to continue enjoying our home, our property, and the country flavor of Los Altos Hills. These concerns and requests are also supported by our neighbors who have signed the bottom of this letter indicating their concern about(1)the removal of Heritage Trees,(2)creating a walking path,and(3)maintaining our property values. Thank you. Name and Signature of Property Owner(s) Property Address. CL\C-6- cf\( 6-16 n-,o,asou, Carol M.Kaganov and Alan L.Kaganov 13300 Simon Lane,Los Altos Hills 80 254'6 9:44t- Z- • r S I b SS 13 (; p e, l ATTACHMENT 5E From: Kent Webb 13315 Simon Lane OCT Los Altos Hills, CA 94022T � '� 215 To: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director �r�+�����sALr®SH1jL Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 Date: October 23, 2015 Re: Comment on Stirling Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration After reviewing the document for this project, I cannot agree that it meets the criteria for a proposed (mitigated) negative declaration. Specific issues are explained below. Pre-Development Issues Generally unsupervised pre-development of the Stirling property has already resulted in significant adverse environmental impacts. As a result of significant predevelopment clearing of native vegetation, including shrubs,grasses, small trees,the habitat supporting a once vibrant California quail population has been destroyed, resulting in the elimination of the species from the eastern portion of the property and neighboring properties(by observation), and perhaps the entire area. The wildlife- impermeable fencing along the eastern and northern boundary contributed to the decline by fragmenting the habitat. This issue was not addressed in the document.According to the Stanford Quail page: "In 1999,the National Audubon Society added them to their list of threatened bird species and the San Francisco chapter launched a "Save the Quail" campaign to counter habitat loss ... " Source: http://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/art/species/bird/webQuail_California.html Attached. A small population of gray foxes that were once observed on the eastern portion of the property has disappeared coincident with this predevelopment. Foxes rely on brush and other vegetation to evade coyotes.The widespread clearing of the property appears to be a likely cause related to the disappearance of foxes. Declining populations of bats and jack rabbits observed in the area are another likely consequence of recent unsupervised development. The wildlife impermeable fence along east and northern boundaries was installed without adequate review from the Town. Representative of indifference to neighbors, concrete supports for the fence were built to extend onto neighboring properties, no notice of construction was provided. There were immediate adverse impacts from the fence on wildlife movement in the area. As one compromise to reduce these impacts negotiated by a Council member, a wildlife corridor was established as a small opening in the fence at the southwest corner of the property at 13315 Simon Lane, on the eastern boundary of Lot 2 in the development. Jack rabbits, deer and other animals use this opening. Without this corridor, animals moving east to west from the open space in the Stirling property to the open space of Poor Clares are funneled onto a blind curve at the entrance to the development at 28030 Natoma Rd, creating a traffic safety hazard for motorists and wildlife. I am pleased to see the proposed subdivision map includes the removal of the existing fence and its replacement with wildlife permeable fencing. As a property owner at 13315 Simon Lane I am happy to • offer my support for the new wildlife-permeable fencing. Without other protections, however,the intent of the wildlife permeable fencing may be defeated;for example, perimeter impermeable fencing of lots in the subdivision would block all access to the sections of wildlife permeable fence. Perimeter fencing was opposed by the majority of Town residents in the 2011 fence survey currently available on the Town website. In the survey, 88.8%of the respondents also answered yes to the following question: "Is our rural environment and the protection of wildlife important to you?" Summary: In order to comply with the proposed (mitigated) negative declaration for this project,the new wildlife permeable fence described in the Stirling Subdivision documents of September 14, 2015, - would need additional conditions to protect its implied benefit, such as the implementation of the open space easement proposed by the Open Space Committee, a formally designated wildlife corridor, appropriate setbacks, and restrictions on type and location of any new fencing. Without other fencing restrictions,the intent of the wildlife permeable fence will not provide any mitigation for project impacts on established wildlife movement routes through the area. The project impact on California quail and jack rabbits has not been addressed in the report. Aesthetics In part con page 23 of the report related to the "character or quality of the site and its surroundings" the report concludes that the development is consistent with residential,use throughout the Town" and that"visual effects will be less than significant." In a previous meeting held with one of Stirlings attending by telephone, one of the Los Altos Hills residents, not an immediate neighbor, advised them not to try to maximize the number of lots in the project. That fewer lots would actually enhance the value of the project. He pointed out that people who want to live on a cul-de-sac live in Palo Alto or Los Altos. People wanting to live in Los Altos Hills are attracted by the rural nature of the Town. The Town Environmental Design Committee has recommended setbacks along the eastern boundary of the development to reduce the negative visual impacts of this project. The report does not address the concerns raised by the Environmental Design Committee. The Pathways Committee also recommended an easement along the eastern border. Sensitive Natural Communities In part b.on page 50 of the report the following assertion is made: "The project would provide for the maximum feasible preservation of open space; protect areas necessary to the integrity of natural resources/processes; and preserve natural beauty and minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation." This statement is clearly false. Three of the Town advisory committees—Open Space, Pathways, and Environmental Design—have proposed additional easements providing more open space along the eastern boundary of the project. The indifference to the recommendations of Town committees evidenced by this comment in the report raises questions about the credibility of this document. Wildlife Movement This assertion in part d. on page 52, is not adequately supported by the associated information: "... EMC Planning Group biologists agree that even though this project will lead to changes in spatial use patterns of local common species of wildlife,this would not constitute a significant CEQA impact because the project will preserve approximately 40 percent of the project site ..." A single island of open space is not sufficient to guarantee sustainable wildlife movement in an already highly fragmented environment. The organization Reliable Prosperity, a project of Ecotrust, offers the following guidance: "Multiple intersecting wildlife corridors offering multiple pathways between core reserves provide important resiliency to a wildlands network." Source: http://www.reliableprosperity.net/wildlife_corridors.html Attached. A rigorous study of urban wildlife corridor connectivity provides this empirical conclusion related to the importance of multiple corridors: "Well-connected networks such as Network E have a lower probability of extinction; populations can recolonize with greater ease if they are highly connected (Schippers et al. 1996)...This high degree of connectivity is just as important to maintain regional biodiversity as are the sizes and or number of nodes (Noss 1983)." Source: "Rudd, H.,Vala,J., and Schaefer,J.V., (2002). Importance of Backyard Habitat in a Comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: A Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces. Restoration Ecology 10(2). p. 368-375.Attached. The Town General Plan has identified wildlife linkages as an important consideration in planning new development. From page six of the Conservation Element of the General Plan,Wildlife Species and Habitat 135: "Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals,such as deer, fox, bobcat and coyote, are prevented by roads,fences, homes and other development from moving freely as they once did ..." Also as noted in the Town's Wildlife Management Open Space Committee brochure. "New subdivisions, residences, and barrier fence can result in the breaking up of large blocks of habitat into smaller, disconnected, isolated pieces. This habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to wildlife ..." As noted earlier, without providing supporting conditions related to the proposed wildlife permeable fence,this document does not adequately address the issue of wildlife movement. Transportation/Traffic In part d. included in the table on page 82 the assessment of no impact related to "increase hazards due to a design uses" does not take into account the issue of wildlife movement. As previously mentioned, without the wildlife corridors implied by the proposed wildlife permeable fence, all animals moving from the subdivision to Poor Clares would be funneled onto a blind curve at the entrance of the project creating a traffic hazard. There are already wildlife movement traffic warning signs at this location. This traffic safety issue is not addressed in the document. Mandatory Findings of Significance In part a. included in the table on page 87 related to "substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species"the conclusion is Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As noted earlier, pre-development work on the site has already significantly reduced habitat resulting in the local disappearance of the California quail and the gray fox. Wildlife permeability of the entire project site, including multiple corridors that are implied by the proposed wildlife permeable fence,would be essential elements to mitigate further damage. Because this is the last undeveloped parcel in the area to be developed,the environmental review must take into account impacts of previous development (e.g. other fences already put up and gridding off the whole neighborhood).The impact of this last development is significant in context with all the earlier development. 10/23/2013 California Quail Stanford Art at Exits: - ro� � » ,�f.