Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3.1 Attachment 4
0 0 0 Planning for Success. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION STIRLING SUBDIVISION PREPARED FOR Town of Los Altos Hills September 14, 2015 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. A LAND USE PLANNING&DESIGN.ETRIVI 301 Lighthouse,Avenue Suite C Monterey California 93940 Tel 831-649-1799 Fax 831-649-8399 www_emcp 1 anning.c orn STIRLING SUBDIVISION Mitigated Negative Declaration l r-� 1 PREPARED FOR Cynthia Richardson Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel 650.941.7222 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 ISI Ron Sissem sissem@emcplanning.corn www.emcplanning.com I^ September 14, 2015 This document was produced on recycled paper. LOS ALTOS HILI 6 01111 LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 '' NIA PROPOSED (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project described below has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to have an insignificant effect upon the IS environment. iProject Name Project Applicant Stirling Subdivision Stirling Family i Project Location 11 1 i Northwest portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills at the terminus of Charles Avenue, west of Natoma Road. Assessor's Parcel Number 182-10-057. I Project Description The proposed project is a tentative map to subdivide an 18.18 acre (gross) project site into nine lots. Two existing residential structures on the site would likely be demolished such that up to y'y nine new homes could be constructed, with a net gain of seven homes relative to existing ri conditions. Access into the site would be via Natoma Road and an extension of existing Charles Avenue. Water and sewer infrastructure would be located within the Charles Avenue extension. Storm drainage would be collected, treated, and disposed via a series of on-site Low Impact Development measures. The proposed project includes an open space easement along an on-site j tributary to Matadero Creek. Easements for pathways that would integrate the site with existing 1 pathway easements located along the tributary and along existing lot lines are also included. 11 Determination { The attached initial study has been prepared for the above project in accordance with the CEQA procedures established in the CEQA Guidelines. On the basis of the initial study, the Town of Los Altos Hills makes the following determination: I � 1 ❑ The above project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby approved. ✓ The above project could have a significant effect on the environment, but WILL NOT )J have a significant effect in this case because the attached mitigation measures will be implemented by the Town of Los Altos Hills to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence before,the Town of Los Altos Hills that the proposed project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment. A (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby approved. Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program Further information about this project and about its probable environmental impact is on file at Li the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning and Building Department, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022: Tel 650.941.7222. ` 1 Cynthia Richardson , By: Consulting Planner Date: September 14, 2015 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring Program { 2 STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Department:Town of Los Altos Hills—Planning&Building Department Project Name: Stirling Subdivision Compliance&Mitigation Monitoring and/or Reporting Program File No:Not Applicable APN: 182-10-057 Approval by:Los Altos Hills City Council Date: September 14,2015 *Monitoring or Reporting refers to projects with an EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration per Section 21.081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) MM#1 (Air Quality/AQ-1)During construction, the The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning and The Town During following basic control measures shall be Building Department will ensure that the of Los construction implemented at the construction site: particulate dust minimization measures are Altos Hills activities 1. All exposed surfaces(e.g.,parking areas, included in the contractor work specifications staging areas, soil piles,graded areas, and for the proposed project. The Town of Los unpaved access roads)shall be watered two Altos Hills Planning and Building times per day. Department will also be responsible for monitoring construction activities to ensure 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or that the minimization measures are being other loose material off-site shall be covered. implemented. Contractor failure to comply 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto with the requirements of the mitigation adjacent public roads shall be removed using measure,will cause all work to be stopped wet power vacuum street sweepers at least until corrective actions are taken and once per day.The use of dry power sweeping confirmed by The Town of Los Altos Hills is prohibited. Planning and Building Department. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) 5. All roadways, driveways,`and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes(as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints.This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.The air district's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. C1 7 %- 1711 L- CIL LI LI_ LC - �vI - - r -- STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) MM#2 (Biological Resources)To protect special-status The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to plant species with low potential to occur on the implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of site,the presence/absence of Congdon's tarplant, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction Franciscan onion,western leatherwood,white- Altos Hills. activities flowered rein orchid,and woodland woollythreads shall be determined prior to initiation of construction activities. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused botanical surveys in accordance with current CDFW and CNPS rare plant survey protocols during the peak blooming periods for these species.The surveys should cover all proposed impact areas,including the pedestrian bridge/trail in the open space easement. If possible,the surveys should be conducted during a year of adequate rainfall to ensure that the species are observable if present on the site.If the surveys are conducted in an area mapped as experiencing severe, extreme, or exceptional drought conditions according to the U.S. Drought Monitor,then blooming reference populations of the target species should be identified in the general project vicinity to verify that the species are observable within about two weeks of surveying for the species.The U.S. Drought Monitor map is available on-line and updated weekly by the National Oceanic and EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) Atmospheric Administration,the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. If focused botanical surveys are performed during a drought year,the CDFW and CNPS rare plant survey protocols require a discussion of how drought conditions may affect the validity of survey results,and state that additional surveys may be necessary if the severity of drought conditions is found to preclude the identification of a target species. If the surveys conclude that the species would not be impacted by proposed development,no further mitigation is required. If any target species would be impacted,then mitigation shall be implemented. The applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist or native plant specialist to collect seed from the special-status plants located within the impact area prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities. The applicant shall then oversee selection of an appropriate mitigation area on the project site or in the project vicinity that is already preserved or shall be protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement. Collected seed shall be installed at the mitigation area at the optimal time according to a Restoration Plan developed by a qualified biologist and approved by the 4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) Town of Los Altos Hills.Topsoil from the special-status plant occurrence area should also be salvaged(where practical)for use in the mitigation area. MM#3 (Biological Resources/BIO-2)If construction The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to activities begin during the bird nesting season implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of (February 1 to September 15),or if construction subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks Altos Hills. activities and recommence during the bird nesting season, and during then the applicant shall retain a qualified construction biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys for activities nesting birds.The surveys shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas in and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. Surveys shall be conducted during daylight hours, and an owl survey shall be conducted starting at dusk to detect crepuscular and nocturnal nesting owls, if present. Surveys shall be conducted no more than one week prior to the initiation of construction activities.A report documenting survey results and a plan for active bird nest avoidance(if needed)shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Altos Hills for review and approval prior to construction activities. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) If no active bird nests are detected during the survey,then project activities can proceed as scheduled.However, if an active bird nest of a protected species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an appropriately sized,temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed construction activities.The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 50-300 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest shall occur,no construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s)until the juvenile birds have fledged(left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting,as determined by the qualified biologist. MM#4 (Biological Resources/BIO-3)A qualified The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of for woodrat nests within the project impact areas. subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance Altos Hills. activities of direct construction impacts where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided,woodrat nests shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to 6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. C J1 C--- CII C__11, C__ L C C C r C- STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) construction by the qualified biologist.All vegetation and duff materials shall be removed from three feet around the nest prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild.Nests are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse. MM#5 (Biological Resources/BIO-4)To protect CRLF The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to and/or WPT potentially present within the implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of project site,the following actions shall be subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction implemented by the applicant: Altos Hills. activities a) Initial site clearing and grading shall be conducted and completed from April 15 to October 15. Site clearing and grading shall halt if significant rainfall, defined as greater than 0.5 inches per 24 hours within a local watershed,is either forecasted or observed to avoid environmental conditions when CRLF would have the potential to be active. b)A biologist qualified to assess and monitor CRLF shall be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to the start of construction activities. c)The qualified biologist will survey the work site two weeks before the onset of activities. If CRLF,tadpoles, or eggs are found,the approved biologist will contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination,the USFWS will EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 7 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) consider if an appropriate relocation site exists. If the USFWS approves moving animals,the qualified biologist will be allowed sufficient time - -- -- to-move them from the worksite before-work- - activities begin. Only qualified biologists will participate in activities associated with the capture,handling,and monitoring of CRLF. d)Before construction-associated activities begin at the project site,the qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel.At a minimum,the training would include a description of CRLF,WPT and their habitat,general measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF and WPT as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project occurs. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species appearance would be used in the training session.All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training.Additionally,the approved on site biological monitor will be available to answer any questions about the species. e)The qualified biologist shall be present on site during initial site clearing and grading activities within the upland potential impact area and for , all activities associated with constructing the 8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) walking trail and pedestrian footbridge through the on-site riparian area. In the unforeseen event that CRLF are encountered, the biologist shall contact the USFWS and/or CDFW immediately to determine the best course of action. At a minimum, all construction activities will cease until the frog leaves the work area.To the extent that avoidance of the CRLF is not possible,then mitigation shall be provided for the project following consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Mitigation may include,but not be limited to, species salvage and relocation,habitat enhancement, or compensatory mitigation. 0 The USFWS-approved biologist shall permanently remove from within the project area any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes to the maximum extent possible.The project applicant shall have the responsibility to ensure that project activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. g)The contractor shall avoid the use of monofilament netting on the job including in temporary and permanent erosion control materials(fiber rolls,and blankets), and seal all steep walled holes greater than 1 foot deep overnight to prevent entrapment of special status EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 9 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) wildlife.Where holes cannot be sealed, escape ramps that are no more than a 30 percent slope will be positioned such that entrapped wildlife will-be able to escape. The escape ramps should be at least one-foot wide and covered with jute netting or similar material. h)SWPPP measures shall be followed to prevent toxins from entering Matadero Creek including secondary containment of gas cans in buckets, and secondary containment of stationary equipment that could leak oil such as generators. No equipment will be staged or stored within 150 feet of Matadero Creek. MM#6 (Biological Resources/BIO-5)Prior to the start The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to of construction, a qualified biologist shall implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of conduct surveys of the grassland habitat on the subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction site to identify any potential American badger Altos Hills. activities burrows/dens. These surveys shall be conducted not more than 15 days prior to the start of construction.If an American badger burrow/den is found during the surveys, coordination with the CDFW shall be undertaken in order to develop a suitable strategy to avoid impacts to the burrow/den. With CDFW approval,impacts to active American badger dens should be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around all active 10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. LCC.' _ �_ ��_ �__ CC " CLI - LII L_ CI, I____1 CDS IL CLI STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Cond. Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) badger dens,within which construction related activities shall be prohibited until denning activities are complete or the den is abandoned. A qualified biologist shall monitor each den once per week in order to track the status of the den and to determine when a den area has been cleared for construction. MM#7 (Biological Resources/BIO-6)Pre-construction The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of conducted for buildings and trees that could subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction support bats and are within 200 feet of the project Altos Hills. activities impact area. If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be established during the bat breeding season (April 15 through August 15).No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur during the bat breeding season without prior concurrence from the CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable during the bat breeding season, a qualified biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and the CDFW shall be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. If evidence of nesting bats is not found,mature trees removed due to project implementation shall be removed in two stages: stage one will include removal of tree limbs, and stage two will EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 11 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) include removal of the main trunk on a subsequent day.This will allow any potentially present, day-roosting bats the opportunity to relocate:If-bat roosts are encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts.The applicant shall submit a report to the Town of Los Altos Hills documenting that trees were properly removed, whether any bat roosts were encountered,and what measures were taken if bat roosts were encountered. MM#8 (Biological Resources/BIO-7)If the bed or The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to banks of the creek or riparian trees/habitats will implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos initiation of be impacted by installation of the pedestrian foot- subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills construction bridge,the applicant shall retain a qualified Altos Hills. activities biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to associated evaluate the impacts of this project feature.This with the consultant shall prepare a preliminary proposed jurisdictional assessment to document proposed footbridge impacts to the waterway and riparian habitat that are potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB, and/or Santa Clara Valley Water District. If the drainage feature is not determined to be jurisdictional by any of the agencies,no further action is necessary. If the waterway is found to be potentially jurisdictional,the applicant shall initiate the 12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) appropriate permitting process with each agency claiming jurisdiction prior to obtaining grading permits.This may include retaining a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to conduct a jurisdictional wetland/waterway delineation to quantify proposed project impacts to jurisdictional waters and submitting the delineation report to the USACE for verification. If jurisdictional feature impacts will occur, approval of a Section 404 permit from the USACE and/or a Section 401 or General Waste Discharge Requirements permit from the RWQCB maybe required.If the CDFW takes jurisdiction, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. Project approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District may also be necessary. Compensatory mitigation may be required by the permitting process(es). MM#9 (Biological Resources/BIO-8)The project The applicant shall be responsible for the Town of Prior to applicant shall prepare and implement a tree implementation of this mitigation measure, Los Altos issuance of replacement plan pursuant to municipal code subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Hills the first Title 12,Article 3 for all Heritage Oaks to be Altos Hills. residential removed as a result of project implementation. unit The plan shall be subject to review and approval building of the Town, and shall be implemented as a permit subdivision improvement.For all Heritage Oaks to be retained the project applicant shall fully EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 13 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number Number and Responsible Land Use Department professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance Compliance (name/date) implement the protection methodology for tree preservation contained in the HortScience 2014 revised project arborist report. ( ) project applicantresponsible-- ------- -- -- -- - MM#10 Cultural Resources/CR-1 If buried cultural The ro'ect shall be res for Town of During resources are discovered during ground- the implementation of this mitigation Los Altos construction disturbing activities,work will stop within a 100- measure, subject to monitoring by the Town Hills activities foot radius of the find until a qualified of Los Altos Hills. archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and,if necessary, develop a Response Plan, with appropriate treatment measures,in consultation with the Town,the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other appropriate agencies.Preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment method per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b)(avoidance, open space, capping, or easement).Data recovery of important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation, is allowed if it is the only feasible treatment method.This mitigation language shall be included in all contractor work specifications related to ground disturbing activities conducted within the project site. MM#11 (Cultural Resources/CR-2)If human skeletal The project applicant shall be responsible for Town of During remains are encountered,ground disturbing the implementation of this mitigation Los Altos construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the measure, subject to monitoring by the Town Hills activities discovery shall be terminated.The County of Los Altos Hills. 14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Verification Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) Coroner must be contacted immediately and is required to examine the discovery within 48 hours.If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American,the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.A qualified archaeologist should also be contacted immediately.The Coroner is required to notify - and seek out a treatment recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission- designated Most Likely Descendant. • If the Native American Heritage Commission identifies a Most Likely Descendant, and the Most Likely Descendant makes a recommendation,and the landowner accepts the recommendation,then ground-disturbing activities may resume after the qualified cultural resources consultant verifies and notices the Town that the recommendations have been completed. • If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the Most Likely Descendant, or the Most Likely Descendant makes no recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation, and mediation per Public Resources Code 5094.98(k)fails,then ground disturbing activities may resume,but only after EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 15 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) the cultural resources consultant verifies and notices the Town that the landowner has completely reinterred the human remains and - _ items-associated with-Native-American burials with appropriate dignity on the property, and ensures no further disturbance of the site per PRC 5097.98(e)by county recording, open space designation, or a conservation easement. If the coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required and that the human remains are not Native American,then ground- disturbing activities may resume, after the Coroner informs the Town of such determination.According to state law, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. MM#12 (Hazardous Materials/HAZ-1)The project The project applicant shall be responsible for Town of Prior to applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to the implementation of this mitigation Los Altos demolition conduct a visual inspection/pre-demolition measure, subject to monitoring by the Town Hills of on-site survey, and possible sampling,prior to the of Los Altos Hills. residences demolition of the on-site residences to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint.All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, if present, shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. - j �� J '(-__._F� �_- l - � �_ _ ( _. CII. C_: STIRLING SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Permit Compliance or Monitoring Actions to be Responsible Verification Mitigation Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures of Cond. performed.Where applicable,a certified Party for Timing Number and Responsible Land Use Department Compliance Number professional is required for action to be accepted. Compliance (name/date) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials.All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529.Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to air district regulations contained in air district Regulation 11,Rule 2. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard,Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1,including employees training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 17 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM This side intentionally left blank. • 18 EMC PLANNINGGROUPINC. L� it - i _ ' �.' I, _ j` � (-- �_ �^ STIRLING SUBDIVISION Initial Study PREPARED FOR Cynthia Richardson Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel 650.941.7222 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Ron Sissem sissem@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com September 14, 2015 Tht, ,ISLUCii CI1Jil<CU i . I� tit) TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 19 C. DETERMINATION 20 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 21 1. Aesthetics 23 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources 25 3. Air Quality 27 4. Biological Resources 30 5. Cultural Resources 55 6. Geology and Soils 59 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 62 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 64 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 67 10. Land Use and Planning 72 11. Mineral Resources 73 12. Noise 74 13. Population and Housing 77 14. Public Services 78 15. Recreation 81 16. Transportation/Traffic 82 17. Utilities and Service Systems 85 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 87 E. SOURCES 89 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Appendices Appendix A Tentative Map Appendix B Habitat Assessment Report Appendix C Geotechnical Report Peer Review Figures Figure 1 Project Location 3 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph 5 Figure 3A Site Photographs A 7 Figure 3B Site Photographs B 9 Figure 4 General Plan Land Use 11 Figure 5 Proposed Subdivision Map 15 Figure 6 Habitat Map 3 3 Figure 7A Biological Resources Photographs A 35 Figure 7B Biological Resources Photographs B 37 Figure 8 Mammal Burrow Areas 45 Tables Table 1 Subdivision Lot Acreages 13 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. A. BACKGROUND Project Title Stirling Subdivision, 28030 Natoma Road Lead Agency Contact Person Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant and Phone Number Town of Los Altos Hills 650.941.7222 Date Prepared August 2015 Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Ron Sissem, Principal Planner Polaris Kinison Brown, Senior Planner Project Location Northwest portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills at the terminus of Charles Avenue, west of Natoma Road. Assessor's Parcel Number 182-10-057 Project Sponsor Name and Address Stirling Family c/o Avigale McLoughlin 4252C Omao Road Koloa, HI 96756 General Plan Designation Residential, Open Space Conservation Area overlay (portion of the site) Zoning R-A(Residential-Agricultural) Setting The project site is located in the northwest portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills. Access to the site is from Charles Avenue off of Natoma Road. Figure 1, Project Location, presents the regional and vicinity location of the Town and project site. The 18.18-acre site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 182-10-057. Except for two existing single-family homes, a pump house, several outbuildings, and associated infrastructure (well and septic system), the project site is vacant. The property generally slopes downward to the northeast from its highest point of about 510 feet in the northeast corner to a low of about 310 feet along the westernmost reach of a tributary to Matadero Creek, which forms most of the western and southern boundary of the property. The south and western one- third of the site slopes steeply down to Matadero Creek tributary with slopes of 30 percent or more. For ease of reference, the tributary is referred to as Matadero Creek in this initial study. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Matadero Creek originates just upstream from the project site. It drains to Mayfield Slough and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. Several on-site swales drain to Matadero Creek. Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, shows existing conditions on and adjacent to the project site. Figure 3A, Site Photographs A and Figure 3B, Site Photographs B, shows representative conditions within the site. The primary habitat types within the site include non-native grassland and oak woodland. The applicant has prepared a tree survey and arborist's report that shows the site contains approximately 158 oak trees comprised of three different species, as well as several walnut trees. For each tree, the survey information identifies the species, trunk diameter, the "heritage" status (heritage trees are defined by the Town as oaks of 12 inches or greater trunk diameter), condition, and suitability for preservation, along with comments about the condition of each tree. 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. Tree removal and wildlife issues are discussed in the Biological Resources section of this initial study. The site contains two, small, younger dormant landslide areas and a third old landslide area that will require stabilization. The Monte Vista Fault traverses through the northwestern portion of the site. The fault has been determined to be a remnant feature that is not capable of surface fault rupture. Existing residential uses on minimum one-acre lots surround the project site. Adjacent lot sizes range from about 1.05 acres to 3.65 acres. The portions of several of the adjacent lots located adjacent to Matadero Creek are in open space easements. Figure 4, General Plan Land Use, illustrates that the project site carries two General Plan land use designations. The first is Residential. Areas with this designation are allowed one single- family dwelling per parcel. Accessory uses including one secondary dwelling unit may be permitted. Agricultural activities and conditional uses such as religious facilities and schools also may be allowed. The second is Open Space Conservation Area overlay(portion of the site). The General Plan Land Use Element notes that this overlay designation is superimposed upon residential land use areas and is generally applied to areas of steep slopes, canyons and ravines associated with major creeks or their tributaries, as well as creek corridors and other areas of heavy vegetation that should be protected. Within these areas, special measures should be taken to conserve the natural quality of the area and to avoid environmental degradation. Residences should be placed on the most buildable portions of lands which carry this overlay and carefully sited so as to preserve existing trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat. 2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. �uJPero S f ��a B4, a, Footh,i,_py tea 1 d R Qage*..., Palo Alto P�as�adeto Los Felt Altos Lake / / , Arastrapero Rd `^�� Fremont Rd. IA ArastrAc, '`---� Creek yr \ Project Location °0 of 4 R. (d V - tict CCC //^j �ci( � Q. d i► Charles Ave. Los Altos Hills "_____ s- Modesto Project Location *Los kj Altos Hills 0 L._ rr.,,,,,--- Santa Cruz-N_. i Monterey ,% ,!Salinas IA 0 za Regional Location ® I Source:Esri 2014 0 3,500 feet Figure 1 © © O Project Location Stirling Subdivision IS STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY This side intentionally left blank. 4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. ••-• - t '''t ' • . .., • fen .- ...,.• - . ___________ • •':,..... Ce. ,•4 • . . _ .._______________ . "INENNO1111,6,.' Residential tr-,... ille ' '- . Uses i 1 . . 1 , .414 AIIPM. al I dormant slide ••,• .. )4 A * 4 *r...,4 . <, I ,.-;,..., .,•,111111‘t.)09,:idsee:tial dormant 11‘ • •.--. • \,' I ' . 4)1V•' slide . *4 - . I k 7". ''‘1162..,114.4.4:AtioVil...4— . 4 A . : /4, ,a... V .a......,,' • • ' • . At.. Irl arar r. . es44 . - .•Akl.'' .:F., It t4".+Ir.-':.• Existing Pump ,, r,ri, House and 0 I a, ; Water Tanks „ip, ,,,, •„,,,,...„..,,„,,,,„ • . 1,4,0410, 4 --mc , 4--- ' , - _.1.,i.. : • ,,•• ,,,,,•,.....,,,- 4,, . ,.. ›.q.,,,, frik•... ,._,APiz.,,,rHx,ir--4.4-,•.:. •-,- .)„,,. - :f. -......_ .:., „yam so,4, 4 „..,,„c _, -'- 'c_,„; -",,e,4 4•'Is L'...._ .; '... _' ;,...**" ' me, ,, ' ' .4- 4 - 1. ,,.- A - '' ' .''',' 4 4* b ,14!'• - Outbuildings • • , ' 0•1'°' .1•.*•44.‘, • .-4/ *,..,A. "44. -k.:... ', 1,,,....,. ,e • - 4./.4.1,, , ' ,. ‘ .•4. . .so,•,..<4 r, !, ,* .: . \ • 1 -..r. . ' 4'.10-' . . .- , --,•#.44c.,, t, N.--ter .... . i. . •k. , _„ \ .„,... .• isti ... , A „Attes Existing House • I . • Lvetwis• ,,, . .`414K. 00.`e ,• wirl.--,.- •'5•-, . *...,„„•.:: '% * 4 i' . and Garage ;te Chacles— e r ,44 • '4:;,-.-.:tf.z...,:,,•„ ai1 e'N.:_4, ' \ (toremn) • / .--. ,--, 1 Resideritial 1 . I Uses , , Residential -**IN, 4. k e' .. 1 . - .: •'' "A -' . ' I..., , ,jf 1 ' :., `....„,, L _I 1 1 - Uses , ;.,* 'ql.` ,I. . - "‘!tie '''' • ,' ''''''' -' P, `,, Existing A orx ..,. Iii. k 4, Or' '; \ ., House (to be II 1 1 ............- % - -• -7....•-• - •,,,. ,. 0,.. demolished) ...,, 0 - • -: - te- it . ,rs. ,. . : ,, 0,.. -: ,• . •41- :. :-.. . • 4 •,.4. . . 1' wg '11.„-'54,72.- -* 411 - .. '0 `., ,•- - .,,v.,....., ,.. 0 -4-,,-,6 --,,„------7/..:, •,.c:::-,,...- • ,. -,.,t- - 2_ ut,,,,," : •. ..„ (.11,4„.. ...,,,,i''4- ''' 16-• - . f200 Feet ly 1 1 1=3 Project Site * Fence —y— Slide-dormant Source:Google Earth 2014 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph 0 0 0 Stirling Subdivision IS `. Iat '*4' 'Al .... 'Wt. ,•,. • ,Akilti,,.,,,,;641A6 t��ll�iq� h E 4 • 4.7'12; . • ., .r ,1 , .‘ ''-: . ,. „04, ' "'i ',rot,* tw ,-, E fat"4. - "' _____ g' wY�t . i. se r, _ � I; : • soot � - w i ' � � ^ ` � ------------------ a i t i t4,. .� • .• ....1 i Al .Y77� � ., � • 16 .. - 77 . Y 'i[ 'f4, : tl . a 4: A _ c .� f, � ` OIntersection of Charles Avenue at f: i" 1 0 Existing house and garage to remain Natoma Road ,;. i 1 • . k110!..ii / • ^ _ .4 •yam ," y�� f ',• ,.. A^1 $� ,..VIFF ` t 'sl y • , , ,• .•• .,. ^ ., -2 t - 7',:ilit - 1 `'.......... et- .k a S.,if t ie V 1.°*c4,4, O2 View into property from Charles Avenue ""tt "'" r^ �`, } enue O5 Existing outbuildings to be demolished • f 3 ^�1 Mj'Char\es Pv- i ; .- __ ttps,*441%,' - yr, i ..ti' Natoma Road ' " *10.„1:1"1,,'' �i'f � � , ♦♦ . ' -•^, . ,ai1 . Fes^ ♦♦ - - : •� y swV.•n y, M;+. r�1¢ "A - 1 ♦ ♦ § .!" )) iia ` 0Existing residence to be demolished i___I Project Site ©Close-up of existing outbuilding to be demolished Source:Google Earth 2014 Figure 3A © © ® Site Photographs A Stirling Subdivision IS Te-r j fin...:, '�,,-r " ` ..R a� •• �) 4.' .v,. ' q `"�� : '+ -It•.4 ..,,- .� :r. ,• • ✓ .e• 4. 4 ,;;.., • si:,,,,,i4. ,` '"t`'r. m. • �., ' L oda J Alie; ,.'. �V ,Ma *4' c.. s. � sn Ft r ri. ♦ It t` m n Y� ••••i4 i Vlc rik- S t +ill ;am, ir.,1 -• ' " fi, •AlfilltAla ' , 'Ili 1 1. if, ,.., �JSS 07 View towards approximate location of ----- - ; 0 Pump house and water tanks in interior planned pedestrian bridge over creek - 1 Q ' • of property s < i IF 1,. e iii: -::,...147...„. .0,0' .‘ , �, �y/Y 4. r ; i,- . •\ x-rte J", .r - 1 - +G/ .' l 14 t. ®Steep slopes to be retained in open , " --b: f +r•te'a.: t �� Stand of oaks with perimeter fence at space easement `' fir `%,•—t141.411H eastern property line A.,% ' f ' t00110- 'N.. ^• , t leitil 't• N.,"k ' 1. Illitge011,04N7 111710 401'1'4 • or0- `. �' Charles Aven"ue'��� ' , Z r }L�f��ry�f •j,s per• x• • ,„ , t��.• r �� }7 \ L 7 `�6. • r! r •moi ,4. It 1. '�. �`fit ''�' .,e-0^ -- • :� e''^j; 111 '—'''a, •'''SI,; • NA110^'-,'`.,4 , jakiagia„.i,.41;.tzll"5r- ....- - 4 Og View downslope towards open space [_a Project Site 12 Looking east on Charles Avenue easement,with residences to the west from property boundary Source:Google Earth 2014 Figure 3B ® ® ® Site Photographs B Stirling Subdivision IS V .N• IPS 1Df)IPFORKs t ^a/ ILI' \ *1, 04 4 1-0,,__ I OA *A \II 1(4.4 „wait ip%iiii .4# off. k, .4.4411111111 i '\''. /Atilt (470reAlUir ti � >NS WI /44 Ile I NW SIMON LAN Vtlnkrigiir t 4I � I Town of Los Altos Hills Land Use Diagram ..i* : ,�� `. ►`�, Legend: 47-. I- s L R j RESIDENTIAL r Aill fik1 tOr "rip,��� �' pI INSTITUTIONAL /16, GP , .,�' OP Public School Fire Station � _,„ � Pri Prlvete School Religious i � „AI 44,, �� Public Elementary School ����, � �� OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ie r� , �, fSA-P9 RECREATION AREAPUBLIC j � ��' rRA" `I RECREATION AREA-PRIVATE APv $111 ' ' •,/ LpSCA j OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION AREA 11111011101111rOir1 ', CREEKS AND STREAMS '* '-. . �,' _ A,0111111.11r. �..—TOWN BOUNDARY robmi '�-`_ , .. ,� _aim M.. UIN '. A �-• I`� lyNot to scale L-2 Project Site Source:Town of Los Altos Hills 2008 Figure 4 General Plan Land Use ® ® ® Stirling Subdivision IS STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY This side intentionally left blank. 