�r�,G •P��� xy Seeing Stanford Species California Quail (Callipepla californica) Narrative and Science Lensf'"` Audubon shows the female investigating what may be a Harvestman (or Daddylonglegs), an eight- legged arachnid that resembles a spider, but is not venomous. This scene is a little unusual since the `, eight- _ usually eat seeds and foliage. These occasional hunters are themselves hunted. In San Francisco in 1881-82, for example, quail-on-toast went for thirty cents. More than 375,000 birds were ,, • ',7--,11,0 shipped in from southern California that year, bringing hunters $32,000, or about a dollar per dozen. Although considered hardy and adaptable, the popular birds were overhunted, and by 1885 targeting them was no r4 ., longer profitable. Populations recovered, huntinghas continued, some areas are artificiallystocked, and todaythe ,, P p � bag limit within the state is 10 birds. CH-Olt-on image to Enlarge One measure of their adaptability is producing small broods during drought years, which reduces the risk of rearing young who will eventually starve (See below: Quail Eggs and Clover and Wheye drawing after Audubon). One measure of their popularity is their designation as California's state bird. :+Campus Locations Historically common throughout campus, but now extirpated from many areas. As recently as the early 1990s, coveys could be found in the Arboretum and around the Oval, but these have mostly disappeared. Sightings in the general area are now uncommon and declining, probably in response to predation, especially by cats, and reduced dispersal through the campus from "natural" areas. The birds are primarily seen either in southern portions of campus, where they forage in grassy habitats or under oaks and use dense brush and ornamental plantings for cover, around Lagunita, or in the Dish area. Campus sustainability By the 1960s Bay Area quail populations, which had been generally widespread and common were declining and heading toward local extinctions. In 1999, the National Audubon Society added them to their list of threatened bird species and the San Francisco chapter launched a "Save the Quail" campaign to counter habitat loss and predation by feral cats in Golden Gate Park, where the population had dropped to 12 from about 1,200. The Presidio, which has San Francisco's largest quail population, installed eight "Quail in Area, Drive Carefully" road signs and initiated monitoring projects and habitat restoration activities. Quail protection expanded across the city within a year, and the bird was designated San Francisco's official bird. Meanwhile, by the late 1980s statewide hunters were taking 2 million birds annually. On campus the birds are at risk to predation by cats and other urban-adapted predators, and habitat fragmentation, which reduces recolonization. The decline is apparent both on campus and in other more urbanized areas. What you can do 1. Share your sightings—especially of the birds nesting on campus and try to keep a journal. http://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/art/species/birdlwebQuail_California.html 1/2 - 10/23/2015 California Quail 2. See if coveys seem to be blocked by fencing or the absence of cover. 3. Note if birds are seen in areas with native or weed plants v. gardens v. grassy areas. 4. Note any roadways the birds cross, and try to determine if"Quail in Area, Drive Carefully" signs would improve their safety. Science Essays from The Birder's Handbook: Quail Eggs and Clover; Precocial and Altricial Young, Flock Defense References: Gutierrez, 1979-80; Gutierrez et al., 1983; Leopold, 1977; Zink et al., 1987. Videos: Art Photos: Johanna van de Woestijne's photo of California Quail benefiting from the cover provided by native plantings such as native California lilac (Ceanothus spp) in rurubian areas around the campus. See more of Johanna's photographs. For more photos of California Quail (and text), see 10000 birds Drawings and Paintings: Darryl Wheye: California Quail, after Audubon with a chick and normal and stunted Subterranean Clover "subclover"(Trifolium subterraneum) Darryl Wheye: California Quail in Woodside To add to the Science or Art links, submit bird sightings, comment on the exhibit or the web presentation, or ask questions, please use the web forms on the Art at Exits home page. • fiitp://web.Stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/art/species/bird/webQuai I_Cal ifornia.htm I 2/2 11;123/2015- Reliable Prosperity:Wildlife Corridors Reliable Prosperity Wildlife Corridors Society 'K.7:-.71- i-.7-4.'747g1"47-krt 't.r.. . .... , •-' •.- . • ,,,,,;,-,0.s ' y.,=- Fundamental Needs Wildlife corridors are necessary because s .1Tgam ,' Subsistence Rights they maintain biodiversity, allow ` `w" z.• . • =f.. .•, ..; a, ,:r� , ,-,- , ,t Shelter For All flr v" , - 'ew � a. ',++ x ;. r r ,�, Health populations to interbreed, and provider, . ' ' .'„;!••>...-1,‘-..'"`" ., r ' c ;' Access to Knowledge '.:.;',4'5:11:-r- . yf r ,..` n t/,jr JA r+'t ,{ ri° access to larger habitats. . . , - r r,• r f. Community • r *y` ,f .,-e.' { rr y} r Social Equity "i.,-.:,--,',:•::' ~r -R _ `' i, +':•c)rf'{ { t }! r+ r 4� Security Wildlife corridors connecting core reserves S T � s Y r+ +.t,f.+0,:r.' f,t�.�j..4,..,,'j SrJ` df "e` Cultural Diversity + }a '` G rr� {iif O9 a r7 r f�iaf_t are crucial since theyincrease the effective ":k1 � '�" r �- ,-Tjt11 r't; r" ° r .A , Cultural Preservation I ; ti - .,r�t?�f{',�,I �� } �i+£'+?l,+tits'! r�e jr ,i, • Sense of Place • amount of habitat that is available for •• r f, • :r 4'r4' .r'y,•!,c.-.•••.:,:—,/ , , Bei Beauty and Play species and effectively reverse habitat • R�� `..s`;,r fr1,t ,,rY��.,r� = =I1,1".u,',/<` c %`'� h` r.) ,' T-.1 4 / ,r tr F,, r r 1 r j�}!,/ f fry! 4- `j fa �- JustTransitions fragmentation. This is especially important , r•ki"..e.^. N ' '` ; } �,, j j,' r' Civic Society `tg -:z• z ? ar! it r r rj; rl 4. z �'` ?� t r n a rx for migratory animals and those with large , wr �,� -,, r ., q Tn7�5 , , / ,..--.':*;;441,'•}. A s rf fz ;, 4a :� Nature home ranges. Larger habitats support 1f .-r=` r,,-� % -, f,.;r,.:-;.(;":1.4:,‘,' r 'r i- '{,r Ecological Land-Use greater biodiversity, larger populations, and ;,. :' ;. ,.`�:_.M...t��l t°-` �• 't r�:',rAr�Y* '- ' Connected Wildlands a wider range of food sources and shelter. Core Reserves Coastal estuaries, such as this one on the Khutze River on British Wildlife Corridors They also allow populations to interbreed, Columbia's mainland coast, are vital as a spring-time food source Buffer Zones improving long-term genetic viability, for coastal grizzly bears. Productive Rural However, Wildlife Corridors cannot substitute Image by Adrian Dorst. Areas for large areas of protected habitat like Agriculture those in core reserve systems. Forestry Fisheries Ecotourism At the largest scale, Wildlife Corridors must be wide enough to allow easy movement for even the largest Compact Towns and mammals, including grizzlies, cougars, and wolves. Widths of several miles are typical. However, Wildlife Cities Corridors can serve at smaller scales to provide habitat connectivity for other species, including amphibians, Human Scale fish, and birds. They are particularly beneficial along riparian corridors, where they provide both aquatic and Neighborhoods Green Building terrestrial connectivity. In urban areas, they can provide significant recreational opportunities and Transit Access important linkages in a highly fragmented landscape. Whenever possible, urban and rural parks and open Ecological spaces should be linked to form functional Wildlife Corridors, which can then be joined to outlying core Infrastructure reserves. Urban Growth Boundaries Ecosystem Services Since wildlife corridors are typically narrow and vulnerable, they must be managed with extreme caution. Watershed Services For instance, pesticide use next to a corridor might have destructive impacts on pollinators, in turn reducing Soil Services plant diversity.-In many cases, ecological forestry, agriculture, and other non-extractiveland-uses-can be Climate Services made compatible:with':wildlife corridors with special management practices acknowledging the needs of Biodiversity species using the corridor. Capital - Household Economies When roads or other infrastructure cross a Wildlife Corridor, it isessential to maintain transportation. Green Business Long-Term connections that do,not diminish the effectiveness of the corridor. Multiple intersecting wildlife corridors Profitability offering multiple pathways.between core reserves provide important resiliency to a midlands network. Community Benefit httpJ/www.reliableprosperity.netwildiife corridors.html - 2/3 10/23/2015 Reliable Prosperity:Wildlife Corridors i...� ,.. ,..f t.Fy7sr.yy.{, cu WY'�'� 1.4{ •a •�4;a 1';p p '1.�+ t+oet��°! r n' IF t..•J�a�d`t o •t t� • f.,. -vie,: -+ '`1 ,r,e "•-•- ,�'" ... ti k .H �C+`a,< •' n4 6 .� i3t'ya 1,,,.Yy m �, +' ,,i. gt,• 1!i 2i 3f+•_4'7�'r' '7 . ,�Fray....,tt„ 1 .n,'°",r- C ' ,.,•+�;N+;s. $• . "f�„ r r�"i +. 1 i_ .x , 1#14*t r4 r;f;fir r + 1"+'^ i ' t'P-' f rP ,, '- ,, : •' .a ,'s, '2- i - ^ ,A q y G.#'t f '4: o r '. ra. r Q! Q. A f.Al '' ^ `• ... f a'r ...^r't irk, �', ��� � ,� � .!` ;/ }.. ,� �� a �+���y •,�'.,":11e,,,1a• � '� m`'�$ d'"�o:9,a�,,, .,a"i0. °t , syr y�+, � + e .4,,0-,- �,`a✓ a '+ Yb ..-. • tM ','%N 4 TM� 1"¢t 4'-' i,`j4 J �.Y �} :�°�' S+ lif j.,,3 F F_«. :dyj x`v . .,4-_,A,-,-14-.',:-,,_-''--,.-17.4..::;.--'-''.� p .r . ' mai. -,,,„-4.0,, # , ,,,,:1/4_,,),..,..,-.1,„,,,4,--1,,,„..,r -*•odA5-� `.;t:.:. ,r,w ,v./14-'''' ye$e:�.f14-P, -.:.1.(-;•-!dr � �,, a�� ✓ F`/&,:, 'kditi,.5' s \ _n t•- Y,,:,::+',.d4— - ' '�r rI a �'tlf' .&ti,.ti a ''.. ;.. d P � �„,...!!,,7,-:.a h.i`r t. f,f.Y,,"_' 1' �;> 'ra '.r". 44i��'i• a a .R 'S }.-',4 • 0.::.f : rrm,"....110.',0 O'''' •,d"" . }.A T,,ti‘. f...44", a ,,•x;'e •"'•ar'i' a .:',.. J'' .:'r •' :. R ",� t L ',• f '"'e'•e i; -,;.r��',.' a _... " .5.: 'i'� w,,. e VO;i haw n' �',}�5 y��"�r�'�^'S 0.4s, wa., 'i r,•'!a3 ,t: t j ! •�,r?.� .,.r�:'w�t`.#� .•{ J.¢x# } K A ,"� • �,,� k � 1� `u 4 ',r nl• V .y n:[� �°Q7.*� �'r w��,!h r.514 r. ?'j�•�+i+�S !'Ir, 'a•(+�'9t�f!d�f ��,}r �.yf !d• [' -- 7' ,+ ��v*. : ' :oW ir+ ...." a✓ L; 7k,-,,,.‘",43*- ,..�1A ',,,,, 7k 3^ M' -:,- 4 11'}�;�' e.,.� r ,1 � R' ..' ,il 1 a'. r.j'r' ..°,,'n.f,ijr,,, t ' {� r � i� a ;$14,, � < @ u�$ J.q.,t;,;"t".. $ Z r d! „p `• V�,{ r ''' �.Y v i'+';%'-7,%.„'',ut+ ,��w a•�' 7',. ''.1-....:A".. „IL. "viii;, :, t' SwF w S ww* + ,�., ,�,a, : t."Y C. .' f ^s.f yr." •r 1ia�R �F,-,+-"W o1 t ..4.-t.,. .,11;,:„. ..`1a"�'. ,�,,.";' y} '9 ' +-2 • a .i.. ''` Si. •'k....'. a ,, Z a` "- . zJ+-i,a'' f y#,'• - .6.:,,,,,,,,,,,.,,r,,--re; `�tJ „{','..- , f:41- °�. �'_ '�.TTrraggii y, w. d; �•":� iS r �?,' Y,�, `�,.''S�' ".**7:10, “.� ar � .,..1_,' .2'1 t`-,A, fa .'+ %.;?-',”.�7i��“ ,,,..tiredr ? r /� 1 i 5+1�� `C�7s .1, ".' . :- , y, J.ro: rvtna 'u ''"',�i .,44: ,� ',t ay 1 �,' , ioki ". 't. ,,.' da 4,4 ,, "'?ix -,#'s- r > .1tfi: ne- ''3/ -''''' 6.• 4S:tt:. 't ,;T.'.!7°z'.Tt A..i. ,M4,. rYMA S1 ♦. t `' +'�r...`� it �' r'�"1ar : '� 'S�'. '�•t+,N"'_ ., ,q,,.��r,a h!a '; ..r� ii r , a,,v r'Jf"td,P''i'.��' �lpr Society I Nature I Capital Iittpiw /ww .reliableprosperity.net/wildlife_corridors.htm I 1/3 10/23/2015 Reliable Prosperity:Wildlife Corridors Green Procurement identity critical existing or potential wildlife corridors between core reserves, protect them, and Renewable Energy mange them for ecosystem connectivity. Materials Cycles Resource Efficiency Waste as Resource Product as Service CASE STUDIES Local Economies Value-Added EXAMPLES OF THIS PATTERN IN ACTION: Production Rural Urban Linkages Mattole Valley wildlife "mosaic" Local Assets For watershed organizing and restoration, the Mattole Restoration Council of Northern California stands out Bioregional Economies as a pioneering model. In this classic article of bioregional literature, Freeman House, one of the initiators of Fair Trade the Mattole effort, details the Council's history and broader lessons drawn from that experience. This article True Cost Pricing appeared in Whole Earth Review, Spring 1990. Product Labeling �, 1-90 Ocean to Mountain Corridor Yr `4 The Greenway Education Program focuses on the challenge of sustaining a healthy, natural environment in �l'� ,:`sl balance with the needs of a growing population. A key element of the Greenway plan is preserving forests' '� along the Interstate 90 corridor in Washington State. „ �" Victoria's Sea-to-Sea Green/Blue Belt Alliance AA greenbelt of wilderness and parkland from Goldstream Park to the Sooke Basin. One of the links is a small property between Ayum Creek and the Galloping Goose trail. Sea-to-Sea Green/Blue Belt Alliance (a new coalition of seven local conservation organizations). ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE WORK INCORPORATE THIS PATTERN: American Wildlands The Wildlands Project Yellowstone to Yukon REFERENCES: Hudson, W.E. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press. Washington, DC. 1991. Little, C.E. Greenways for America. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 1990. Smith, Daniel S and Paul Cawood Hellmund, eds.. Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN. 1993. Home El project of Ecotrust I Follow us: ,i a: 1 ai http://www.reliableprosperity.net/wildlife corridors.html _ 3/3 Importance of of way found in a city. Strengthening such networks should work well to support the biota protected in ur- ban parks and wildlife refuges and the seasonal mi- Backyard Habitat grants that sometimes depend on urban habitats for their survival. in a Comprehensive Key words: backyard habitat, connectivity, corridors, Greater Vancouver,green space,habitat matrix,urban Biodiversity ecology. Conservation Strategy: introduction abitat loss and fragmentation are important fac- tors contributing to a reduction in the planet's AConnectivity Analysis biodiversity (Rolstad 1991). Besides resource extraction in mining, fishing, and forestry, most habitat loss and of Urban Green Spaces fragmentation is due to urban and agricultural develop- ment.The population of Greater Vancouver,British Co- lumbia is expected to increase from its present 2 million to 3.1 million people within 20 years.Globally,the world's Hillary Rudd1 population is expected to increase from the present 6 bil- Jamie Valal lion people to 10 billion by the year 2050,mostly in urban areas.Many urban regions are in biologically sensitive ar- Valentin Schaefer1'2 eas. Increased habitat fragmentation is of particular con- cern in Greater Vancouver because it is located on the Fraser River estuary.This estuary is home to the world's Abstract largest salmon run and is one of three major stops on the Connectivity has been an accepted goal in ecological Pacific Flyway for migratory birds along the west coast of restoration of wilderness areas for some time,but it is North America.The region has already suffered substan- a relatively new approach in urban areas.The connec- tial habitat loss. One prominent estimate is that about tivity analysis presented here explores the numbers 70% of the wetlands and 80% of the salt marshes found and patterns of corridors required to connect urban green here historically were already lost by the turn of the twen- spaces as part of an overall biodiversity conservation tieth century,mainly through diking (Fraser River Estu- strategy.Green spaces in this study were weighted based ary Study Steering Committee 1978). on size and a habitat requirement of 0.5 ha for,a hypo- Although habitat loss and isolation result in reduc- thetical indicator species. Thirteen potential networks tions in smaller natural,populations and more local ex- were evaluated using Gamma,Beta,and Cost Ratio in- tinctions(Adams&Dove 1989;Rolstad 1991),ecosystem dices.The study zone contained 54 green spaces(habi- fragments remaining in cities are far more important tat nodes) with a combined area of 636.5 ha in a total than their limited size and disturbed state might suggest urban area of approximately 2,600 ha. Several models (Gilbert 1987; Schaefer 1994). In fact, habitat fragments (Travelling Salesman, Paul Revere, and Least Cost to contribute significantly to the viability of the greater eco- User)were used to evaluate possible connections.These system as part of metapopulations—assemblages of lo- results indicated that at least 325 linkages are necessary cal populations that are connected,by migration(Hanski to connect half of the nodes. Such large numbers of & Gilpin 1991). It is clear from metapopulation theory linkages are only feasible by enhancing the matrix of that,the greater the number of patches and the closer backyard habitat,planted boulevards,and utility rights- they are,the better the colonization (Hanski &Thomas 1994). Seed dispersal.and wildlife'movements are key processes in determining the survival of metapopula- tions. Such movements are directly related to the con- 'Douglas College Centre for Environmental Studies and Ur- nectivity of the landscape (Schippers et al. 1996). As ban Ecology,P.O.Box 2503,New Westminster,British Colum- wildlife moves between nodes or islands,extinction and bia,Canada V3L 5B2 colonization rates are equalised within fragmented land- 2Corresponding author:Tel.:(604)527-5224;Fax:(604)527- 5095;E-mail:val_schaefer@douglas.bc.ca scapes(Bueno et al.1995).A concern about urban habitat restoration is that it may lead to habitat sinks, attracting ©2002 Society for Ecological Restoration wildlife from good source ecosystems to marginal habi- 368 Restoration Ecology Vol. 10 No.2,pp.368-375 JUNE 2002 Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces tats(Taylor et al.1993).Connectivity between large num- green spaces include all parks and recreation areas as bers of nodes will lessen this risk. recognized by the City of Coquitlarn and all ravines as The connectivity analysis presented here examines the determined by an independent study(Fig.1).These green connections between green spaces and analyzes the best po- spaces are referred to as nodes.Two types of nodes are rec- tential networks to link them.It is based on concepts out- ognized here: mother nodes and satellite nodes. Mother lined by Linehan et al. (1995) in an exercise on using nodes are defined as large green spaces that have a greater greenway planning to develop an ecological network.The influence over satellite nodes than satellite nodes have on analysis is part of a project begun in 1996 to strengthen bio- each other.There is usually only one mother node within a logical connections between habitat fragments in Greater zone. Satellite nodes are defined as smaller green spaces Vancouver.Called Green Links,the project includes planting that act as peripheral habitat. native vegetation in utility rights of way and backyard hab- itat to strengthen natural corridors between green spaces. Methods The analysis presented here examines one metapopu- lation zone within Greater Vancouver.A zone is an area Study Zone bounded by major physical barriers to the migration of flora and fauna.These barriers include major roads and The study zone is in south Coquitlam and south Port highways and large waterways (Schippers et al. 1996). Moody, British Columbia,just east of the city of Van- Zones contain a variety of green spaces.For this study, couver. They are part of the larger urbanized region of i • .. 11 Ji- � ' t.:! t.. litrii1 mi lingraiiiigt i3 P!iIIi .._ . :] t = 111 V,:-.r..A. 'Il�! �::,� L.tt fir - _ 1 11 Uhr; rlE111&, .I-t--r-• --�W A ''~!!q' X111- • 111.Qi,,.,. CI' &At *SAM . . Billinlijitilir4illi-L1111.-41 #7.711iii1V lit p711 ii r ' iijj Figure 1. Map of the study area in Coquit- W. _mid �F.0,1AL ,1 lam,British Columbia(Schaefer et a1.1992; U iaH�� 1 - �114. City of Coquitlam 1999).The metapopula- E : � �I� tion zone is an area bounded by Lougheed '15.7.1411."4.-41,11-N. .- = a rR+-=� c . y ►, Highway,North Road,Clark Road,St. It.:;al,,� . '' -: i �• A -: .:�•..-,,.. / !'lI: r',, ,---7:1"..0,r4.111'..!!R� 11''"` � `"��_ 1• John's Street,and Bamet Highway.The total gt �l,: -,r �,�,. .-,�ius:::a�4$:� . -s: i i area of the zone is approximately 2,000 ha. h •'.•�nri� fa: jj ^•r i� I �` 9 ;: The mother node(largest green space)is . a• ,, =�.� �r i r. 1:! laIMabout 175 ha.Map not to scale. , W:liiiiiirM . 4,,,, . . 1 Vti . Flak 1- • Green space � ,.,,• l='1 ''. � 'T11. iiid • O Developed areas �.' �* � , V x* - , `;, l='�, �1�. , • �_�„,; , --4iiikezi -Niptie-.:Apv z. JUNE 2002 Restoration Ecology 369 - Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Greater Vancouver. The area is largely self-contained Mundy Creek has an area of 11.5 ha. Dividing this area with significant barriers to the movement of biota,bound- by 0.5 ha (the habitat requirement for the hypothetical ed by major roads: Lougheed Highway, North Road, indicator species chosen for this study)and multiplying Clark Road,St.John's Street,and Barnet Highway(Fig. by 10 gives the nodal weight of 230. There will be no 1). This area was chosen because the Institute of Urban nodal weights with a value less than 1 (unless the green Ecology's Green Links project already has one corridor space is less than 0.05 ha). in Coquitlam linking several green spaces (including the large mother node of Mundy Park)and is interested in evaluating other potential links in this area. Table 1 Connectivity Analysis lists the green spaces included in this study and their Generally, areas have a greater interaction when they sizes in hectares. are larger and closer together(Linehan et al.1995).Con- nectivity using the gravity model(Gab)is determined as Assumptions follows: The nodal analysis requires a minimum area for an in- Gab = (Na X N6)/Dab2 dicator species. Choosing a specific indicator species where Gab is the level of interaction between nodes a and was problematic, so half a hectare was arbitrarily cho- b,Na is the nodal weight of node a,Nb is the nodal weight sen as a hypothetical minimum area requirement.Other of node b,and Dab is the distance between nodes a and b. studies have determined that most species found in ur- The gravity model provides an unbiased method to de- ban areas require at least half a hectare for their mini- termine different levels of interactions between nodes. mum habitat requirements. For example, the smallest patch occupied by the Tawny Owl, Strix aluco,was 0.3 ha (Redpath 1995); the bank vole, Clethriononys glareo- Network Generation his,is found in areas smaller than 0.3 ha(van Apeldoorn Several potential networks can be generated and evalu- et al. 1992) and Townsends vole, Microtus townsendii, is ated.Figure 2 shows some of the most common types of found in areas as small as 0.18 ha (Harris 1984).Robbins networks.There are two major groups of network mod- et al.(1989)determined that the American Robin,Turdus els, branching and circuit. An example of a branching migratorizis,the Common Yellowthroat,Geothlypis trichas, network is the Paul Revere model (Linehan et al. 1995), and the Gray Catbird,Dumetella carolinesis,are all found one of the simplest network models connecting all nodes. in areas of less than 0.3 ha. Half a hectare was chosen to It is also the cheapest to create for the group concerned encompass a wider range of species. with creating the network. Minimum distances, as the crow flies, between green The other family of networks is circuit networks (Fig. spaces were measured instead of centroid distances.Cen- 2).These networks tend to be more complex than branch- troid distances are measured from the geometric center of ing networks and often represent a lower cost to the user: one green space to another.This approach simplifies the the flora and fauna using the green spaces as their habitat analysis and gives a more accurate picture of the interac- and benefiting from the networks. Examples include the tions between nodes.This is especially true for nodes that Travelling Salesman and the Least Cost to User(Linehan are close together where minimum distances more accu- et al.1995).The Travelling Salesman is the simplest,where rately reflect distances that must be crossed by biota each node is connected only to two other nodes.The Least rather than using centroid distances,which are much fur- Cost to User is the most complex network model because ther apart. all nodes are directly connected to each other.Networks from both families are evaluated using the Gamma,Beta, Nodal Analysis and Cost Ratio indices described in the next section. The networks were generated using MATLAB (ver- The gravity model is used to evaluate the level of inter- sion 5.2.0.3084,Math Works Inc.),a high level program- action between the nodes (Linehan et al. 1995). With ming language. A Monte Carlo random search tech- this model,nodal weight determines the relative signif- nique was used to determine an estimate of the most icance of the nodes in the study area with reference to effective networks. The program searches for the best the minimum habitat requirement(Linehan et al. 1995). linkages, but depending on the random starting point Na = [x(ha)/s(ha)J X 10 and the path chosen it produces different results. The program ran hundreds of times to produce the best pos- where Na is the nodal weight for the green space, x is sible results.The models presented below represent the the area of the green space measured in hectares, and s results after the program ran for 5 hr. At this point the is the minimum area required for the indicator species. results had stabilized, and it is likely that no better re- Multiplying by 10 normalizes the data. For example, sult would be found. 370 - Restoration Ecology JUNE 2002 Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Branching Network Circuit Networks Paul Revere Travelling Salesman Least Cost to User Figure 2. Examples of branching and circuit \ > \------> -, networks(after Linehan et al.1995). ` Evaluation greater than 1, there is greater complexity within the The importance and significance of these networks were network (Linehan et al. 1995). The Cost Ratio index in- evaluated using the Gamma, Beta, and Cost Ratio indi- dicates the relative cost to both the user and the builder. ces.The Gamma ratio represents the percent of connec- It is calculated by subtracting 1 from the product of the tiveness within each network. It can be determined by number of links in the network by the total distance of those links.The closer to 1 the Cost Ratio is,the greater dividing the number of links in the network by the maximum number of possible links. The Gamma index cost to the builder and the lower cost to the user(Line- ranges from 0 to 1,and the closer to 1,the greater the de- han et a1.1995). gree of connectiveness within the network (Bueno et al. 1995).This index can also be adjusted to analyze how dif- Results ferent degrees of network development correspond to the theoretical maximum or the project maximum(Line- There were 54 green spaces with a combined area of han et al. 1995).The Beta index indicates the complexity 636.5 ha (Table 1),in a zone that itself was about 2,600 of the network.It is calculated by dividing the number ha in area. The largest, or mother, node was Mundy of links by the number of nodes. When the results are Park, 174 ha in area and 2.5 times larger than the next less than 1 the network is open or branching. If the re- largest green space. The smaller satellite nodes in the suit is 1, the network is a single circuit, and if Beta is metapopulation zone ranged from 0.1 to 6.3 ha. There Table 1. Sizes and nodal weights of green spaces. Node Park Name Size(ha) Nodal Weight Node Park Name Size(ha) Nodal Weight AP2 Alouette Park 0.15 3.04 C15 Kyle Creek 5.92 118.40 C16 Axford Creek 13.70 274.00 PP18 Lost Creek 0.32 6.46 AP4 Blue Mountain Park 8.03 160.52 C4 Lost Creek 3.22 64.40 Cl Booth Creek 16.68 333.60 C13 Machley Creek 12.48 249.60 AP6 Brookmere Park 2.18 43.56 AP29 Mackin Park 7.05 140.94 AP7 Burns Park 0.41 8.14 PP21 Mariner at Dewdney Trunk 0.10 2.00 AP8 Burquitlam Park 1.56 31.24 AP31 Mariner Park 2.01 40.24 AP9 Cape Horn Playground 0.15 3.00 AP33 Miller Park 4.97 99.42 PP2 Como Creek 4.02 80.30 PP23 Mundy Creek 11.54 230.74 AP11 Como Lake Park 11.32 226.42 AP34 Mundy Park 174.17 3483.36 C9 Correll Creek 12.16 243.20 PP24 Nelson Creek 10.64 212.80 AP12 Cottonwood Park 0.56 11.26 C17 Ottley Creek 19.80 396.00 AP13 Crane Park 0.46 9.14 PP29 Pinnacle Creek Ravine 54.37 1087.48 AP14 Crestwood Park 0.45 9.08 AP41 Place des Arts 0.99 19.84 AP16 Dacre Park 1.09 21.74 AP42 Poirier Community Centre 8.06 161.22 C8 Dallas Creek 11.40 228.00 AP43 Poirier Library 3.13 62.60 AP17 Dawes Hill Park 2.99 59.82 AP44 Poirier Sports Centre 6.26 125.20 PP6 Dewdney Wetland 10.08 201.60 AP45 Ranch Park 0.60 11.90 AP20 Ebert Park 0.18 3.64 PP31 Riverview Forest 25.13 502.52 C10 Elginhouse Creek 17.04 340.80 AP46 Riverview Park 2.80 56.00 AP23 Good Neighbor Park 1.10 21.98 AP47 Robinson Memorial Park 3.07 61.32 C11 Goulet Creek 22.04 440.80 AP49 Rochester Park 7.33 146.58 A1'24 Guilby Park 0.19 3.74 C18 Schoolhouse Creek 17.24 344.80 PP11 Harbour View Ravine 2.50 49.98 AP51 Selkirk Park 0.12 2.40 PP12 Hickey Street Park 4.31 86.12 C12 Sundial Creek 12.20 244.00 AP26 Hickey Street Park 5.39 107.86 C7 Suter Creek 28.84 576.80 AP28 Keets Park •0.46 9.16 P09 Vancouver Golf Club 63.56 1271.20 Nodal weights determine the relative significance of the nodes with reference to the minimum habitat requirements.The larger the number,the more significant the node. JUNE 2002 Restoration Ecology 371 Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces were 26 green spaces with nodal weights greater than There are three networks that represent the most op- 100,11 greater than 250,and 5 greater than 500(Table 1). timistic and realistic choices for the study area. These Nodal weights ranged from 2.00 to 348336 (Table 1). networks have an unadjusted Gamma of 0.04 or larger, These weights reflect the different sizes of the green a Beta greater than 1,and a Cost Ratio greater than 0.45. spaces and indicate their importance in the study area Network D joins 54 nodes with 54 links. It is one corn- relative to the minimum habitat requirement of 0.5 ha. plete circuit and is moderately complex. Of all the net- The average nodal weight for this project is 235.74(Ta- works,D represents the network with the greatest ease ble 2).The nodal weight of 250 was chosen as a criterion of use for the user. for evaluation because it is close to the average and it Networks E,F,and G include only nodes with weights represents half of the green spaces studied.Nodal weights greater than 100.Network E joins 26 nodes with 325 links. of 100 and 500 were chosen to evaluate significantly more With a Beta of 12.5,and the cost to both the builder(e.g., and less green space without including or excluding all of people)and the user(e.g.,wildlife)being equalized,it is a them.Table 2 summarizes the mean and standard devia- complex network. tion of the sizes and nodal weights of the green spaces in Networks H,I,and J include only nodes with a nodal the study area. weight greater than 250.Network H joins 11 nodes with The connectivity analysis shows the level of interac- 55 links. It has a Beta of 5 and a Cost Ratio of 0.46.The tion between each of the green spaces in the study area. cost to the builder and user is almost equal and repre- These results were used in the network analysis. The sents more than one circuit. In Networks E and H, the values range in magnitude from 10-1 to 109. user has more than one option for dispersal between The analysis tested the Paul Revere,Travelling Sales- the green spaces. man,and the Least Cost to User network models. Four Networks K, L, and M use the criterion of a nodal different node configurations were examined for each weight greater than 500, resulting in only five nodes of the above models: the maximum number of nodes and a maximum of 10 links. This is unsuitable to gain (54)and nodes with a weight greater than 100,250,and significant connectivity between green spaces. Other 500,respectively.A total of 13 different network scenar- unsuitable networks are those that have a Gamma in- ios were possible (Networks A-M). The Gamma, Beta, dex of less than 0.04, a Beta index of less than 1, and a and Cost Ratio indices were then used to evaluate each Cost Ratio that bears a significant cost to the user (un- of the scenarios(Table 3). der 0.4). Network A connects all green spaces in the study area,including those less than 0.02 km apart from each Discussion other. Network B excludes those green spaces that are 0.02 km apart but connects the rest of them. The green Network E represents the best option.It uses half of the spaces that are 0.02 km apart are structurally connected. nodes and has a high degree of connectivity.Although These areas are close enough together that there is al- Network E's 325 links seems unattainable in an urban ready a corridor and movement can easily occur(Fahrig environment, the distance between many of the nodes &Merriam 1985).However,this depends on the species is small and is realistic for this area.The small distances using the corridor and its specific requirements(Bennett between nodes enables the large number of links to be et al. 1994) and whether the discontinuity is an impene- created through backyard habitat enhancement, form- trable barrier(e.g.,a busy freeway). ing a matrix of pathways through the zone. Network A is the best network model as the Gamma Network E also encompasses the entire study area, is 1,the Beta is 26.5,and the Cost Ratio is 0.62(Table 3). whereas some of the networks only include portions of This indicates the highest possible complexity and the study area.Backyard habitat creation is the best ap- the greatest degree of connectivity. Network B is the proach to creating the largest ecosystem areas within a second best model with similar index values.However, zone. Green spaces with nodal weights of less than 100 Networks A and B, with 1,431 and 1,403 links, respec- may also be included in Network E,because these smaller tively, may in fact require continuous habitat joining nodes will become part of the corridors between the ma- nodes. jor nodes of the network. Well-connected networks such as Network E have a lower probability of extinction;populations can recolo- Table 2. Summary of statistics for green space size and nize with greater ease if they are highly connected nodal weight. (Schippers et al.1996).Network E has 325 links connect- Statistic Size(ha) Nodal Weight ing half the nodes in the study area.This high degree of connectivity is just as important to maintain regional Mean 25.60 515.09 SD 25.60 512.09 biodiversity as are the sizes and or number of nodes (Noss 1983).Dispersal between nodes,which is simpler 372 Restoration Ecology JUNE 2002 r • Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Table 3. The connectivity indices for the 13 networks using the Paul Revere(PR),the Travelling Salesman (TS),and the Least Cost to User(Project Max)models. Network Nodes Links Gamma Adjusted Gamma Beta Cost Ratio A Theory Max 54 1431 1.00 n/a 26.5 0.62 B Project Max 54 1403 0.98 1 25.98 0.63 C PR Project 54 53 0.04 0.04 0.98 0.62 D** TS Project 54 54 0.04 0.04 1 0.62 E* Na>100 Max 26 325 0.23 1 12.5 0.5 F PR Na>100 26 25 0.0175 0.08 0.96 0.4 G TS Na>100 26 26 0.0182 0.08 1 0.42 H Na >250 Max 11 55 0.04 1 5 0.46 I PR Na>250 11 10 0.0070 0.18 0.91 0.16 J TS Na>250 11 11 0.0077 0.2 1 0.08 K Na>500 Max 5 10 0.01 1 2 0.41 L PR Na>500 5 4 0.0028 0.4 0.8 -0.08 M TS Na>500 5 5 0.0035 0.5 1 0.34 The adjusted Gamma,how the Gamma index corresponds to the project maximum,e.g.,the number of links in D,are divided by the number of links in B to obtain the adjusted Gamma. *Best option. **Alternative option. in a well-connected network,is essential to prevent in- Creating corridors using the connectivity analysis is breeding depression and the disease and extinction that much more effective than randomly selecting links.The follow(Noss 1983).Generating 325 discrete corridors is results of the analysis indicate the value of a network of unrealistic. However, increasing biodiversity in back- backyard habitat,boulevards, and utility rights-of-way yard habitat,boulevards, and utility rights-of-way can to provide a matrix of corridors. This analytical tech- produce a matrix functional as 325 corridors for plants nique allows a realistic approach in using scientific data and animals in the zone. to support qualitative ideas of greenways(Linehan et al. An alternative network is D.This network uses all 54 1995).Randomly selected networks may not be as effec- nodes identified in the study area and has two links to tive at protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Both the and from each one. Because the number of links is re- theory of island biogeography and metapopulation dy- duced it seems more attainable. However, as the num- namics assume that suitable patches of habitat are inter- ber of links decreases the ease of dispersal also decreases. spersed with uninhabitable areas (Andren 1994). This This increases