12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Description of Project The applicant is seeking approval of a tentative map to subdivide the 18.18 acre parcel into nine lots. The property currently contains two residences, a pump house, and outbuilding structures. Though it is possible that one of the two existing residences would be retained, for purposes of this CEQA analysis, it is assumed that all structures will be demolished, such that a total of nine new single-family homes could be constructed. Figure 5, Proposed Subdivision Map, contained in the applicant's tentative map plan set as sheet 1, shows the proposed lotting plan, proposed access via a planned extension of Charles Avenue, and other relevant project site and project information. The tentative map is included in Appendix A. Lot sizes would range from a minimum of 1.03 acres, with the smaller lots located along the eastern site boundary adjacent to existing lots of similar size, to 3.34 acres. The larger lots are located along Matadero Creek. Table 1, Subdivision Lot Acreages, shows each lot number along with its gross and net acreage. The net acreage reflects reductions from gross acreage required to construct Charles Avenue and for other easements that affect several lots as described below. Table 1 Subdivision Lot Acreages Lot Number Gross Acreage Net Acreage 1 1.08 1.08 2 1.06 1.06 3 1.03 1.03 4 1.15 1.15 5 3.34 1.99 6 2.30 1.27 7 1.97 1.19 8 2.23 1.08 9 2.76 1.08 Source: Wilsey Ham Engineers 2014 Access. Access into the site would be via Natoma Road and an extension of existing Charles Avenue. Natoma Road is a paved, 40- to 50-foot wide local road. Existing Charles Avenue extends from Natoma Road to the boundary of the project site. Charles Avenue would be extended into the project site within a 60-foot right-of-way and end in a cul-de-sac. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 13 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY The existing segment of Charles Avenue located between Natoma Road and the project site is a narrow, paved rural road that provides access to one home. It is located within a 60-foot right-of- way that was offered by the project site property owner to and rejected by the Town in 1999. This segment of Charles Avenue would be improved to a 22-foot wide pavement section with a gutter on one side. The new, on-site portion of the roadway would have the same width and includes a curb on one side. It would be constructed with permeable materials that substantially reduce runoff from the roadway surface. Utilities. The project site is not currently served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure. Utility plans for the proposed project are included on sheet 3 of the tentative map in Appendix A. A water main would be constructed within the on-site segment of Charles Avenue to connect with an existing six-inch water main in the off-site segment of Charles Avenue. A new low- pressure sewer main would be constructed within the proposed new and existing segments of Charles Avenue to connect to an existing main in Natoma Road. Similarly, gas, electricity, telephone, and telecommunication services would also be installed in the entire new/existing segments of the road to connect with existing services at Natoma Road. Open Space and Pathway Easements. The lower portions of Lots 5-9 are included in a proposed open space easement. The easement area incorporates areas along Matadero Creek with slopes greater than 30 percent. The easement would tie together other existing open space easements on adjacent, off-site residential lots located along Matadero Creek. The on-site easement is illustrated on Figure 5 and sheet 6 of the tentative map in Appendix A shows adjacent, off-site open space and pathway easements. The proposed project also includes easements for pathways that would integrate the site with existing pathway easements located along Matadero Creek and along existing lot lines on properties to the east and north of the site. The proposed subdivision map shows a 75-foot wide pathway easement along the northern property line within which a meandering pathway would be constructed. At its western terminus, the pathway would cross Matadero Creek via a proposed new footbridge to connect to an existing off-site pathway easement. In the northeastern corner of the site, the 75-foot easement narrows to 20 feet and connects to the other off-site pathway easements. An additional pathway easement would be located along the new on-site extension of Charles Avenue and extend the full length of existing Charles Avenue within the 60-foot right-of-way to connect to Natoma Road. Tree Resources and Tree Removal. The proposed project will require removal of a number of oak trees. Removal will result from construction of the Charles Avenue extension into the site and from improvement of the off-site segment of the road. Construction of the new Charles Avenue extension and improvement of the existing segment of Charles Avenue will require removal of approximately 24 oaks trees, a number of which are "heritage" trees of 12 inches in diameter or larger. In response to comments from the Town, the applicant has adjusted the road location relative to the initial project design to reduce the number of trees that must be removed. 14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. I '_ Iint . APPROEIWATE PAVEMENT WIDTH 22' I ml w vAw - w' -1. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT / il 11 / II r 1. 6, --I 1I 1 I ( `� I 1 I 1 �;IF: 2A025 NA f l0N RO 1 SAKAMOTO I MURAKAMI i3m A Ac/ 4. EITI L PAPP Y .,•i o 1311 BTRD L I II32B3 SIMON LANE I 13315 SIMON LANE 13313 SIMON LA,N�k '\ O_ ___ ...100,AC , (' ,Iii-' '1.40}-C- v -3,,L iA,A 1.05 elk O. 1 /^ pp�W t^^/ \( 1 e• ' NT.': ":q uTr4 I \`` ..122. `�\r . N-YO OO�W 1 4 - f �•yp�i;: 1`4 Z '• 111' LO A�v'.�I '(���- ;i � �t�`�`�4 t ^4 y � - woo`D / • I $-8.6X5 •.E16 St/. LQTJ,..`, -1 0g} _ AC Na. • :(51. -r .• 240D MELODY LANE i . S,i -F.7406.--4. ''` } 3,55 AC ��,. OF L1 � ,;)�.na-Ac' f_ 96�1--s!'�� Ie AC-2`i'—' L. �� 13455 SI FNORK LANE I )i.� ,,„---,.*Y 2 t!- 59.08 C4 7 .' Ag2 --e-99. • Vti ♦, / 2.40 AC 1 �l'.tTN.L' C2 / W�' '17 PATHWAY !�, ..4'1114.7-3! `75.964-:-,"-__-..- e \ � ,�y y a t • n\tH r_. _}'r— „:%;',.....__,13:*,7�7�` A a A \',.. ( i. `r---- TOP OF 14' ...... ...s.,L\ 1A .�I 0'A` ,2 46.. MATADERO CREEK HANK :h', 27750 EDOERTON RD e _ SCHIFF //!•. A; AAV -/r�y �'ry 2,a4 AC '- c'"4•4.. 2.300 ACCs II `i�`• A A�Is� \ `� 5317 %- SUBDNIS/ON BOUNDARY ti...7.-r--7,- t >/ KURANOF /- 13440 S.FOR ” -, i,:-1 FIA, TDP•orMATADERA CI o`e ♦ / LIN wy� rt �'E _ f' / \ 277 EDGERTON RD i. .. Y•r'„4,,41',1---r' l "'s / ♦ 2.21 AC -C-.V47- ,"` - 1d. �`� i s ;000 �� PRUDEt , 13452 5 FO:;,, 1% r �/(//'' 2 i / 1 /� I -�1 1 1 illi.G. 1: //, // /�� is //%/ 107.69' 107.52' LALCHANDANI 1 FRENZEL ` 13300 COUNTRY WAY COUNTRY wAY 13311 2.88 AC 1.84 AC I ® n Open Space Easement Source:Wilsey Ham Engineering,Surveying and Planning 2015 0 170 feet Figure 5 © © 0 Proposed Subdivision Map Sterling Subdivision IS STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Sheet 2 of the proposed tentative map included in Appendix A shows the locations of the eight new proposed building sites and associated driveways. The building site for Lot 9 is assumed to at the same location as the larger of the two existing dwelling units located within that lot. Please refer sheet 2, which shows that each new building site is located to avoid the need to cut any of the 158 oak trees mapped on the site (beyond those identified on Lot 7 for the remedial grading). As described below, the site contains geologic hazards. Remediation of an existing, old, shallow landslide will require that nine additional oak trees be removed. Geotechnical Hazards. The applicant prepared an engineering geologic hazard investigation for the project site that was peer reviewed by Cotton Shires & Associates, a consultant retained by the Town. The investigation resulted in identification of and old landslide, two younger dormant landslides, and presence of an on-site fault, the Monte Vista Fault. Refer back to Figure 2 for the locations of the two younger landslides. The geotechnical consultant determined that the old landslide, which is located within proposed Lot 7, will require remedial grading as part of the subdivision improvements. Once remediated, the area will be sufficiently stable to enable locating a building site within the boundary of the remediated area. The extent of the grading area is shown on sheet 3 of the tentative map in Appendix A. Remedial grading will result in removal of nine oak trees. The upper, smaller, dormant landslide, which is located within proposed Lot 5 and Lot 6, will require stabilization through installation of subdrains and setbacks to proposed structures would be required. The geotechnical consultants determined that the Monte Vista Fault is a remnant feature and not capable of primary surface fault rupture that would otherwise be a significant public safety risk. The proposed subdivision map shows that no proposed building footprints are located across the fault plane. Lots 1,5,6,7 and 8 will be located so as to avoid placement of structure foundations or basements across the surface trace or the subsurface plane of the Monta Vista Fault. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required There are no other public agencies whose approval is required for the project. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 17 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Population/Housing Emissions ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Public Services Resources Materials ❑ Air Quality ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 19 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ✓ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Name and Title ( j.ri.. -I \. Date 1L,dtthwit(Led 20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Notes 1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well a project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following: a. `Earlier Analysis Used" identifies and states where such document is available for review. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 21 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY b. "Impact Adequately Addressed" identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. "Mitigation Measures" - For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. "Supporting Information Sources" - A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. 8. This is the format recommended in the CEQA Guidelines as amended January 2011. 9. The explanation of each issue identifies: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant. 22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I . AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ vista?(1,2) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ including but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(1,2,9) c. Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings?(3) d. Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(3) Comments: 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 none identified on or near the project site. Therefore,the proposed project would not impact a scenic vista. b. Scenic Resources. The closest highway to the site is U.S. Highway 280 which is more than 3,000 feet to the east and north. U.S. Highway 280 is not a designated scenic highway. The project site is not within a scenic highway corridor; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor. c. Visual Character. At a broad level,the General Plan identifies the visual character of the Town as rural residential(page 17). The proposed project will result in development that is consistent with residential uses throughout the Town, including on properties adjacent to the project site. Individual home design will be reviewed by the Town for consistency with zoning and design standards intended to assure visual compatibility of new development with its environment and with existing development. This will assure that visual effects will be less than significant. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 23 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY d. Light and Glare. The proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting. Residential development at the scale proposed is not typically a source of significant light and glare in that lighting fixture type, heights and function are limited to those needed to support rural development. Article 10 of Title 10, Chapter 2 of the Site Development Ordinance of the Town municipal code regulates outdoor lighting facilities and outlines types of lighting that are forbidden and/or permitted in order to reduce the impact of lighting to less than significant. As stated in the ordinance, the purpose of the lighting regulations is to: 1) to assure that outdoor lighting, both on the exterior of structures and along walkways, driveways, and landscape features, maintains the openness and quiet atmosphere of the Town and minimizes excessive use of energy; 2) to provide lighting for safety and adequate lighting for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, such as around patios and pools; and 3) to prevent lighting which is intrusive and which imposes on the privacy and quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties. (§ 1, Ord. 390, eff. November 14, 1997; § 2, Ord. 551, eff. November 16, 2014) Required project compliance with the code provisions would ensure that light and glare effects will be less than significant. 24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Inco,porated Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (24) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ use, or a Williamson Act contract?(24) c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ rezoning of, forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?(3) d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ of forest land to non-forest use?(3,24) e. Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (3,24) EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 25 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Comments: a. Farmland Conversion. According to the California Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map for Santa Clara County (2012), the project site is identified as Urban and Built-Up Land. The site is not in agricultural use. The project would have no impact from conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. b. Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act Contract. The project site contains no designated agricultural resources and the project would have no impact from conflict with agricultural land zoning or Williamson Act Contract. c/d. Forest Resources. The project site does not contain forestland or commercial timberland and is not zoned for forestland or timberland production. Therefore no impacts to these resources could result from the proposed project. e. Change Leading to Farmland Conversion. Neither the site nor the adjacent parcels contain Important Farmland and conversion of the site would have no impact from facilitating conversion of adjacent farmland or forest resources. 26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 3. AIR QUALITY Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Signnt Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ the applicable air quality plan?(13,14,15) b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?(13,14,15) c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?(13,14,15) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ pollutant concentrations?(13,14,15) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ substantial number of people?(13,14,15) Comments: a-c. Conflict with an Air Quality Plan/Violate Air Quality Standard/Increase Pollutants/ Sensitive Receptors. The Town is within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (hereinafter "air district"). The air district is responsible for monitoring emissions and developing air quality plans for the San Francisco Bay area, including Santa Clara County. The air district's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines("CEQA guidelines") were updated in June 2010 to include references to their adopted 1999 thresholds of significance. The air district's CEQA guidelines were then updated in May 2011 and again in May 2012. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the air district had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and the court issued a mandate ordering the air district to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 27 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY the air district has complied with CEQA. Lead agencies throughout the air district continue to use the CEQA guidelines as guidance for assessing air quality impacts of new development. The air district's CEQA Guidelines contain screening criteria for determining whether a project is of a type and size that it's operational, criteria air emissions impacts (focused on nitrogen oxides) would be less than significant. Table 3-1, "Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes" on page 3-1 of the 2011 air district CEQA Guidelines contains the screening criteria. For single-family residential projects, the screening threshold project size is 325 dwelling units. With only nine residential lots, the proposed project is substantially smaller than the project threshold and; therefore, would have a less-than-significant impact operational impact on air quality. Table 3-1 also contains screening criteria for construction impacts of new development projects. For single-family residential uses, construction emissions impacts are less than significant for projects 114 dwelling units or less. Therefore, air quality impacts from construction would be less than significant. However, cumulative construction activities are identified by the air district as having potential to result in cumulative impacts on air quality from contribution of PM,0 (particulate matter) emissions. Mitigation measure AQ-1 below requires incorporation of basic particulate matter control measures into construction activities. With implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on air quality. Mitigation Measure AQ-1. During construction, the following basic control measures shall be implemented at the construction site: 1. All exposed surfaces(e.g.,parking areas,staging areas, soil piles,graded areas, and unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil,sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes(as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations[CCRJ). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. d. Sensitive receptors typically include residential uses, schools, hospitals, etc. Sensitive receptors located adjacent to major roadway intersections could be significantly impacted if a proposed project generates a significant volume of traffic that causes significant increased vehicle delays at the intersections. With increased delays, the idling time for vehicles increases, with potential to create significant localized concentration of carbon monoxide. Inhalation of carbon monoxide at significant concentrations can be a health hazard. The proposed project will generate a minimal number of daily vehicle trips and minimal additional traffic during the AM and PM peak traffic hours as described in the Transportation/Traffic section of this initial study. The proposed project would not result in significant delays at any intersection through which related traffic would pass. Therefore,this impact is less than significant. e. The residential use of the site would not be a source of odor. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 29 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incmposated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,policies,regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(26, 27, 28,29, 31, 35, 36, 37) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(1,26,29, 30,32,33) c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands, as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,etc.), through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means?(29) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?(29, 32,33) e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?(1,3, 29, 30) f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?