the probability of extinction,whereas con- creates a divided landscape. Therefore,it is important nected networks have a lower rate of extinction (Schip- to remember that preserving parks is only part of the pers et al.1996).The major goal of preservation is to pro- solution. Without connections between them, isolation tect the integrity,structure,and function of the ecosystem and loss of genetic diversity is imminent(Hobbs&Saun- (Noss 1983).Although Network D is good because it con- ders 1990). Green corridors, utility rights-of-way, and nects all of the nodes,it is not as complex as Network E backyard habitat are important parts of urban planning, and may lead to higher rates of extinction and loss of eco- because they increase biodiversity in cities and improve system integrity. the quality of life for all residents.For example,they in- The Gamma, Beta, and Cost Ratio indices were cho- crease opportunities for wildlife viewing,human relax- sen for this analysis because together they produce a ation and education,and controlling pollution,temper- clear picture of the network (Linehan et al. 1995). If ature and climate, erosion, and noise (Adams & Dove used alone they can be misleading. For example, Net- 1989). work C has a very low Gamma, a Beta under 1, and a In urban environments there is usually one large high Cost Ratio. A low Gamma index represents a di- green space or mother node in a metapopulation zone minished degree of connectiveness.A Beta under 1 indi- that has significant influence on the surrounding area. cates that the network is not a complete circuit and all As the demand for land to develop grows with the pop- nodes are not linked together,therefore reducing ease of ulation,cities can usually only afford to preserve a few dispersal between nodes.A high Cost Ratio is good be- large green spaces. These green spaces tend to have cause it indicates lower cost to user and promotes ease high biodiversity and provide important breeding and of dispersal.If the Cost Ratio were the only index used seeding habitat for interior species,as well as edge spe- to evaluate Network C,the network would appear to be cies and transients. In this study, smaller green spaces ideal. However, when using all three indices, it is evi- or satellite nodes range in size from 0.1 to over 100 ha. dent that much better networks satisfy all the criteria. The satellite nodes may not be able to support large JUNE 2002 Restoration Ecology 373 Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces numbers of species on their own but are able to provide ining connectivity is usually conducted on a single spe- important peripheral habitat to species in the mother cies(e.g.,Bennett et al.1994)and the results may not be node (Hansson 1991). Satellite nodes are partly or en- transferable to all species in an area. Analyzing struc- tirely dependent on individuals immigrating from the tural connectivity may present more general results.Fu- mother node(Hansson 1991).They have a higher rate of ture work in this area should use a species-area curve to extinction than the mother nodes and therefore need to determine a more accurate minimum habitat size re- be repopulated constantly (van Apeldoorn et al. 1992). quirement for urban species.Species lists from a variety This requires proximity to the mother node. As the ur- of urban parks of varying sizes can be obtained and ban environment becomes increasingly more fragmented, plotted to develop a species-area curve that is appropri- satellite nodes are getting smaller and farther away from ate for urban habitats. Once all green spaces in the area the mother node, making dispersal even more difficult. have been identified,it would be useful to evaluate the As a way of preserving the biological integrity of a land- quality of the nodes when resources are available.There scape,corridors and habitat matrices must be in place to is a possibility that some municipal parks may not pro- allow dispersal between green spaces. vide suitable habitat for flora and fauna. Mundy Park is the mother node for this study area.It The analysis presented here gives a solid foundation is the largest park in the area and has the largest nodal for developing a greenway network in urban areas.This weight and therefore the greatest influence over the can be applied to other areas throughout Greater Van- surrounding green spaces.Mundy Park has a variety of couver and cities around the world. different habitat types: wetland, coniferous forests, de- ciduous forests, and fields. Because the satellite nodes Acknowledgments also vary in their habitat types,the variety of flora and fauna in each of Mundy Park's habitat types is also able We thank Lea-Ann Locker for the initial background to use the different satellite nodes to the fullest extent. work on the connectivity analysis, Mark Fallat for his The corridors could allow for dispersal between Mundy help with writing and running the MATLAB program, Park and the other nodes.Although no studies have been and Mike Esovoloff from the City of Coquitlam for sup- done on dispersal from Mundy Park to its satellite nodes, plying us with maps of the study area. Susan Osterle it is well documented that mother nodes provide a base provided comments on the final manuscript. for dispersal,and corridors aid in this dispersal(Hobbs& Saunders 1990; Taylor et al. 1993; Bennett et al. 1994; LITERATURE CITED Beier&Noss 1998).This is why it is important to have a complex network.More links equal more routes to suit- Adams,L.W.,and L.Dove.1989.Wildlife reserves and corridors able habitat, creating more opportunities for dispersal. in urban environments. National Institute for Wildlife,Co- lumbia,Maryland. This is important because suitable habitat often remain Andren, H. 1994. Effect of habitat fragmentation on birds and unused if isolated(Hanski&Thomas 1994). mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suit- Another very important component of network plan- able habitat:a review.Oikos 71:355-366. ning is the consideration of private and unprotected ar- Beier,P.,and R.F.Noss.1998.Do habitat corridors provide habi- tat connectivity?Conservation Biology 12:1241-1252. eas. Backyard habitat can be an invaluable food and Bennett,A.F.,K.Henein,and G.Merriam.1994.Corridor use and habitat source for a wide range of urban species and is the elements of corridor quality:chipmunks and fencerows essential in developing the matrix that supports the large in a farmland mosaic.Biological Conservation 68:155-165. numbers of corridors required for connectivity. Public Bueno,J.A.,A.T.Vassilios,and L.Alvarez.1995.South Florida education on gardening with native plants and provid- greenways:a conceptual framework for the ecological recon- ing proper habitat is another tool to enhance the connec- nectivity of the region. Landscape and Urban Planning 33: 247-266. tivityof the region and improve the viabilityof the corri- � P City of Coquitlam.1999.Watercourse Map,1:20,000.Operations De- dors. This is crucial in urban areas because of existing partment,Geomatics Division,Coquitlam,British Columbia. development and lack of green space. Fahrig,L.,and G.Merriam.1985.Habitat patch connectivity and This study is a general analysis that examines the population survival.Ecology 66:1762-1768. structural connectivity of the landscape. The literature Fraser River Estuary Study Steering Committee.1978.Fraser River estuary study: habitat. Vol. 4. Government of Canada and is not consistent in the definition of connectivity.Taylor Province of British Columbia.Victoria,British Columbia. et al. (1993) defines landscape connectivity "as the de- Gilbert,O.L.1987.The ecology of urban habitats.Chapman and gree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes move- Hall,New York. ment among resource patches,"whereas connectedness re- Hanski,I.,and M.Gilpin. 1991.Metapopulation dynamics:brief fers to structural or physical connections between patches history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:3-16. or nodes. Where resources are available future studies Hanski, I., and C. D. Thomas. 1994. Metapopulation dynamics should concentrate on connectivity rather than connected- and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to but- ness.However,this poses another problem because exam- terflies.Biological Conservation 68:167-180. 374 Restoration Ecology JUNE 2002 Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Hansson,L.1991.Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. namics of bird populations: conceptual issues and the evi- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:89-103. dence.Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:149-163. Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography Schaefer,V.H.,M.Aston,M.Bergstresser,N.Gray,and P.Malac- theory and the preservation of biotic diversity.University of arne.1992.Urban ravines.Vol.1.B.C.lower mainland urban Chicago Press,Chicago,Illinois. ravines inventory.Douglas College Institute of Urban Ecol- Hobbs,R.J.,and D.A.Saunders.1990.Nature conservation: the ogy,New Westminster,British Columbia. role of corridors.Ambio 19:94-95. Schaefer,V.H.1994.Urban biodiversity.Pages 307-318 in L.Harding Linehan,J.,M.Gross,and J.Finn. 1995.Greenway planning: de- and E. McCullum, editors. Biodiversity in B.C. Environment veloping a landscape ecological network approach. Land- Canada,Canadian Wildlife Service,Victoria,British Columbia. scape and Urban Planning 33:179-193 Schippers, P., J. Verboom, J. P. Knaapen, and R. C. van Apel- Noss,R.F. 1983.A regional landscape approach to maintain di- doom. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex versity.BioScience 33:700-706. heterogeneous landscapes:an analysis with a GIS-based ran- Redpath,S. M. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and the individual: dom walk model.Ecography 19:97-106. tawny owls Strix aluco in woodland patches.Journal of Ani- Taylor,P.D.,L.Fahrig,K.Henein,and G.Merriam.1993.Connectiv- mal Ecology 64:652-661. ity is a vital element of landscape structure.Oikos 68:571-573. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat van Apeldoorn,R.C.,W.T.Oostenbrink,A.van Winden,and F. area requirements of the breeding forest birds of the middle F.van der Zee.1992.Effects of habitat fragmentation on the Atlantic states.Wildlife Monographs 103:1-34. bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural land- Rolstad,J.1991.Consequences of forest fragmentation for the dy- scape.Oikos 65:265-274. JUNE 2002 Restoration Ecology 375 ATTACHMENT 5F Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills OCT 2 3 2015 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 TOWN LOS ALTOS HILLS 10/23/201.5 Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Stirling Subdivision Dear Ms. Avila, I am submitting comments as a concerned resident who lives adjacent to the proposed 9 lot subdivision and whose property will be impacted by it. 1. AESTHETICS a. Scenic Vista-and c: Visual Character This report fails to adequately identify, analyze and mitigate the projects potentially significant adverse impacts on the scenic views of existing properties, in particular on existing residences on adjacent properties along the eastern border. If not the most scenic of all views in the area; a view that includes the western hills, the canopy of Matadero Creek, a succession of local hills as far as the Redwood City hills including views of"The Cross" and broad views of Skyline Ridge, owners of adjacent properties East of proposed lots 1,2,3,4 enjoy views that are highly sought after and are significant to the property values of those residences. In fact the website for the sellers of the proposed subdivision property itself, is not at all understated about the significance of Scenic Vista; it is one of its primary selling points:, "Miles of unobstructed views...and wide commanding panoramas of mountain ranges,rolling hills and valleys."(www.debijoy.com) The MND devotes a single paragraph to Scenic Vista: . 1. Aesthetics a. Scenic Vista. "A scenic.vista is generally described as a clear, expansive view of significant regional features possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. There are no individual scenic vistapoints or locations identified in the Town General Plan that warrant special consideration and none identified. on or near the project site. Therefore, the.proposed project would not impact a scenic vista." • Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 10/23/2015 Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Stirling Subdivision I am submitting comments as a concerned resident who lives adjacent to the proposed 9 lot subdivision and whose property will be impacted by it. 1. AESTHETICS a. Scenic Vista and. c: Visual Character This report fails to adequately identify, analyze and mitigate the projects potentially significant adverse impacts on the scenic views of existing properties, in particular on existing residences on adjacent properties along the eastern border. If not the most scenic of all views in the area; a view that includes the western hills, the canopy of.Matadero Creek, a succession of local hills as far as the Redwood City hills including views of"The Cross" and broad views of Skyline Ridge, owners of adjacent properties East of proposed lots 1,2,3,4 enjoy views that are highly sought after and are significant to the property values of those residences. In fact the website for the sellers of the proposed subdivision property itself, is not at all understated about the significance of Scenic Vista; it is one of its primary selling points: "Miles of unobstructed views...and wide commanding panoramas of mountain ranges,rolling hills and valleys."(www.debijoy.com). The MND devotes:.a single paragraph to Scenic Vista: 1. Aesthetics a. Scenic Vista. "A scenic vista is generally described as a clear, expansive view of significant regional features possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. There are no individual scenic vista points or locations identified in the Town General Plan that warrant special consideration and noneidentified on,or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact a scenic vista." Since the proposed subdivision lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4., immediately to the West of four existing residences are largely level as are the four adjacent residences, each at a similar elevation, the four residences will therefore have real potential for view obstruction or negative impact. Views of these residences..while not specified in the General Plan as this reports states, are highly significant views nonetheless. It is highly unlikely that anyone would not consider Skyline Ridge to be a view that qualifies as a scenic vista and that:would not warrant consideration. By stating that "There are no individual scenic vista points or locations identified in the LAH General Plan," this report appears to place the onus on the Town's documentation rather than assessing the actual views from the property itself. If one of the primary selling points of this property was "scenic vista" then the conclusion of this report with respect to Scenic Vista aesthetics appears to be in conflict. 'I also question why only the General Plan was used as the reference in this report, omitting the Town's municipal code requirements. . 10-2.701 Purposes. (LAH Municipal Code) The purposes of this article are to insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site;that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape;that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved; Because there is no description of the proposed height of the structures to be built, particularly on lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, it is not possible to assume there will be no obstruction of view from the surrounding properties: Heritage tree views Existing residences adjacent to proposed lots 1 through 4 are also highly impacted by views of the property itself including the heritage oaks that exist throughout the entire property and as mentioned, the extensive canopy of Matadero Creek. In at least one case, the proximity of heritage oaks was a primary reason for the purchase of one resident's property over 25 years ago. (It should be noted that all residents adjacent to this subdivision have lived alongside this property for 27, 30, 35, and 45 years.) The seller's website includes the importance of the oaks on the property as a selling point: ...ancient white(Valley)oaks provide a safe haven and an invitation to participate in the natural and restorative: This report fails to include any mention of heritage trees or other views in Aesthetics 1a through 1d. Considering that the Town places value on heritage trees, and presumably view of them by including designation of these trees in the municipal code, this omission should be addressed. 12-2.502 (a) The Zoning Administrator, the Site Development Committee, the Subdivision Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. in reviewing development proposals or subdivisions, shall seek to preserve and protect existing trees, especially Heritage Oaks and heritage trees, from unnecessary removal or damage by placing conditions on development approvals. The MND states that the project will have "less than significant impact" on aesthetics but provides no analysis to support this. The IS/MND fails to identify scenic views that willbe adversely affected and simply states (pg. 23) that the visual character of the Town is rural residential and that the nine new houses that will be built on the site will be reviewed by the Town to meet zoning and design standards. "This will assure that the visual effects will be less than significant." The:IS/MND does not describe the existing scenic views and other visual resources or provide any analyses of the temporary and permanent changes in visual resources the proposed project will create. This typically includes photos of existing scenic views in the vicinity and photo simulations of the views after the new houses are constructed Under the proposed plans, both near views of the project site and expansive scenic views of hillsides and Skyline ridge would be permanently altered by the subdivision and construction of nine new homes. The impact is especially significant from the eastern side of the subdivision. With allowable roof heights of up to 32 feet, property line setbacks of 30 feet, and landscape screening allowed along property lines, the existing views from residences along the eastern border may be obstructed by the new homes on Lots 1-4. Because the MND does not identify visual impacts, no mitigation is described. LAH Site Development Ordinances; LAH Subdivision Ordinances 9.1.102 Purposes and Objectives a) To insure the development of land in a manner consistent with the general community objectives set forth in the General Plan; d) To preserve and protect the natural beauty and the established character o the community, and through good design, to provide for harmonious relationship between completed subdivisions and the natural environment. 9.1.05 Tentative Maps:Purpose ...Special concern and scrutiny will be paid to the relationship of the subject property to surrounding properties. Itis the intent of this article to generate an accurate portrayal of how, and to what degree, the proposed subdivision will alter the natural state of the undeveloped land.,To the degree that the -- natural amenities, characteristics, topography, vegetation and wildlife, are preserved, the probability of acceptance of a given subdivision will be enhanced. Mitigation could be provided by modifying the tentative map to include the 25- to 30-foot wide open space or pathway easement along the eastern border of the subdivision recommended by the. LAH Open Space Committee, the Environmental Design Committee, and Pathways Committee..(See committees' recommendations.) This easement would mitigate to some extent adverse impacts of the subdivision on the existing visual character of the site and preserve and protect the natural beauty and the established character" of the site, as LAH,Subdivision ordinances require. In addition require building setbacks to be 20 or 30 feet from the inner easement border 30-foot setback from the easement on the eastern border (total building setback from property line would be 50-60 feet). This would move the new houses further down the hill where they will not obstruct as much of the view from the adjacent properties. , The new road and nine new driveways that will be constructed have potential to create new sources of nighttime light and glare—specifically car headlights shining into existing residences on the adjacent properties. Removal of trees for the road and from building sites will increase the impact. Mitigation should include specific direction to give careful consideration to new driveway locations so they will not present a new intrusive source of light from vehicle headlights. This potential impact is not addressed in the report. In summary, this report fails to adequately address the importance of 1. Aesthetics to the surrounding properties of this proposed subdivision. Views from 13315 Simon Lane Ni :..:-,..P,' v Mt �.',7?, 1 +k � _ `�` '\'`,' i.!S"' ,,.�' T • f.Low 4;74- Y C { , { rfii�/ } '1� T �,ar�- ,i . ;.2, . ...4-:,....1! 3, ,..14-,0,;,' , .0 Sal''- ! lk * f1''' h s. ,m-..4,---� ,-:','';:=%;••'"+i,, Fwd + rtA .a }� ') if,yh°•. °:..a._ �.�s E J 5 ' i " r: L r P t it.F S' �:',w'-', j•.� Y` •+ a» i -,ti,� r+ ; "�^' X'S x�ya�' ak,�: w ?ii• F, s r.:,:-..5..-r n. (F r �p•Y"+ '� .k,; .-4 ... i t r -'":;: � - - Irrik� -0`-{Y �' _ .�iii ff y . * ��",, E^ .`�',i-1,.,k,:.'.fid 'a '4 Fs.,,,.:,-4-. �Tr 4(Mz 0 ; ,•4- a.'--4 F'�� ''.. r-' • -+%,` X47'. ,qa' ,'jr..-- `�- i+ ' .rr '.,. ,;,,.Ira. s � rt+' y,,,1:2,7- l•. ',.�i d le.-A.:;,,,-.4-i-...-a+ ..„„ 5• L "6 . 9 i r.. a.,F F31;'� %.•r � Elm 5`n .. • . .a';' 7 a x{. Ip t • i ` _ =..:r 1'1 s •-' ', ,.. 7: ] ^.{� '� ��-41'fAL�J d5:'e ',t c'rri'--cr- ' 44,,,^-0,S P r1. rk ..,- ....4,... rad,:- mss,, 9�.' +eq, 11 . • 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The IS/MNDreport fails to adequately identify and analyze the projects potentially significant adverse effects on established wildlife movement routes. The MND categorizes area as "Less than significant impact." Most residents that border the proposed subdivision, are aware that it is a highlywildlife sensitive area. The significance of the 18 acre parcel is it is virtually untouched. It provides a water source (Matadero Creek) shelter and sustenance for a wide variety of wildlife. Inhabitants and visitors include Great Horned owls, Barn owls, Red Tailed hawks, coyotes, deer, bobcats, jackrabbits, many.other species of small animals, reptiles and birds. The open grassland of the property, primarily comprised of wild oats and other types of vegetation has for decades provided sustenance for wildlife in the area. Heritage valley oaks provide roosts, cover, roughage from leaves and in the Fall, acorns which account for much of herbivore diets during the fall/winter months. California has placed a premium on the importance of wildlife corridors: (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC, CA Department of Transportation, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife.) This 18+ acre parcel has provided a locally arguably evital link in this corridor system. The largely untouched property is a criticalhub for wildlife travel between the major open space areas in town; Poor Clares, Foothills Park, Arastradero Preserve, Byrne.Preserve. The IS/MND report contends that wildlife will travel through the area via the creek (Live Oak Associates) however as many hunters are aware, prey animals avoid riparian areas at night when possible, preferring open spaces for the best chance of survival. As previously stated, the State of California has