(29, 34) 30 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Comments: Biological resource database searches and a reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site were completed by EMC Planning Group senior biologist/certified arborist Andrea Edwards and associate biologist Stefanie Krantz on April 13, 2015. The reconnaissance-level field survey consisted of walking throughout the project site, making observations of and noting habitat conditions, surrounding land uses, and plant and wildlife species. Searches also were conducted for suitable habitat for special-status species; sensitive natural communities; wetlands/waterways potentially under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); wildlife movement corridors; and regulated trees. A detailed habitat assessment was completed to assess the presence of three special status species: the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonit), and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) by EMC Planning Group in 2015. The assessment is included as Appendix B. The site ranges in elevation from approximately 350 to 500 feet. The proposed nine-lot residential subdivision includes open space easement over seven acres (or about 40 percent of the site). The easement is intended to protect areas of steep slopes and vegetation located along Matadero Creek. This area contains high quality oak woodland habitat and riparian areas. Refer to Figure 6, Habitat Map, and Figures 7A and 7B, Biological Resources Photographs A and B, respectively, for reference to the types of habitat mapped within the project site. Plant Communities The site contains mainly non-native grassland and oak woodland; coyote brush scrub, mixed chaparral, and willow riparian woodland plant communities are also present. Non-native grassland is dominated by ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) and wild oats (Avena spp.); other common non-native species present include barley (Hordeum murinum), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus var. pycnocephalus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Oak woodland is dominated by coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) with many valley oaks (Quercus lobata); near the creek it also commonly contains California bay (Umbellularia californica), toyon(Heteromeles arbutifolia), blue elderberry(Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), California buckeye (Aesculus calfornica), California rose (Rosa californica), and dense western poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). The site is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis); other common species present include native California man-root (Marah fabacea), and non-native scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Mixed chaparral is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), spiny redberry (Rhamnus EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 31 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY crocea), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), and wavy-leaved soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum). Willow riparian woodland is dominated by arroyo willow trees (Salix lasiolepis) intergrading with oak woodland, and also contains a mixture of poison oak, blue elderberry, clematis (Clematis sp.), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). Wildlife Habitats A diversity of native bird species was observed during the reconnaissance survey; most of the species observed are relatively common. Birds were observed foraging in the oak and riparian woodlands, courtship behavior was observed, and nesting was confirmed for four species. Species present included red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus- nesting), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Hutton's vireo (Vireo huttom), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica - nesting), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), brown creeper (Certhia americana - nesting), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii - nesting), and black- headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus). Additional migratory and resident birds found in oak woodlands, grasslands, and riparian habitats are expected to occur. Common mammals are expected to occur on the project site. Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and coyote (Canis latrans) are likely to occur. A number of species of small rodents including mice (Mus musculus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, and Peromyscus maniculatus) and California vole (Microtus californicus) are also likely to occur. Common bats such as the California myotis (Myotis californicus), little brown myotis (Myotis lucgus), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) could roost in structures or trees, and forage in the fields and riparian area. The tributary to Matadero Creek and associated riparian habitat are expected to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of commonly occurring reptiles and amphibians during the rainy season when water is present. Common species likely found in this habitat include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), Pacific chorus frog(Pseudacris regilla), and gopher snake(Pituophis melanoleucus). 32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. , , , 4y.01 . ,ot . . „7:,.. . 4. , t,,, ,, N:- .,, -A 'I ,000 -- ----------------------------------- --------- --- W ... ,_ . ,7,76.10... c CBS i ► �, CBS �� x f rd. .' WRW I CBSI ♦/ ', i :. %AY ®♦ / ,A OIN 1 +b-� v ., how ��.. , ,_ la pikatotNNG [�W 1 s ' 1 1 1110\ 4‘4114 1 O .� SA Y i itVa I 1 ra 1 N. <-1,•S 4 ALN A .11 1&•-/.1.4.4 PIP --. >v***1 144 it‘la*A A 1 , ' .1 `I t, '. °w 4 f r 41'*4,r-4 1 2*44. 1 _ e: .4 s �• ,tto wi NNG � .; les Pvenue ,�1..: , ,� y`"�+. - ,,�. 1 Char K7` . �4. \&it No, Developed\�� I 4, i .. E ° Iii MC\ NNG area , 1 1 N%\\„:4 4..3"444 .4".'Ivri.1 41 r4.A.2 \j' 1 ' .4.4.4.I r44 C.7 1 . 4 OA 4•T ....,-,•" . , , , 4'!:' & ' '%44.01r4k6. 1'''' a Rw A, r ;__J Project Site Plant Communities [ ; MC:Mixed chaparral "\ OW:Oak woodland Source:Google Earth 2014 0 200 Feet -*--110-Stream [ CBS Coyote brush scrub i 1 NNG:Non-native grassland -C WRW:Willow riparian woodland Figure 6 ® © ® Habitat Map Stirling Subdivision IS 1 3i a '� '' � s_ 1,-.', .4- .' . , ftp --�- ,—__ M i G R / / r kr- ----- s t.,i .i� o '.• © 1".'`� ai .r 4../...f; ,+ f 'w'., y -A" ' ". n . 1f,.• r M f� 444 TTT'�" . . It 10 Oak woodland plant community "` +w. -.\. • • 1, ilk A 1 �+'�s +ss--'. O3 Large native oak tree f ; or r{._, 'It 1 41 ifr �y104 M k 1 yew {- ` I.') a '_. i, ,(41 _ ,y 1, i , f `r i `1,• '1 y� . S1 1• y • v � i , ,,./r. '` *. f.l741, - ®Fire clearance along eastern fenceline E,..-3 Project Site 0 Coyote brush scrub plant community Source:Google Earth 2014,EMC Planning Group April 2014 Figure 7A ® ® 0 Biological Resources Photographs A Stirling Subdivision IS i +., - . :.mo i t '"1). +,,,I `:„.,, k• nMr ;£�, � � :M�,j,,,. M N �'• e _ fah * 0"Z ` - • tir ",¢✓t' "�^ t '1 �j Yll „krm al* 1• t 1 1 s.. y e ® I i ``" 7 Non-native grasslandplant community Non-native grassland and native oaks t- : I 14 O g 1 N. .,,i 0,64, /' a s _ I ., .ice \ { ' 1 AN: l , ^f .� 2 1 v r •./ yes 111401 to. .fi i ©Willow riparian woodlandplant community %_ 1 Project Site p __I 1 O8 Mixed chaparral plant community in foreground Source:Google Earth 2014,EMC Planning Group April 2015 Figure 7B ® ® ® Biological Resources Photographs B Stirling Subdivision IS l ! STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY fl a. Special-Status Species. Special-status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or CDFW; or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW r Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species. Special-status species are i r generally rare, restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring. i . A search of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)was conducted for the Woodside, Palo Alto, Mountain View, La Honda, Mindego Hill, Cupertino, 1 j Franklin Point, Big Basin, and Castle Rock Ridge U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles in order to generate a list of potentially occurring special-status species in the project site vicinity. A USFWS Endangered Species Program Threatened and Endangered species list was also generated for Santa Clara County. Records of occurrence for special-status plants were reviewed for the nine USGS quadrangles listed above in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. The site is located on the Mindego Hill USGS quadrangle. 1 Special-Status Plants. The site does not contain serpentine substrates or rock outcrops. Most of the chaparral, riparian woodland, and undisturbed oak woodland habitats on the site that could potentially support various special-status plants would not be impacted due to the location of and protection afforded by the proposed open space easement. 7 However, the site contains clay soils, and there is low potential for five special-status plant species to occur in the "impact area" of the site(area proposed for development). If present within proposed impact area on the site (including the pedestrian bridge and 1 recreation trail within the wooded open space easement area), development may impact CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1B special-status plant species including: Congdon's tarplant (. (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), Franciscan onion(Allium peninsulare var.franciscanum), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), white-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida), and woodland woollythreads (Monolopia gracilens). Congdon's tarplant is an annual herb that blooms from May to November; it prefers alkaline grasslands, but may also be found in disturbed areas on various substrates. Franciscan onion is a perennial bulbiferous herb that blooms from April to June; it occurs on clay, volcanic, and serpentine substrates in woodlands and grasslands. Western leatherwood is a perennial deciduous shrub that blooms from January to April; it occurs in mesic (moist) sites in forests/woodlands, chaparral, and riparian habitats. White-flowered rein orchid is a perennial herb that blooms from March to September; it sometimes occurs on serpentine substrates, and is found in forest habitats. Woodland EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 39 I _1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY U woollythreads is an annual herb that blooms from February to July; though it prefers serpentine substrates, it occurs on various substrates in rpgrasslands and openings in forests/woodlands and chaparral. j 1 Impacts to special-status plants through direct loss due to grading activities or other site development activities would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts on y special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level. - Mitigation Measure BIO-1. To protect special-status plant species with low potential to occur on the site, the presence/absence of Congdon's tarplant, Franciscan onion, western leatherwood, white- flowered rein orchid, and woodland woollythreads shall be determined prior to initiation of 'Y l construction activities. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused botanical surveys in accordance with current CDFW and CNPS rare plant survey protocols during the peak blooming periods for these species. The surveys should cover all proposed impact areas, including the pedestrian bridge/trail in the open space easement U area. If possible, the surveys should be conducted during a year of adequate rainfall to ensure that the species are observable if present on the site. If the surveys are conducted in an area jmapped as experiencing severe, extreme, or exceptional drought conditions according to the 1 U.S.Drought Monitor, then blooming reference populations of the target species should be identified in the general project vicinity to verify that the species are observable within about two weeks of surveying for the species. The U.S. Drought Monitor map is available on-line and updated weekly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. 1i If focused botanical surveys are performed during a drought year, the CDFW and CNPS rare plant survey protocols require a discussion of how drought conditions may affect the validity of survey results, and state that additional surveys may be necessary if the severity of drought conditions is found to preclude the identification of a target species. If the surveys conclude that the species would not be impacted by proposed development, no further mitigation is required. If any target species would be impacted, then mitigation V shall be implemented. The applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist or native plant specialist to collect seed from the special-status plants located within the impact area prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities. 1 i The applicant shall then oversee selection of an appropriate mitigation area on the project site or in the project vicinity that is already preserved or shall be protected in perpetuity through an open space easement. Collected seed shall be installed at the mitigation area at U 40 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY the optimal time according to a Restoration Plan developed by a quaked biologist and approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Topsoil from the special-status plant occurrence area should also be salvaged(where practical)for use in the mitigation area. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure impacts to special-status 1 4 plants during project construction would be less than significant by requiring focused botanical surveys. Should plants be located, creation of an open space easement would be required prior to initiation of construction activities. Special-Status Wildlife. There is potential for nine species of special-status wildlife to occur in proposed project impact areas. Long-eared owl (Asio otus), a California Species of Special Concern, has moderate potential to occur in the riparian habitat. This species has nested in the region at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and is regularly seen during the breeding season in Santa Clara County within three miles of the site. California Species of Special Concern San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is assumed present. Woodrat nests were observed in the riparian area, along the edge of the oak woodland as it transitioned to riparian habitat, and in the coyote brush scrub habitat. There is low potential for the federally listed Threatened and California Species of Special Concern California red-legged frog (Rana draytonil) and California Species of Special Concern western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) to occur. A habitat assessment was conducted for the federally listed Endangered and state-listed Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), and federally listed Threatened and state-listed Threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and it was concluded that these species have no potential to occur(EMC Planning, 2015) There is low potential for California Species of Special Concern American badger it (Taxidea taxus)to occur in the grassland habitat on the site. Four species of special-status bats have moderate potential to occur, including federal Candidate for listing as Threatened and California Species of Special Concern Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendia), and California Species of Special Concern Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and western red bat(Lasiurus blossevillia). If present within proposed impact areas on the site (including the pedestrian bridge and recreation trail within the wooded open space easement area), development may impact , I ` EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 41 fl 1 R STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY the above species. Impacts to special-status wildlife through direct loss due to grading activities, vegetation clearing, or other site development activities would be considered • potentially significant. Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors. Habitats present on and adjacent to the project site have the potential to provide breeding habitat for nesting birds protected by the - California Fish and Game Code and/or the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including w special-status long-eared owl. If any active nest(s) of protected bird species should occur on or adjacent to the site, then vegetation clearing, site preparation, and noise-generating construction activities conducted during the bird nesting season (February 1 to September 15) could result in bird nest failure/abandonment. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. I Mitigation Measure L; BIO-2. If construction activities begin during the bird nesting season(February 1 to September 15), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the bird nesting season, then the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre- construction surveys for nesting birds. The surveys shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas in and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. Surveys shall be conducted during daylight hours, and an owl survey shall be conducted starting at dusk to detect crepuscular and a �. nocturnal nesting owls, if present. Surveys shall be conducted no more than one week prior to the initiation of construction activities. A report documenting survey results and a plan for active bird nest avoidance(if needed)shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Altos Hills for review and approval prior to construction activities. !i If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled.However, if an active bird nest of a protected species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 50-300 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest shall occur, no construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s)until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, U subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. li 42 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY �I r Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2would reduce significant potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring that pre-construction surveys are conducted during the nesting bird season, and appropriate avoidance measures are 4 incorporated into construction activities. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat. Suitable habitat is present for San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat, and woodrat nests were observed in the riparian area, along the edge of the oak woodland as it transitioned to riparian habitat, and in coyote brush scrub habitat. Potentially significant impacts to this species due to project implementation could occur without mitigation. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-3. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for woodrat nests within the project impact areas.All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat nests shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to construction by the qualified biologist.All vegetation and duff materials shall be removed from three feet around the nest prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Nests are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse. ( The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce significant potential impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat to a less-than-significant level by requiring that ( appropriate avoidance measures are incorporated into construction activities. Reptiles and Amphibians. Habitats present within the on-site riparian area, the tributary to Matadero Creek, and the upland areas have low potential to support special-status CRLF and WPT. The upland areas of the site support a large colony of ground squirrels, and ground squirrel burrows were found throughout the grassland areas of the site. Ground squirrel burrows provide aestivation habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Figure 8, Small Mammal Burrow Areas, illustrates the locations of ground squirrel burrows within the I project impact areas. Western pond turtle (WPT), California red-legged frog (CRLF) were found in Matadero Creek approximately two miles downstream of the project site in 2002. They have also been found in other drainages and ponds within five miles of the project site as described in the habitat assessment in Appendix B. A historic population of CTS was recorded in pp p P CNDDB downstream of the project area, but this population has been extirpated. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 43 � I STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY y WPT occurs in both perennial and intermittent waters, including marshes, streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes. It favors habitats with emergent logs or boulders, where individuals aggregate to bask. WPT may lay their eggs as far as one-half mile from the nearest source of water, but most nests are within 300 feet from water. The on-site tributary to Matadero Creek provides marginally suitable habitat for this species. WPT has low potential to occur on the project site. CRLF spend most of their lives in and near sheltered backwaters of freshwater ponds, marshes, springs, streams, and reservoirs. Deep pools with overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of cattails are considered optimal habitat. The species is known to travel long distances over land between water sources during winter rains. They also aestivate during the dry season in small mammal burrows. CRLF breed from November through March. The larvae (tadpoles) require a fully aquatic habitat for 3.5 to 7 months before they metamorphose to their adult stage. Even though the on-site drainage is J i, unlikely to contain the deep pools required for breeding for CRLF, the site could support dispersing and aestivating CRLF due to the presence of California ground squirrel burrows. This species has low potential to occur on the site. Although CRLF, and WPT have low potential to occur on the site due to the presence of marginally suitable wetland habitat, their presence cannot be ruled out because ground squirrel burrows are present, there is a seasonal drainage 500 feet from the impact areas, and the surrounding landscape may contain landscaping features or pothole wetlands that could provide adequate habitat for CRLF. Harassment, habitat removal, or direct mortality of CRLF individuals would constitute "take" under the federal and/or California Endangered Species Acts and would constitute potentially significant impacts. WPT is a California Species of Special Concern; direct loss of individuals would also be I' a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures r_ would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. i 1' Mitigation Measure BIO-4. To protect CRLF and/or WPT potentially present within the project site, the following ' mitigation actions shall be implemented by the applicant: �----` a) Initial site clearing and grading shall be conducted and completed from April 15 to October 15. Site clearing and grading shall halt if significant rainfall, defined as greater than 0.5 inches per 24 hours within a local watershed, is either forecasted or observed to avoid environmental conditions when CRLF would have the potential to be active. 44 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. _r � 1 • j • 1 � �' rr - 1 4 -•,-,,,,,.„m„„,,,..._ •Xii f, „„.•••• ..--‘-j'7•16.1*1-''':--'-- - ' ' ' •• IA , . ,*, ;ii.lie,,,..„,,, _ _ ir, ,., " . _ , ,/ 41k , -‘ . Iy, k ' ' ': I 1 d4tr' ++t � / . '. • `4iF ' • v 444 • � t+ � , ' 4♦�I \®. I . om .t �, ` "' • • .ai4 _ __Tr: „ ,--'7-, u"j4-r-, i. F� � . 4 f \ �� , I 2} � < ,lt 5 .c . a .: t f .r. y� �:� � l', 4 . ‘*"„....' *'' - ,- WAv, 0 is, • '..,7:- '••p„.0,i.,1,,,,-,-.. ..,-._,._ -,,,,,--..-.. - - ..., ---..----4--,. • , ”'•� .{A S;3. Y.,�--'.te a' - Q1♦O o.'V',. .:., �, ' S r ';:� $:* ..1: ��' ' .,,!..K-7-.. a � .E� it '�EpyF.:. '� n .rv. 1 a , - et, a. .- I h � Y w rmo l''' a. A• I{' p. .. 4'A-4‘.. _ "�FD'I 'f,,,. may' °�ia � -- V.4, 1..., ,040 ,,, • ..f • - .,,,,'..' Oilit e .s. '-*;-:--/' ..t-..A..' 1; dri..-,0 . 14.414. } v ,., ,: ,. !,..,-:...-„,:r."' d=ri - A ,-. '. �w.,z' .,�:.. ;1 I. ; 'S"--,-_' -". :::_.,..,-.,..:_„:.J7 _ 3 - i meq. -i ,w,-fir >', ♦ .4a p, 'S> y ° Y { �§" r. • . . y. l a A_`, "r .-2,i,,,*',''''.....� ..i ..5�p1-1-",-A''''' c� ,,� fit w piµ o . `Y ,,... ..: _. ,, r ,-_.-,,a%., - -11 -Ittli-`�/f ' sir..RN' .'. * d• a• '' r'+ti'� • `F:...._�4 •, ., l� s, � ,,,-..._*2" '�'I m' . � ;"kPo" ..buta�l%' ' ,� ' ,, irt...r.477-7..,,„.„.. _[.,. " w vlrryf4`• ,� -.. .' '., 7 r —q Project Site � Source:Google Earth 2014 0 200Feet '----� /�� Small mammal burrow concentrations ��!�! Burrow high-density areas Figure 8 Small Mammal Burrow Areas 0 ® co Stirling Subdivision IS I STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY b) A biologist qual f ed to assess and monitor CRLF shall be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to the start of construction activities. c) The qualified biologist will survey the work site two weeks before the onset of activities. If CRLF, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved biologist will contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination, the USFWS will consider if an appropriate relocation site exists.If the USFWS approves moving animals, the qualified biologist will be allowed sufficient time to move them from the work site before work activities begin. Only qualified biologists will participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF. d) Before construction-associated activities begin at the project site, the qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training would include a description of CRLF, WPT and their habitat,general measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF and WPT as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project occurs. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species appearance would be used in the training session.All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training. Additionally, the approved on site biological monitor will be available to answer any questions about the species. e) The qualified biologist shall be present on site during initial site clearing and ��(' grading activities within the upland potential impact area and for all activities ? associated with constructing the walking trail and pedestrian footbridge through the on-site riparian area. In the unforeseen event that CRLF are encountered, the biologist shall contact the USFWS and/or CDFW immediately to determine the best course of action.At a minimum, all construction activities will cease until the frog leaves the work area. To the extent that avoidance of the CRLF is not possible, then mitigation shall be provided for the project following consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to, species salvage and relocation, habitat enhancement, or compensatory mitigation. fi The USFWS-approved biologist shall permanently remove from within the project area any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes to the maximum extent possible. The project applicant shall have the responsibility to ensure that project activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. g) The contractor shall avoid the use of monofilament netting on the job including in temporary and permanent erosion control materials(fiber rolls, and blankets), and seal all steep walled holes greater than 1 foot deep overnight to prevent entrapment EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 47 i ! STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 1 � of special status wildlife. Where holes cannot be sealed, escape ramps that are no more than a 30 percent slope will be positioned such that entrapped wildlife will be able to escape. The escape ramps should be at least one foot wide and covered with jute netting or similar material. Y, h) SWPPP measures shall be followed to prevent toxins from entering Matadero Creek including secondary containment of gas cans in buckets, and secondary containment of stationary equipment that could leak oil such as generators. No equipment will be staged or stored within 150 feet of Matadero Creek. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 would reduce significant potential impacts to CRLF and WPT to a less-than-significant level. American Badger. American badger is a California Species of Special Concern. It is an uncommon, permanent resident found throughout most of the state, except in the northern North Coast area. Typical habitats include drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils suitable for burrows. Prey species include fossorial rodents such as rats, mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels, and pocket gophers. Badger diet shifts seasonally depending on the availability of prey and may also include reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, birds, and carrion. An observation of American badger was recorded in 1981 approximately four miles from the project site. The project site contains suitable habitat and prey for this species. Impacts to special-status American badger would be potentially significant. If individuals are present on the project site, construction activities could result in the loss of individual animals. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys of the grassland habitat on the site to identify any potential American badger burrows/dens. These surveys ti shall be conducted not more than 15 days prior to the start of construction. Ifan American badger burrow/den is found during the surveys, coordination with the CDFW shall be 1 undertaken in order to develop a suitable strategy to avoid impacts to the burrow/den. With CDFW approval, impacts to active American badger dens should be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around all active badger dens, within which construction related activities shall be prohibited until denning activities are complete or the den is abandoned. A qualified biologist shall monitor each den once per week in order to track the status of the den and to determine when a den area has been cleared for construction. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, ' subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. ( `r 48 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. lLi STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-5 would reduce significant potential impacts to American badger to a less-than-significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys of the site and incorporation of exclusion/avoidance measures (as approved by the CDFW) should any dens be found. Special-Status Bats. The following California Species of Special Concern have moderate potential to occur on the site: western mastiff bat, pallid bat, western red bat, and Townsend's big-eared bat. Townsend's big-eared bat is currently a candidate for federal listing as a Threatened species. These four bat species utilize a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests; all are known to occur in the San Francisco Bay area. These species either roost in tree bark or tree hollows, in tree foliage, or in buildings. Pallid bat and Townsend's big-eared bat also nest in bridges, caves, and mines. Western red bat roosts in tree foliage. Townsend's big-eared bat, pallid rs bat, and hoary bat have been detected within three miles of the project site. Potential habitat for these species occurs within the project site in hollow oak trees and tree foliage, and in buildings that will be demolished. Impacts to special-status bats are potentially significant. If individuals are present on the project site, construction activities 17 could result in the loss of individual animals. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. (� Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Pre-construction surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be conducted for buildings and trees that could support bats and are within 200 feet of the project impact area. If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be established during the bat breeding season(April 15 through August 15). No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur during the bat breeding season without prior concurrence from the CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable during the bat breeding season, a qualified biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and the CDFW shall be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. If evidence of nesting bats is not found, mature trees removed due to project implementation shall be removed in two stages:stage one will include removal of tree limbs, and stage two will include removal of the main trunk on a subsequent day. This will allow any potentially present, day-roosting bats the opportunity to relocate. If bat roosts are encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts. The applicant shall submit a report to the Town of Los Altos Hills documenting that trees were properly removed, whether any bat roosts were encountered, and what measures were taken if bat roosts were encountered. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 49 Iv STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would reduce significant potential impacts to special-status bats to a less-than-significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys and incorporation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures should evidence of nesting bats be found on site. b. Sensitive Natural Communities. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Conservation Element's Goal 1 to preserve creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities and natural habitat areas. The project would preserve the natural environment, riparian corridor integrity, and habitat of the tributary to Matadero Creek. It is consistent with Goal 2 to protect native and naturalized trees and plants. The project would minimize disturbance of natural terrain and vegetation; preserve native and naturalized plants, with special attention to special-status species and oak woodlands; preserve numerous Heritage Trees; and avoid development of environmentally sensitive areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, such as riparian habitats. It is consistent with Goal 3 to maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat. The project would protect the Matadero Creek riparian corridor for wildlife use by including an open space easement along the creek/riparian corridor. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element's Goal 1 to protect and preserve open space lands for future generations. 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. Areas on the property supporting willow riparian woodland habitat along the tributary to _I Matadero Creek would be preserved. Though oak trees would be removed by the proposed project to allow for residential and access road development, the vast majority of native trees and sensitive oak woodland habitats would be retained and preserved, both in the development area and in the proposed open space easement area. Overall, the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 23 oak trees. Removal of any major areas of oak woodland habitat has been avoided by careful tree evaluation and large-scale oak preservation on the site. According to the project arborist report, 659 native trees (including 517 oak trees) would be preserved and retained through the project design. Less than five percent of the on-site oak trees are proposed for removal. Impacts to individual Town-regulated trees would be addressed through implementation of Municipal Code standards and implementation of mitigation BIO-8 discussed in section(e)below. c. Wetlands/Waterways. The site contains a tributary to Matadero Creek. The tributary creek and associated riparian and woodland habitat in this area will be preserved in an open space easement. A pedestrian foot-bridge is proposed across the creek for a public IJ 50 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Ali t I ? STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY i trail. It is likely that this small foot-bridge will not impact the bed or banks of the creek or require the removal of riparian trees/habitats. However, because the bridge design is not yet available for review, there is potential that this project element could impact a waterway feature that is under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB, and/or Santa Clara Valley Water District. 1 � If the pedestrian foot-bridge is designed to avoid all impacts to the creek bed and banks, F-` and if riparian trees/habitats are not removed for bridge installation, no impacts to the waterway due to installation of the proposed foot-bridge are anticipated, and no regulatory permitting or compensatory mitigation would be required. However, if bridge installation impacts the bed or banks of the creek or requires the removal of riparian trees/habitats, impacts to this waterway are potentially significant and may necessitate approval by regulatory agencies. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-Z If the bed or banks of the creek or riparian trees/habitats will be impacted by installation of the pedestrian foot-bridge, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to evaluate the impacts of this project feature. This consultant shall prepare a preliminary jurisdictional assessment to document proposed impacts to the waterway and riparian habitat that are potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB, and/or Santa Clara Valley Water District. If the drainage feature is not determined to be jurisdictional by any of the agencies, no further action is necessary. If the waterway is found to be potentially jurisdictional, the applicant shall initiate the appropriate permitting process with each agency claiming jurisdiction prior to obtaining grading permits. This may include retaining a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory —N specialist to conduct a jurisdictional wetland/waterway delineation to quanta proposed project impacts to jurisdictional waters and submitting the delineation report to the USACE for verification. a ? If jurisdictional feature impacts will occur, approval of a Section 404 permit from the USACE and/or a Section 401 or General Waste Discharge Requirements permit from the I i RWQCB may be required. If the CDFW takes jurisdiction, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. Project approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District y r may also be necessary. Compensatory mitigation may be required by the permitting process(es). The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 51 f") i f STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY d. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity. Impacts from development, such as habitat fragmentation and/or isolation, as well as the creation of impassable barriers can significantly impact the quality and function of wildlife corridors. The Town contracted Live Oak Associates (LOA) to prepare a wildlife corridor study that identifies biological corridors within the vicinity of the Town of Los Altos Hills (Live Oak Associates 2006). The study was never adopted by the Town; however, it is a useful tool for evaluation of the proposed project. The study identified the project site as within a wildlife movement corridor. LOA also analyzed the impact of the proposed project for the Town in a letter dated November 11, 2014. LOA concluded that the Matadero Creek corridor is the most important regional wildlife pathway located near the site, and is of high conservation value because it provides an important pathway for all regional wildlife including habitat specialists such as riparian species (e.g. amphibians/reptiles and small mammals). LOA noted that particularly wide-ranging species (medium and large mammals such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor) are less impacted by development as they are able to quickly move through landscapes that are degraded, but smaller species and those restricted to riparian woodland habitat are more constrained in their movements. In summary, LOA concluded and EMC Planning Group biologists agree that even y t 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 in an open space easement along ` ri the tributary to Matadero Creek, and this area is the highest quality corridor for wildlife movement. The proposed project would retain a maximum number of native mature oak trees/woodlands, includes large lots on the most buildable portions of the property and preserves the highest quality wildlife movement corridor and overall most valuable `J wildlife habitat along the Matadero Creek tributary corridor in a permanent open space 1 1 easement (within which no development and no impediments to wildlife movement would be placed). Therefore, project impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Y v� e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. Project consistency with General Plan goals and policies protecting biological resources is discussed in section (b) above. The Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, Title 12 — Parks and Recreation, Chapter 2 — 52 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Trees, Shrubs, and Plants defines a Heritage Oak as any tree of the genus Quercus that has a trunk at least 36 inches in circumference (approximately 12 inches in diameter) when measured at a point four feet above the root crown. Article 3 in this chapter states that a permit is required for removal of any Heritage Oak unless each tree has been identified for removal on an approved tentative subdivision map or an approved site development permit; or unless the tree has been deemed an immediate danger to persons or property. If a tree removal permit is required, then the City Manager or the Site Development Committee, whichever is applicable, may attach reasonable conditions to the approval of a removal permit, including, but not limited to, the requirement that up to five replacement trees be planted for each one removed. The revised project arborist report included a tree assessment for all native oaks that measure six inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH). There are 158 such oak trees in the proposed development area(135 on the site and 23 along the Charles Avenue access road). These trees are mainly coast live oaks, with many valley oaks and one blue oak(Q. douglasii). Overall, 132 of the 158 assessed oak trees qualify as Heritage Oaks. d The revised project arborist report recommends preservation of 97 out of 111 Heritage Oaks and removal of 14 Heritage Oaks within the area proposed for subdivision. For the access road, the report recommends preservation of 13 out of 21 Heritage Oaks and removal of eight Heritage Oaks. In areas of the site not proposed for development, an oak-bay woodland census was performed for 501 native trees with a DBH of six inches or more; this included 285 additional Heritage Oaks. These oak-bay woodland census trees would all be preserved on the property in the open space easement area. Overall, the proposed project would result in the removal of 22 of 417 Heritage Oaks, or about five percent of the total. About 95 percent of the Heritage Oaks would be preserved. Nevertheless, removal of 22 Heritage Oaks is a significant impact that can be mitigated to less than significant through compliance with municipal code standards for tree replacement. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this t impact to less than significant. r---„ Mitigation Measure BIO-8. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a tree replacement plan pursuant to municipal code Title 12,Article 3 for all Heritage Oaks to be removed as a result of project implementation. The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Town, and shall be implemented as a subdivision improvement. For all Heritage Oaks to be retained the project applicant shall fully implement the protection methodology for tree preservation contained in the HortScience 2014 revised project arborist report. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 53 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Altos Hills. f. Habitat Conservation Plans. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. • I ti it 54 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES { Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Signicant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact ' Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5?(38,39,40) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5?(38) c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?(41,42) e d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? (38) Comments: Information in this section is derived from three cultural resources reports prepared for the proposed project. To evaluate the potential presence of archaeological and historic resources within the project site, William Self Associates (WSA) conducted a site reconnaissance. The results of the reconnaissance are reported in the Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Sterling Subdivision Project (William Self Associates 2015a) ("cultural resources assessment"). Based on the results of the cultural resources assessment, WSA prepared an addendum to that report entitled Addendum to Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Sterling Subdivision (William Self Associates 2015b) ("addendum") which addresses the status of a trash scatter found within the project site. To further investigate the historic significance of the on-site residential structure proposed for demolition, WSA prepared Addendum 2 to Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Sterling Subdivision Project(William Self Associates 2015c) ("addendum 2"). a. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of one of the existing two homes located within Lot 1 and the second may also be demolished. To determine the potential for the structures to qualify as historic resources, WSA conducted detailed assessment of the structures. If the structures were determined to be historic, their demolition would be a significant impact. As reported in addendum 2, WSA concluded that neither structure qualifies as a historic 1 resource. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources would result from their demolition. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 55 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY During pedestrian survey of the project site, and as reported in the cultural resources assessment, WSA identified a scatter of trash that it recommended be further investigated to determine if it qualifies for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. WSA subsequently conducted a separate investigation of the trash scatter with results reported in addendum 1 to the cultural resources assessment. WSA determined that the scatter is not a significant resource and that no further,analysis of the I resource is needed. The proposed project would have no impact from removal of the trash scatter. b. The proposed project would result in disturbance of surface soils and require excavations for foundations, infrastructure installation, and other site development activities. If surface or subsurface archeological resources are present on the site, these activities - could damage or destroy such resources. As part of the cultural resources assessment, WSA conducted a search of archival records to determine if any recorded cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. No such records were found. WSA also conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site for presence of prehistoric archaeological deposits. No prehistoric archaeological deposits were identified. Though —' none are expected to be present, it is possible that unknown subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources could be uncovered during site preparation and construction activities. Loss of or damage to such resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure CR-1. If buried cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop within a 100 foot radius of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the_find and, if necessary, develop a Response Plan, with appropriate treatment measures, in consultation with the Town, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other appropriate agencies. Preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment rJ method per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b)(avoidance, open space, capping, or easement). Data recovery of important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation, is allowed if it is the only feasible treatment method. This mitigation language shall be included in all contractor work specifications related to ground disturbing activities conducted within the project site. 1 j c. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to scientifically I important fossils such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils. By convention, paleontologic resources do not include human remains, artifacts (objects created by humans), or other evidence of past human activities which are the subjects of the field of archaeology. 56 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. � I STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Vertebrate and invertebrate fossils are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Older sediments and sedimentary rock of the Pleistocene age, the time period that spanned from 1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago, have a greater potential to contain fossils than do other geologic strata in the Santa Clara Valley area. The project site is located on strata defined as "undifferentiated bedrock" on the United States Geological Survey map "Quaternary Geology of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties 1994". Undifferentiated bedrock is of Pliocene or older age and lacks clear lines of definition. The Pliocene Epoch is the period in the geologic timescale that extends from about 5.333 million to 2.58 million years before present, and is therefore less likely to yield fossil remains. Hence, the proposed project's potential impact on paleontological resources would be less than significant. d. No evidence of human remains was identified within the project site as part of the cultural resources assessment pedestrian survey and as noted in that assessment, no records of human remains existing within the project site. Nevertheless, the potential exists that human remains, if present, could be disturbed during site preparation and construction activities. The disturbance of remains would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level by requiring appropriate notification and treatment of human remains if uncovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure CR-2. If human skeletal remains are encountered,ground disturbing activities within a 100 foot radius of the discovery shall be terminated. The County Coroner must be contacted immediately and is required to examine the discovery within 48 hours.If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.A qualified archaeologist should also be contacted immediately. The Coroner is required to note and seek out a treatment recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission- designated Most Likely Descendant. • If the Native American Heritage Commission identifies a Most Likely Descendant, and the Most Likely Descendant makes a recommendation, and the landowner accepts the recommendation, then ground-disturbing activities may resume after the qualified cultural resources consultant verifies and notices the Town that the recommendations have been completed. • If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to idents the Most Likely Descendant, or the Most Likely Descendant makes no recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation, and mediation per Public Resources Code 5094.98(k)fails, then ground disturbing activities may resume, but only after the EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 57 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY cultural resources consultant verifies and notices the Town that the landowner has completely reinterred the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property, and ensures no further disturbance of the site per PRC 5097.98(e)by county recording, open space designation, or a conservation easement. If the coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required and that the human remains are not Native American, then ground-disturbing activities may resume, after the Coroner informs the Town of such determination. According to state law, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. ' J Li 58 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. � I I � STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- -' Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?(6,22,23,25) (2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ (6,22,23) (3) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ including liquefaction?(6, 22,23) (4) Landslides?(6,22,23) ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ j of topsoil? (1,2,3,6,22, 23,38) c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?(6, 22,23) d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(6,22,23) Ji e. Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ supporting the use of septic tanks or j alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?(6) EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 59 i� STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Comments: This section is primarily based on the tentative map (Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying & Planning 2015) and the Engineering Geologic Hazard Investigation - Lands of Stirling (Romig Engineers 2014) (geologic report) prepared for the project; and the peer review of this report by Cotton Shires and Associates Consulting Engineers and Geologists (2014) (peer review). The peer review report is included in Appendix C. a/c/d. Earthquake, Seismic Ground Shaking and Landslide. The Town is located within the .I seismically active San Francisco Bay region, which is one of the most seismically active zones in the United States. The property is bisected by a mapped trace of the Monte Vista fault that separates Santa Clara Formation bedrock (to the west) from Franciscan Complex bedrock (to the east). As identified in the geologic report prepared for the project, the Monte Vista Fault crossing the property is a remnant feature and not capable I ; of primary surface fault rupture within the site; however, the identified fault trace may be subject to secondary, sympathetic movement. In addition, the site contains areas of past landsliding and surficial soils with moderate to high expansion potential. Please refer back to Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, for the location of the slides. Specific considerations for these hazards are addressed in the geologic report and the peer review has concluded that the project geologist conducted adequate site investigation and recommended appropriate measures to mitigate apparent site constraints. As standard conditions of approval,the Town will require the following: • The proposed structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the California Building Code design parameters for Seismic Zone D to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. L_, • The project shall incorporate all recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation prepared for the development by Romig Engineers, dated May 15, 2004 and the peer review prepared by Cotton Shires and Associates consulting Engineers and Geologists, dated August 20,2014. • Lots 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be located so as to avoid placement of the structure foundations or basements across the surface trace or the subsurface plane of the Monta Vista Fault. In addition, the Town will require preparation of individual geotechnical reports for development of each lot. Implementation of the proposed project as planned and conditioned will assure that potential impacts from fault rupture, seismic shaking, r ground failure, landslide and unstable/expansive soil are less than significant. t.} 60 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. r_- j-1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY b. Soil Erosion. Site preparation and construction activities such as grading and trenching will result in exposure of site soils to the erosive effects of rainfall/storm water runoff and wind. Erosion control best management practices must be implemented during construction to minimize potential for excessive soil erosion. Standards for soil erosion control are contained in the Town Site Development Ordinance, grading policies, and erosion control provisions of the municipal code (10-2.409 erosion control) including erosion and dust controls during site preparation. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant will be required to comply with these standards to ensure that impacts from erosion are less than significant. e. Septic Systems. The proposed project will connect to the municipal sewer system; septic systems will not be used. I ' I ' I j it ii EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 61 1 LJ STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (13,14,15) b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (13,14,15) Comments: a/b. Generate Greenhouse Gases/Conflict with Plan. The proposed project would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during its construction phase and during its operational phase. Construction emissions would be generated by construction equipment used during the site preparation and infrastructure/home construction processes. Operational emissions would be generated primarily by resident vehicles and indirectly by use of electricity natural gas, use of water, generation of wastewater, and disposal of solid waste. The Town is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and the boundary of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("air district"). The air district is a responsible agency under CEQA and has discretion over development projects within its boundaries. The air district has published comprehensive guidance on evaluating, determining significance of, and mitigating GHG impacts of projects and plans. The air district's draft GHG analysis guidance was initially contained in its 2010 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines ("CEQA guidelines"). The 2010 version of the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was the first to include draft thresholds of significance for GHG emissions and screening criteria designed to assess project types and intensities whose GHG emissions would not exceed the project-specific operational source GHG standards of significance. These were retained when the Air District updated the CEQA guidelines in 2011. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the air district had failed to comply with CEQA when it officially adopted GHG thresholds of significance in June 2010. In 2012, the air district revised its CEQA guidelines to omit reference to GHG thresholds of significance. The air district appealed 62 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY the Alameda County Superior Court's decision and the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision in August 2013. j The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending there. j The air district has stated that lead agencies may continue to rely on the air district's {- ! CEQA guidelines for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. Most lead agencies within the boundary of the air district continue to rely on the GHG thresholds within the 2011 CEQA guidelines. The decision to do so has largely been based on the fact that the court did not explicitly challenge the substantial evidence used by the air district to define the thresholds or the project screening information. Because the proposed project is small, the analysis of GHG impacts focuses on whether I_I the proposed project meets the air district screening criteria for projects having a less- than-significant impact from GHG emissions. As described on page 3-2 of the 2011 guidelines, if a proposed project size is below that listed in Table 3-1, Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor and GHG Screening Level Sizes, operational impacts from GHG emissions would be less than significant and detailed GHG assessment is not needed. The screening criteria are based on air district analysis of GHG reductions needed within its boundary to meet the intent of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. For single-family residential projects, the screening threshold project size is 56 dwelling units. The proposed project dwelling unit number is substantially below the screening threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact from generation of GHG emissions and would have no impact from conflict with the applicable GHG reduction plan as embodied in the air district's CEQA guidelines. ii 1 II EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 63 l a STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (5,6) b. Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ V ❑ ❑ the environment through reasonably - foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(20) c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ V hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, j J substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (5,6) d. Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ❑ ❑ V list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (19) e. For a project located within an airport land- ❑ ❑ ❑ V use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public-use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?(1,5) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ V airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1,5) g. Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ V interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1) h. Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ V ❑ I risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (1,21) 64 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. l_� 1-1 J STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY � Comments: a. Transport, Use, Release, or Emission of Hazardous Materials. Residential development does not routinely involve the transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials. While common residential-grade hazardous materials such as household cleaners, paint, etc., may be used in the future, they would be used at such nominal volumes as to not represent significant hazard to public health or safety. Construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials that include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals. Transportation, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities are regulated by federal, state, and local statutes and standards. Use of substantial volumes of hazardous ` materials is not required and such use, handling and disposal is not expected to result in substantial hazards to public health and safety. Potential impacts to public health and environmental safety would be less than significant. jb. Significant Hazard - Release of Hazardous Materials. Development of the proposed project will require the demolition of at least one of the existing residences and possibly the second. Buildings constructed prior to 1980 may contain asbestos building materials and/or lead-based paint. The residential structures were constructed prior to 1980. Therefore, it is possible that both contain asbestos. Release of asbestos to the atmosphere through demolition activities could represent a risk to public health and safety and would be a significant impact. ii Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. The applicant shall retain a quaked contractor to conduct a visual inspection/pre- demolition survey, and possible sampling,prior to the demolition of the on-site residences to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint.All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, if present, shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials.All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529. Materials containing more than one percent l asbestos are also subject to air district regulations contained in air district Regulation 11, Rule 2. it EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 65 IIfl STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employees training, employee air monitoring and dust control.Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. c. Hazardous Emissions, Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The project site is not within one-quarter mile of a school and the proposed residential use will not be a source of hazardous emissions;therefore, there is no impact. d. Hazardous Site. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances Control compile and regularly update a list of hazardous waste facilities and sites. A search of the Envirostor website (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2015) revealed that the project site is not on the list and there are no listed hazardous sites within one half mile. Therefore, no impact would occur. elf. Airport/Airstrip Hazard. There are no general aviation airports or private landing strips within two miles of the project site. --1 g. Emergency Response Plan. The project site does not contain transportation facilities that serve as an emergency evacuation route and would not result in development that would impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan. h. Wildland Fire. The General Plan does not identify wildlands within or around the LI Town. The project site is not adjacent to, or intermixed with, wildlands and there is no significant risk associated with wildland fire. However, grass and chaparral fire is a concern throughout the Town. The Los Altos Hills Fire Code requires weed and brush L abatement requiring property owners to clear weeds and brush from their property. Additionally, new development on the project site will be required to conform to the requirements of Title 24, Part 9, of the California Fire Code. Therefore, future residential development of the project site is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. ij 66 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation SignificantNo Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ discharge requirements? (1,2,3,6) f_ I b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?(1,2,5,6,16,17) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ V ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (1,2,3,6,38) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (1,2,3,6,43) e. Create or contribute run-off water, which ❑ ❑ V ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?(1,2,3,6,38) i f. Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ quality?(1,2,3,6) — g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(27) EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 67 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?(27) i. Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?(1,2) j. Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ or mudflow? (1,2) Comments: a/c-e. Water Quality Standards/Erosion/Flooding/Storm Water. The State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for assuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Santa Clara County falls within the San Francisco Bay Region, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)implements state regulations at the regional level. New construction within Santa Clara County, including the Town of Los Altos Hills is subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS029718 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region in 2009. The permit includes the provisions adopted by the U RWQCB via an amendment to the NPDES permit for Santa Clara County in 2005. This amendment, which is commonly referred to as "C3" requires all new and redevelopment projects that result in the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces totaling 10,000 square feet or more to: 1) include storm water treatment measures; 2) ensure that the { .f treatment measures be designed to treat an optimal volume or flow of storm water runoff from the project site; and 3) ensure that storm water treatment measures are properly installed, operated and maintained. The Town has developed regulations that implement Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit that are included in Article 14, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures, of the __ municipal code. The regulations require new development projects to include specific construction and post-construction measures for improving the water quality of urban runoff to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance It 68 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 1 Activities, Order No. 2009--0009--DWQ (Construction General Stormwater Permit), to minimize water quality problems generated by construction-generated erosion. The Construction General Stormwater Permit applies to all projects where construction disturbs one or more acres of soil, including clearing, grading, excavation, and removal of existing paving. +- l The Construction General Stormwater Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes land specifies BMPs to prevent pollutants (such as oil from vehicles) from contacting stormwater and keep all silt and pollutants from leaving the site. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography(both before and after construction), and drainage patterns across the project. jBest Management Practices, which are detailed within each permit, are to be implemented to protect water quality. -( i I A developer must file a notice of intent and the SWPPP with the State Water Resources Control Board for review. The Town verifies that developments have met all State Water i Resources Control Board permitting requirements prior to issuance of Town approval of a grading and drainage plan. The on-site Matadero Creek tributary will be preserved in an open space easement. It would not be altered as part of the project; no impact on flood conditions from alteration of a stream or water course would occur. The site is currently mostly undeveloped with the exception of two single family homes, a pump house, several outbuildings, and associated infrastructure (well and septic system). There is no formal storm water control system in place. Surface runoff infiltrates into the ground. The proposed project would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, it must comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit. Sheet 7 of the tentative map contained in Appendix A shows a design level storm water jcontrol plan for the project that would be implemented to meet the C.3 Provision of the NPDES permit. As shown on the plan, a portion of the storm water runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces within lots 1-4 and 9 would be directed to "self-retaining areas" on each of these lots for filtering and percolation (disposal). The self-retaining areas vary in size from about 1,800 to 3,400 square feet in area. All storm water runoff from lots 5-8 and the balance of runoff from lots 1-4 and 9 would be conveyed to a 3,640 square-foot bio retention area located on lot 7. The bio retention pond would also EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 69 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I t function to filter storm water before being percolated back to ground water. This system is designed to accommodate storm water runoff volumes from impervious surfaces under design storm conditions to ensure that storm water runoff rates and volumes under post- development conditions do not exceed existing conditions. The purpose is to minimize potential for increased runoff to exceed the capacity of downstream storm water control facilities such that the potential for downstream flooding and erosion is minimized. Prior to project approval, the Town Engineering Department must make a determination that the storm water control plan and storm drainage profile is in compliance with all applicable state and local code requirements, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and C.3 provisions. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that peak discharge does not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-development to the satisfaction of the Town Engineering Department. These requirements will ensure that existing drainage patterns are not substantially modified and will also ensure that the proposed project will have no impact on downstream flooding. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. b. Groundwater Supplies/Recharge. Water supply is addressed in the Utilities and Services Systems section of this initial study. There are currently two single-family residences on the site. The project site is currently not served with municipal water service and the two residences rely on on-site well water. A water main would be constructed within the on-site segment of Charles Avenue to connect with an existing six-inch water main in the off-site segment of Charles Avenue to provide service to the nine future residences. The Purissima Hills Water District has provided a letter to the Town (Pakpour 2015) stating that it can provide the water from Natoma Road. Regarding surface water that recharges the groundwater, the project site is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Consequently, the project would not substantially deplete —' groundwater supplies due to it nominal increase in demand for water and would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. f. Water Quality. Other than less-than-significant effects described above, the proposed project would not be a source of potential water quality impact that could otherwise degrade water quality. g/h. Flood Hazard. Based on the FEMA flood insurance maps for the Town of Los Altos - Hills, the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not place people or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. I � I 70 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Dam Failure. There are no dams upstream of the project site such that the project site is located within a dam inundation area. j. Seiche/Tsunami/Mudflow. The site is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. it t ii 1i r-, LI EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 71 '-1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING �L Would the project: 1 L� Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact 1 Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ (1,5,6) I b. Conflict with any applicable land-use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ `~1 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to,the general plan, specific plan, Li local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) __ adopted for the purpose of avoiding or i I mitigating an environmental effect?(1,3) -� c. Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?(12) Comments: a. Division of an Established Community. The proposed project would subdivide an 18.18 acre parcel into nine lots. Up to nine new residential units could be constructed. The proposed project represents infill development within an area of existing residential development of similar density. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. b. Applicable Land Use Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the land use i J designations for the site as identified in the General Plan and will comply with the municipal code regulations. A zoning ordinance amendment is not required. Therefore, there is no impact due to a conflict with an applicable land use plan. c. Habitat/Natural Community Conservation Plans. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community J Conservation Plan (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency 2015). Therefore, no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. Lj 11 72 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I I . MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact p a. Result in loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?(1,5) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan?(1,5) 1 Comments: } a/b. The project site does not contain designated mineral resources and the project would have no impact constraining availability of such resources. il. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 73 I , STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I 2. NOISE l � Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Result in exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ V ❑ _ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable ; standards of other agencies? (1,2,3,5,11) b. Result in exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ I generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (1,3,11) c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? I� (1,3,11) d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ V ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(1,3,5,11) e. For a project located within an airport land- ❑ ❑ ❑ V use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(1,5) f. For a project located within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(1,5) Comments: An engineering acoustical study was not conducted due to the anticipated low level of operational noise impact and temporary nature of construction impacts. Therefore, the analysis of noise effects is qualitative, but based on generally accepted standards and methods. The General Plan identifies exterior noise exposure standards based on the State noise compatibility guidelines for land use planning. Goal 2, Program 2.2 and Figure 7-4, Land Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element indicate that exposure of single-family residential and open space noise uses to noise levels below 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL is "normally acceptable." 