attached high importance to the preservation and maintenance of Wildlife corridor links or linkages. The words link or linkages are referenced 400+ times in, "California Essential Habitat Project (CA Department of Transportation, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife) produced as a result of the rapidly increasing fragmentation. • The word"link or linkages" is not mentioned oncein this report. • The word fragmentation is mentioned once. • The word migration is not included in the report. In addition to State documents, the report fails to address the Open Space Committee recommendations with respect to wildlife movement. The word path or pathways is mentioned 2 times:as it pertains to wildlife movement in the body of the report (4.d) and is in reference to LOA comments. The IS/MND report fails to address the 2006 LOA Wildlife Corridor Study recommendations regarding planning area and blockage tomovement of terrestrial animals as well as the recommendations by LOA regarding allowances for wildlife between properties in wildlife sensitive areas. The report fails to address the impact on surrounding properties that will occur when large numbers of existing ground-dwelling animals are displaced by construction and subsequent conversion of wildlife habitat to human residences, including jackrabbits, cottontails, snakes, ground squirrels and other small mammal and reptiles. The IS/MND report concludes this development proposal causes less than significant impact (4.d.)therefore no mitigation measures are offered. In summary I believethis report fails to adequately address the impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties with respect to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Mandatory Findings of Significance as well as otherenvironmental impacts including noise, tree removal and creek impact, not addressed in this letter. I will submit an additional letter with comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting as I understand is permitted. Sincerely, Alice Sakamoto 13315 Simon Lane CALIF.RNIA ESSENTIAL Y .-,e--". ��_ +ter t RO rJECT. rY-- L " �.. F r �' .b =':� `. .„°— . ' ,r � ,3 :�' r - 3 ,_- c� . tt • S.-:4W .: g, -••- za • • • r _r :• 4 � ---,or,-Y .�� 14 1, ' ` A STRATEGY FOR I c.,r y 1-7'1. a"+'�yt„, w.a �;,s �':� "a }���„ i rt ,V•. 7+ • fr ,r.' 41::3.'-"' is c 1«'d� CONSERVING .yyaa �3.►�5:� � � ‘?z, f',s 1 4 .Ji..•t+ -,-...'f.,..12:2' l f ..,•?..•�Miiw. ,yam t - •w y 1^V `L'S4`R.Y �-''''-:..7...--k"''-• • .:4:-..7z .F.-7;•--14.,..; .moi' ,010 —` I,•••,,,-....:1"-"".4, PREPARED FOR:->.i-..�ti .:y -7i,' y .-r • + ..`� .1---,:_;-...„.5...1.1-:-.1..c',...,'Y`' "-?:' ='-;•� ' ` _ S CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i .. y+-..tau... �'+ �' + ferry Ylr '*j-1','z _ ,.... 4 �....C` 'C-a - ' ``'r,' ,. . .,..,..,..,„ ,,„....„...7.... .:_40.......:, ..,,�` �,. � ' °' "y am CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ..4, .. ,. ....„, . .....7. ,i. ..:: 'j - -.- .�,rter , F r ` ti -�,v `c rj j `{kr:'' + ., .i WITH FUNDING FROM: rt:,.;..4--;..,..•..•. ,4aarz,;-c 3 .'.rr§ i �i it FEDERAL HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION il xt,�Jt - '�.n k� r4 i a y-t 3 to Fr K%ci3 r Lr' `y `:::::-•,-,' ` '�: • err Dt-i .2,+ L'I �� —.'�tF l tett- : ' � .,.:?,,,-,T.... ..C i .'5 ,Ci•1'✓ rs � {� � _ .: x .f { ,OF TR,�,sa y� z _ �}:J' Tom'y r,', J • tj._.�...ia' 7.4-N w O 1'Vt4 ''14 4 • l.rt• . . . I .- 't d,7 O 2 • '..~�,- '' t • `• 'r _ &tra V!. Jf,� pmt i t ,� J 1+ A if 4 fi r"`C*I�,•r}‹'u-f°77,1_ 4-411 1 ,! 4 . j��`' •YAC ;* j`i 9r ;T` l 4.f." -f t,1 ..Ct'.•''''•*‘ • i^. a y • �f - 7; , ,, ll Project Number 789.01 .'ii _LIVE'OAK ASSOCIATES, INC: • TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION 1 , , 4 an Ecological Consulting Firm • SETTING 2 DISCUSSION 4 SUGGESTED POLICIES FOR THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 9 •POLICIES 9 Riparian Policy 9 • Wetlands i i Native Plants I i once Policy • 11 Lighting Policy 12 THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS , Conservation Easements 12 WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY Hillside Ordinance 13 Education/Outreach CONCLUSION 14 Prepared by: REFERENCES CITED _IS APPENDIX A • 16 • . Understory plants - 17. Live Oak Associates,Inc. Trees 17 Rick A.Hopkins,Ph.D.,Principal,Senior Biologist Michele Korpos,B.A.,Project Manager,Wildlife Ecologist . . Prepared lar: Mr.Roger Spreen LAH Open Space Chair Town of Los Altos Ilius 26379 Fremont Road - Los Altos Hills,California 94022 IS December 2006 Project No.789-01 . 5au JO-uurce 98,0 Vin Dui 00.Sole 205•San lose.a.r.95I 19•Phooe.458 181.5885•Nu.dee-2241411 i . ‘1.11.1,01,t Oil,.•P 0 Box 1597•-194.30(<0,111.1011.Sure e•Onkhm9.CA 936,01•?hone`559.642.4880•1,1:559.6424883 Lire Oak Asroc•in,es,loc. Lae Alms Mils Corridor Study ‘1.11.1,01,t • . INC. • ,K �SSOCIATES . an Ecological Consulting Firm r ' I . • RECCE!VED • November 11, 2014 NOV 1 3 2014 • Jeff Peterson, P.E. TOWN OF lOS A1T0S HIIIS Principal - 3130 La Selva-Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 RE: Analysis and recommendations regarding comments g from the Town of Los-Altos Hills regarding proposed developmenton the StirDear Jeff: Per your request and that of the Stirling Family, Live Oak Associates. Inc. (LOA) has prepared a • technical analysis of how the proposed development on the Project Site. aCCJmm0daieS local wildlife and their ability to move amongst the larger open space preserves in this region. The Stirling Project Site is situated on an approximately 18-acre site tatP 80e 3 opo e0 td aproma Road (jectoStli`rling Project Site) in Los Altos Hills, California. As we understand develop 9 lots ranging in size from approximately oeOacres of the western portion of the site (approximately would be preserved to more than 3'acres. laan semen! • protecting the steeper sloped wooded areas of the site that include a tributary to Matadero Creek. The Town of Los Altos Hills (LAH) staff has provided several comments on:the proposed ` development, many of them focusing on the occurrence of various species'of native 1• fiver (e.g., black-tailed deer, coyote, foxes. etc.) and how the site may functionini alar context'as providing connections amongst suitable habitats within LAH and regional opn space i Therefore, our primary objective is to evaluate whether.or no: the proposed project adversely degrade or constrain regional wildlife movement patterns. This analysis relies no: only on the principals as outlined in CEQA, Appendix G, but apP lso the LAH Municipal Code.., Open \rte^^ Co•^'��11t!ee guiding principals as established b:` the LAH pace General Plan Policies. and P 11 P' _ a �' 20. ,01' LAH Open Space ee identified the t At the beginning of the year (January 4' t• e • - ' and Sensitive.." area • the Town. They went on t0 note site as an "...environmentall}� valuable � what they believed to be important elements of the site such that i:. • Includes a major creek corridor. • Has extensive steep slopes . • • Has manire oak woodlands • Provides significant wildlife habitat • Serves as a critical hub for wildlife nlo\,ement bet'.\ter, :he major open space areas ::': tn. part of the Town, linking Arastradero Preserve, Nlat ndero Creek. Poor Clare's area and Byrne Preserve. • Hasa steep. heavily vegetated sv,•ale creating a creek-tributary. . San Jose:6840 Via del Oro, Suite 220• Sar.Jose, CA 95119• Phone. ,408) 2224-8300. Fax:(408)224-1411 Oakhurst:P.O.Box 2697 . 39930 Sierra Way,Suite B •Oaknurst, CA 93644 . Phone:(559)-642-4880. Fax•(559)642-4883 • • Bakersfield. 8200 Stockdaie Hlahwa, M1O-293 . Bakersfield CA 93311 RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 5G OCT 2 3 2015 TOWN OF.LOS ALTOS HILLS 27750 Edgerton Road Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 October 23,201.5 Via Electronic Mail and US Mail Ms. Suzanne Avila Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 SUBJECT: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Stirling(Top Elegant Investment,LLC)Subdivision dated September 14,2015 Dear Ms.Avila: I live in Los Altos Hills on a property adjacent to the proposed 9-lot Stirling(Top Elegant Investment,LLC)subdivision and am writing to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND)for the project.I am a member of the LAH Open Space Committee and Pathways Committee,but have recused myself from committee discussions and comments and my opinions do not represent either committee.'My comments are limited to how this large project may affect environmental conditions and resources near the property where I live. This letter briefly outlines my concerns about the adequacy of the IS/MND.I plan to submit an additional letter addressing my concerns in detail within a few weeks,well before the December 3 meeting,as allowed by Public Resources Code section 21177(a).I have been advised that comments submitted after the October 23,2015 deadline must still be addressed and entered into the administrative record. Specifically,my comments describe inadequacies of the IS/MND in addressing.1)preservation of oak woodland and Heritage oaks;2)evaluation and mitigation of increased noise levels expected from construction of subdivision improvements and nine new houses;and 3) protection of Matadero Creek,which runs between the Top Elegant parcel and the property where I live.I also note the IS/MND did not address three Fully Protected species that are known to or could occur on the project site. The IS/MND lacks sufficient information and analyses to support conclusions-that some impacts of the project will be"less than significant'.In addition,further mitigation measures are needed for some impacts determined to b e;significant.in order to reduce their impact to-less than significant. 1 OP p The IS/IVIND lacks sufficient description of major projects that will be done for subdivision improvements(i.e.,slope stabilization repair and installation of an extensive storm water drainage system).Not enough information is provided to allow the public to understand what is proposed,how it will be done,and what the environmental impacts will be. Los Altos Hills residents,and especially neighbors of the project,expect the Town as the lead agency to require an adequate and fully supported environmental review—including appropriate analyses and effective mitigation measures--before making the decision to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this large new development in an environmentally sensitive area. I respectfully ask the Town not to approve the IS/MND for the Top Elegant.subdivision until corrections are made and_further study and analyses of potentially significant impacts are done. Sincerely, . . l . a Sue Welch 2 ATTACHMENT 5H October 23, 2015 Pec Ms. Suzanne Avila vCT Z(1f5Plannin Consultant 10//0/ Los Altos Hills, Planning and Building Department ®ie1® Town Hall Office Sq`j® 26379 Fremont Road ���1� Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Stirling Subdivison (28030 Natoma Road, Los Altos Hills 94022) Dear Ms.Avila, My name is Masayuki Murakami. I have lived at 13313 Simon Lane for the past 26 years. My family and I would like to submit our comments and concerns regarding the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Stirling Subdivision(28030 Natoma Road, Los Altos Hills 94022). The design currently proposed by the developer regarding the vehicle road, pedestrian paths, and easement for the proposed plan raises serious concerns/problems for our property. Namely: 1. A negative impact on our family's quality of life caused by a significant increase in Automotive exhaust fumes, noise, and light pollution along Charles Avenue. 2. A significant decrease in privacy. 3. A decrease in property value. 4. The illegal removal of heritage oak trees on our property. According to the MND, the improvement of the existing segment of Charles Avenue will require the removal of approximately 24 oak trees, a number of which are "heritage" trees of 12 inches in diameter or larger. This removal has several permanent negative effects on our everyday quality of life. According to the Stirling map for oak tree removal, there will be at least 7 heritage oak trees removed between our property and Charles Avenue. The background and details regarding these 4 issues listed above are provided below, with particular attention to how the removal of these 7 trees plays a key role in each. 1. A negative impact on our family's quality of life and a negative environmental impact on our property The amount of traffic on Charles Avenue will be much heavier than today once the future residents have moved into the new homes (owing to the residents'vehicles as well as their staff's) The 7 oak trees (108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118 and 119) currently dampen the effects of traffic on Charles Avenue by virtue of their canopies, which cover down toward the ground. If these 7 trees between.our property and Charles Avenue are removed, our property (which is adjacent to the project • zone)will incur a substantial permanent increase in exhaust fume levels, ambient noise levels, and light levels compared to a scenario where these trees are not removed. 2. A significant decrease in privacy Today, both our front and back yards have excellent privacy. The oak canopies contribute substantially to this privacy.Thus, the removal of any of these oak trees (108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118 and 119) will significantly decrease the privacy of our property. Once any of theseoak trees are removed, our everyday activities in our yard will become easily observable by others from along Charles Avenue and its proposedpedestrian pathway. Additionally, the proposed pedestrian pathway along with our property would remove additional landscaping along this property boundary. decreasing our. privacy further. The landscaping that would be removed includes the many small shrubs and 7 large trees planted along our fence adjacent to Charles Avenue. Many of these shrubs are either(1) on our property line, or(2) inside our property and shall not be removed. The 7 large trees were planted by the Sloss family under recommendation by members of the Los Altos Hills Landscape Review Meeting held in the Town Hall this year, in order to obstruct the sightline between their newly constructed garage and our property. These shrubs and new trees were planted recently and are meant to add to our property's privacy as they grow taller. Removing these plants would significantly decrease our property's privacy. 3. A decrease in property value The removal of_these 7 oak trees between our property and Charles Avenue would decrease the value of our property. We suffered such a decrease in property value in the past when a significant number of large oak trees were removed in this area. When we purchased our property 26 years ago, there was a beautiful oak forest with more than 100 oak trees in this same area and the current Sloss property. However, more than 15 years ago, most of those oak trees were illegally removed, and the current Sloss property was built after such illegal removal by another developer.When this happened, we not only suffered a decrease in privacy but also a decrease in our property value. If these additional 7 oak trees between our property and Charles Avenue are removed, our property value will decline further. 4. The illegal removal of heritage oak trees on our property The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration removes one oak tree that lies within our property. This may not be obvious at first glance, because our fence was built 0.5 ft. to 2 ft. inside our property line in order to allow these oak trees to grow unencumbered and also to avoid boundary disputes with our neighbors. . The oak tree in question is either 112, 113 or 114. Unfortunately it is difficult to identify the number on the attached Stirling property map.We hope to identify the proper number for this oak tree moving forward. • These heritage oak trees are valuable assets not only to our family, but also to our neighbors and to our community. They increase our collective property value, improve the quality of our everyday lives, and improve environmental quality. They are a key factor in differentiating our town from other nearby neighborhoods. We have already permanently lost more than 40 large heritage oak trees and many small/medium oak trees more than 15 years ago, which were illegally removed. This time, we would like to ask that the Planning and Building Department of the Los Altos Hills Town Hall Office finds solutions that resolve the issues we have raised in this letter and helps us preserve the remaining valuable heritage oak trees for the future of our town. ards, re, 4 4 , I f r M. a kiM a ami 13313 Simo t Lane Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel: 650-949-5001 W ' j, 1( ' 8 �� " I VWATER 1P(!JI � 11r,rd.,i-414 W\--,,a. E y'fey Y SEWER 7-" „)).c/IN., I 1 Wilk r,IiAT Mf - • 1 ii,t..r.,.7. 7 • ,---- v. • ,,,,,i 1 A .,e, ..- . ..i d _it% ,16 jiA '11Nza°4411 '' °.,,igktik Ifit i. . . f. i a , 781..:1 i • .. .. ) 170 1`,alA ,a�,, = a • (or 0(2 '. IMO, .• 'X. F 5 ii. ( . / Ec,► - ION 'CT PREP - I ! _--x-----— ` i'y�, �; A AIN T�� .EX. EMERGENCY •1 _L o UTA 'f 1 '\-ii A 6" WA 'R I 1410 'AN �,` EWr R FORCE ., 7 • a �. a �� I. I 1 �; Y ��$ P A ER , , I )0 1A/VP) . ; i ofit;1 •01,\ 1, - -- . . ) -,1,1 '4 ke its ., Ar t ,,° I ':"i"..4.410,\!. • ... 1 ., .. 0 k 14 A UR A 14. • _ Or4Sitr*St' )3313 S Jklb- A \ if : 1 r � 142 � .. _ �''''M�.fAv J 1�210. ,�� rC,i! r— --4 / • - ..Ville,A Lump Mr 1 1371 .164/24419_,1- ' g '\, ,is -- i ill II I, le I2 6 zri . 1 1, - // V) 1 iV 7 , 12\ r7se ,! i or1 / 1,3 1 4 /1, i . 14 9 e i t � I .°.1 /V 7 • \ e ' ' 111 2-1 Ili ‘--— - .- iiigl 1�` 146 I ----- 7� 9 1` g I i III 8 \' 51-08 1 , �,> I 15 50 '"fi� 6.`� i _' '..., _, , i � o ._-1-5-4° / 1 �9 0 21° ' F=1.06 =a �?' 0 .,, co • w1J ATTACHMENT 5I Suzanne Avila From: Jeff Peterson, PE <jpeterson@wilseyham.com> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:06 PM To: Suzanne Avila Cc: Rosy Ko (rosy.ko@gmail.com) Subject: Ko Subdivision Environmental Document Hi Suzanne, One of the biologists that we have been talking with about the project expressed concern about the language in Mitigation Measure BIO-4b which reads: b) A biologist qualified to assess and monitor CRLF..shall be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to the start ofconstruction activities. They recommended the language be changed to: Prior to the start of construction activities, the .Town:will:confirm that a qualified biologist [i.e. holding,a valid USFUVS 10(a)(1)(A) permit for the CRLF] has been hired by the project proponent to assess and monitor the species within portions of the project site to be actively graded. The reason for their recommended language change is that gaining simple approval from the USFWS is often a very lengthy process simply due to the workload of agency staff. That agency also may not respond to such requests without the project being involved in some form of Section 7 consultation, which can take a year or more to complete. The frog is not state listed as endangered or threatened by CDFW. For clarification:, Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA is for scientific research on a listed species or activities to enhance a listed species propagation or survival a Section.10(a)(1)(A) permit is required. Examples include, but are not limited-'to:_abundance surveys, genetic research, relocations, capture and marking, and telemetric monitoring. I would like to,submit this as a comment to the Environmental Document. Let meknow if you would like to discuss it. Best regards, Jeff .. Jeff Peterson, P.E. Principal Ene.jineeriuio, Surv6ying. ;:Piannino 3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 650.349.2151 'main 650.286:8415 direct 650.345.4921,fax • , l oeterso n(a)wi i s eyha m.com i. ATTACHMENT 5J EDPC comments on the Initial Studyy of the StirlingSubdivision bythe MC'j 2 �`�� Planning Group Inc. TOWN OF LOS AL I;OS HILLS On October 14th 2015 members of the Environmental Design&Protection Committee visited the Stirling Subdivision site.The EDPC was later asked to submit by October 23rd 2015 its comments on the Initial Study of the Stirling Subdivision submitted by the EMC Planning Group Inc. They are as follows: On August 21st 2014 the Environmental Design&Protection Committee submitted comments on the Stirling Subdivision Formal Submittal for a nine-lot Tentative Subdivision Map. 1. on that occasion we asked for an Open Space Easement to be established over a group of heritage oaks on Lot 1, oaks which form a significant grove. Has this been done? 2. is the path of the road through the site the same as that taken on the plan used for the 2014 study? If it is not the same,where and how does it differ? 3. we asked that there be a wildlife corridor left along the eastern fence line, allowing the movement of animals from one open space to another. Why has this suggestion not been accepted, since a wildlife permeable fence is shown all around the Stirling property, including this eastern property line? The 30' easement along this fence could then accommodate the pathway which all the Committees concerned with the environment wish to have. 4. View Easements were requested for the residents of Simon Lane: has this request been addressed? We submit that a 5'view easement on both sides of the property lines between Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 would allow such views. As no grading or building can be done within 10' of a lot line, then such a 5' site view line would not affect the applicant's MDA. 5. cannot an alternative be found to the position of the Lot 7 driveway? As it is now drawn three oaks-no.85,dia.26",no.83, dia 20",and no.82, dia 20" - are to be cut down,and probably nos.86 and 84 as well,equally heritage size. We understand that the Open Space Committee and the Pathways Committee areas dissatisfied as we that few if any of our carefully considered suggestions have been adopted. The above comments have been phrased in question form sous to require answers which we hope will be reasonable and straightforward. Pat Ley,EDPC co-Chair Carol Gottlieb, EDPC co-Chair October 23rd 2015 ATTACHMENT 5K RECEIVED Suzanne Avila, Planning Director _ Town of Los Altos Hills 0 ; 2 2615 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 22, 2015 Suzanne Avila Planning Director, Regarding D 1.a in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration report of the Stirling subdivision, (D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, 1.a. Aesthetics,) I disagree with table item 1.a that is demarcated, "NoImpact" regarding the question, "Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?" No mention was made of the present views of the western hills, sunsets, and heritage oaks enjoyed for decades by neighbors abutting the subdivision project. Heights of new homes were not considered which, if limited, would lessen the impact. Regarding 1. Aesthetics item c. Visual Character, the statement that "the visual effects on the visual character of the Town as rural residential will be less than significant" does not address the fence gridding effect of back-to-back fencing. A mitigating factor would be a fence setback of 25 ft. or more. ' Referring to page 52, d. Wildlife Movement, the existing fence has effected connectivity of wildlife between the Stirling subdivision and our property (13145 Byrd Ln.) on the Eastern border. We've seen a significant reduction of wildlife moving across our property to the creek on Byrd Lane, thus significantly impacting the quality of the previous wildlife corridor that was used by bobcats, coyotes, deer, etc. for decades. This negatively affects our quality of life. A fence setback of 25 ft. or more would greatly mitigate this problem. Sincerely, S,� s . Sh.reA.n Schoendorf ✓� � �` 13145 Byrd L /