74 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. I LI STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY The noise element Goal 1, Policy 1.1 that is applicable to the proposed project, states, "Noise levels shall be compatible with the Town's semi-rural atmosphere and consistent with Town standards." a/c. Noise Standards. Ambient noise levels within rural areas are typically in the range of 45- ,-- 50 dB. There are no significant noise sources within the immediate project area that 1 would cause ambient noise levels to be higher. Traffic noise from State Highway 280 is the most significant source of noise affecting the Town. Figure N-2 of the General Plan, j Town of Los Altos Hills 2007 Noise Contours, shows that the 55 dB noise contour for highway noise is located a significant distance to the east of the project site. Given these factors, new residential development at the site would not be exposed to existing ambient noise levels that exceed noise compatibility standards identified in the General Plan. I The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels relative to existing conditions in the project area. On-site residential use activities are not typically sources of a permanent increase in ambient noise level. Traffic generated by new residential development can result in increases in traffic noise on roadways onto which such traffic is distributed. In general, a three dB increase in noise level is considered "just detectable". A five dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change represents a doubling of perceived noise level. For transportation noise, as a rule of thumb, a three dB increase in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling of the traffic volume on a roadway (California Department of Transportation 2013, page 2-12). As discussed in the Transportation section of this initial study, the proposed project would generate a daily increase in traffic volume of about 67 net new average daily trips over existing conditions. All of these trips would be distributed onto Natoma Road, which is classified as a neighborhood connector road in the General Plan with an average traffic volume of 1,000-5,000 average daily trips. Even if it is conservatively t-( assumed that all of these trips are distributed either northbound or southbound on Natoma Road, the added volume would not approach a doubling of total daily volume - on the roadway. As traffic volumes would normally have to double to create a significant impact, the change in traffic volume and its related noise effects would be less than significant. b. Vibration. It is not expected that sources of vibration will be located on site under post- development conditions. Construction activities for residential developments vary, but it is not uncommon for large equipment to be operating at fairly regular intervals. Given I1 the small scale of proposed development at the site and existing site conditions, it is not expected that construction equipment which produces extraordinary vibration intensity } will be required. If ground vibration were to be produced, it would occur over very short EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 75 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY r � periods of time and at most, may be short-term nuisance to adjacent residents. Limitations on duration of construction activities are defined in municipal code Chapter 6, Section 5-6.02. These limitations assure that construction activities which may involve the use of heavy equipment are prohibited during times which have potential to cause Li significant nuisance (e.g. no heavy equipment to be allowed on Saturdays and no construction allowed on Sundays or holidays). Consequently, impacts from vibration would be less than significant. d. Temporary Noise. Temporary noise from construction activities may produce short-term L i noise that could be a nuisance to adjacent residents. To minimize potential nuisance from construction activities, construction activities are limited to limited to Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm and must not exceed —I allowable noise standards set forth in the municipal code. No heavy noise generating L- equipment is allowed to be used on Saturdays and no construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per Chapter 6, Section 5-6.02 of the municipal code. With conformance to these limitations, impacts from short-term construction noise generation ( f would be less than significant. elf. Airport/Airstrip Noise. The project site is not located within two miles of a public 1 airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, there would be no impact associated with aircraft noise. 1 i ii 76 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. _�J STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 1 3. POPULATION AND HOUSING r-, Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ r area, either directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(1,6,7) • b. Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1,6,7) c. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement j l housing elsewhere? (1,6,7) Comments: a. Population Growth. The current population of Los Altos Hills is 8,341 persons (California Department of Finance 2015). Based on the California Department of Finance estimate of average household size for the Town of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit, the current site population is about six people. If all nine proposed lots were developed with new homes, the site population would be 26 people. The net change in population(minus six people assumed within the existing two residential units)would be 20 residents, or a .02 percent increase in Town population. This change is not substantial. The proposed project would not result in other changes that have potential to induce growth, either directly or indirectly (e.g. utility improvements would be of a capacity to serve only the proposed project). The proposed project would have aless- than-significant growth inducing impact. b/c. Displacement. The proposed project would result in demolition of one residential unit. The project would not result in displacement of a substantial number of people that would necessitate construction of replacement housing, and therefore, would have a less- than-significant related impact. ' Ij I + : I EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 77 H i l STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I4. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fire protection?(5, 7,18) ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ b. Police protection? (5,7,18) ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ c. Schools? (5,7,18) ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ d. Parks? (5,7,18) ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ Li e. Other public facilities?(5,7,18) ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ Comments: The project site is located within the Town of Los Altos Hills and is served by existing fire, police, school, park and other public facilities. The project would result in a potential net increase in population served of approximately 20 people and a net increase in seven dwelling units(refer to Section 13. Population and Housing, above). s1 a. Fire Protection Facilities. Fire protection, suppression and safety services are provided Los Altos Hills County Fire District (Town of Los Altos Hills 2014). The District i contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire Depat Lulent for services. Fire prevention programs provided by the District include free brush chipping and removal, brush and yard waste drop-off days, and site visits for property fire fuel evaluations. In addition to the basic police, fire and disaster services Los Altos Hills receives from outside agencies, Town staff and the Emergency Communications Committee work together with the City Council to address emergency response planning and training. (Town of Los Altos Hills 2014). The goal of the Town is to ensure that the community is organized and ready for any emergency. �1 The nearest fire station to the site is the El Monte Fire Station located at 12355 El Monte 1 Road approximately two and a half miles from the site via Elena Road. Fire protection I services are already provided to existing residential development that surrounds the project site. The addition of seven new residential units (assuming a baseline of two existing units within the site) to the District's service area would not result in an incremental increase in demand for fire service that would necessitate construction of new facilities to meet that demand. The proposed project would have no impact from the 1 need to construct new or physically altered fire facilities. 78 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY b. Police Protection Facilities. The Town of Los Altos Hills contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement and public safety services. The �—; addition of seven new residential units (assuming a baseline of two existing units within . j the site) to the Sheriff's service area would not result in an incremental increase in demand for service that would necessitate construction of new facilities to meet that demand. The proposed project would have no impact from the need to construct new or physically altered police protection facilities. r-, c. School Districts. Residents of Los Altos Hills are served by more than one public school district: students from the southern part of Town attend schools in the Los Altos School District (K-8) and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (9-12), and those in the northern section attend Palo Alto Unified School District (K-12) schools (Town of Los Altos Hills 2014). It is anticipated that school age children living in the future proposed residences would attend Palo Alto Unified School District (K-12) schools. Residents from Los Altos Hills may also enroll in the Bullis Charter School (K- 8), where preference is given to Los Altos School District residents. The Gardner Bullis Elementary School, a Los Altos Hills K-6 neighborhood school re-opened in the Fall 2008 and is available to all residents of Los Altos Hills. The Los Altos School District 1 1 and Palo Alto Unified School District school boards have created an Inter-District Transfer process that gives Palo Alto Unified School District residents of Los Altos Hills access to the Gardner Bullis School. New residential development is required by law to pay development impact fees to each affected school district at the time of building permit issuance. These fees are used by the school districts to mitigate impacts to school facilities from new development in accordance with State law. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees "is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the 1 planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization." The number of students associated with the future residential development of seven new dwelling units would be very small and is not anticipated to require provision of, or need for, new or physically altered school facilities. Nonetheless, with the payment of state-mandated impact fees, any environmental impacts associated new students generated by future development of the project site would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. r-� j d. Parks. The proposed project would increase the number of residents on the site by an estimated 20 persons and may add to the residential population using nearby recreational facilities. However, the project would not increase the use of existing parks such that substantial deterioration would occur or be accelerated which would require provision of, or need for, new or physically altered park facilities. Il EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 79 1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY e. Other Government Facilities. The proposed project is of a similar character to development in the rest of the Town and demand for government facilities and services would be nominal. The change in demand would not necessitate the need for new or altered government facilities and no impact from construction of such facilities would occur. iF li l 80 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY Alli 15. RECREATION 1 Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(1,5) r-, b. Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ } facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(1,5) Comments: a/b. Recreation Facilities. Recreational resources in the Los Altos Hills planning area include public open space preserves; public and private parks and recreation areas; off- road pathways; and conservation and open space easements on private land, primarily along portions of creek corridors and steep slopes. The Town's General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element identifies several town- owned open space and recreational areas including: Byrne Preserve (88 acres), Juan Prado Mesa Preserve (13 acres), Murietta Ridge Preserve (14 acres) , O'Keefe Lane Preserve (eight acres), Rhus Ridge Preserve (five acres), Central Drive Preserve (one acre), Saddle Mountain Preserve (three acres), Westwind Community Barn (15 acres), Edith Park (one acre), and Little League Fields and Riding Arena (15 acres) (page 4). Overall the Town owns a total of 159 acres of open space and recreational areas. The proposed project would increase the number of residents on the site by an estimated 20 persons. This change may create a nominal increase in demand for park and recreational facilities. However, the degree of change is minimal and would not be expected to result in deterioration of park and recreation facilities. a The Town's Parks and Recreation Department will collect an in lieu fee prior to recordation of the final map. The fees are used for maintenance and development of park and recreation facilities. Payment of this fee would off-set any effects of the proposed project on park and recreation facilities, and the project impact would be less than significant. • EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 81 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY I6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?(1,3,10) b. Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ i management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(1,3,10) c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(1,5) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1,5,6) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ V (1,3,5,6) f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ programs regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreased the performance or safety of such facilities? (1,3,5,6) Comments: - � The Institute of Transportation Engineers' standard traffic generation rate for single-family residential development is approximately 9.5 weekday trips per unit, of which 10 percent are —y, 1 � 82 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY assumed to occur in the morning or afternoon peak traffic hours (Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition 2012). The weekday morning peak hour of traffic generally falls within the 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.period and the weekday afternoon peak hour is typically in the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. period. Utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers' generation factors, the existing residential use (two single-family houses) is estimated to generate approximately 19 one-way trips per day, two of which would be during the am or pm peak hours. Under post-project conditions, assuming nine new residential units, a total of about 86 daily trips would be generated, of which seven would be in the morning peak hour and nine would be in the afternoon peak hours. The net increase in traffic generation under post-project conditions would be 67 daily trips, with five 1 additional peak hour morning trips and seven additional peak hour afternoon trips. Town roadway classifications and anticipated roadway volumes by classification are discussed in the Circulation and Scenic Roadway Element of the General Plan (pages 4-6). The General Plan identifies local roads as roads that serve to access a limited number of residential units. These roads include the many cul-de-sacs throughout the Town. Local roads would be expected to carry volumes on the order of less than 1,000 average daily trips. Neighborhood connector roads are akin to collector roads and generally connect one neighborhood area with another, and in some cases connect to arterials. Neighborhood connector roads would be expected to carry volumes on the order of 1,000 to 5,000 average daily trips. Charles Avenue is identified as a local road and Natoma Road is a neighborhood connector road(General Plan Figure C-3). a/b. Performance Standards. The addition of 67 net new daily trips to the local road network would not result in an exceedance of the expected trip volumes on either Charles Avenue or Natoma Road. The roadway segment volumes are expected to remain within the it typical volume levels for each road classification as described in the General Plan; therefore, this impact is less than significant. c. Air Traffic Pattern. The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or create a safety risk associated with air traffic. d. Design Hazard. The existing segment of Charles Avenue that is located between Natoma Road and the project site is a narrow, paved rural road that provides access to one home. It is located within a 60-foot right-of-way. It will be improved to a 22-foot wide pavement section with a gutter on one side. The improvement will be required to be J in conformance with Town standards, include at its intersection with Natoma Road. j Given the requirement that improvements conform to Town standards and the low volumes of traffic on Charles Avenue and Natoma Road, the project would not create circulation hazards. - EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 83 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY e. Emergency Access. Access into the site would be via existing Charles Road and existing Natoma Road. Natoma Road is currently sufficient of emergency vehicle access. Charles Avenue will be improved to a 22-foot wide pavement section with a curb on one side consistent with local road classification requirements, which are based in part on the need to provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles. Similarly, the new on-site segment of Charles Avenue will be constructed to Town standards that are designed to assure sufficient access for emergency vehicles. The proposed project will be designed to provide sufficient emergency access and would have no related impact. f. Public Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facility Policies. The proposed project includes pathway easements and construction of pathways that will tie into existing off-site facilities. There are no bicycle paths planned on Charles Avenue such that inclusion of such paths is a required part of the Charles Avenue improvements. The project is not of sufficient size or density to warrant provision of new public transit facilities. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit or otherwise decreased the performance or safety of such facilities; therefore, there is no impact. ti 1 '- r b 84 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. f" STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 1 � • 7. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS r Would the project: Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?(5,6,16,17) b. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or ' 1 expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(5,6,16,17) c. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(5,6,) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ V ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?(5,6,16,17) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ V treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?(5,6,16,) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ V ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid-waste disposal needs?(5,) g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓ and regulations related to solid waste? (5,6) Comments: a-g. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project does not require waste discharge ( requirements nor would it generate wastewater of a character that is different than generated throughout the remainder of the Town. Its wastewater generation volume would be nominal and would not result in exceedance of existing wastewater treatment capacity. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 85 h STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY L_. Water and Wastewater. Water is supplied to approximately two-thirds of the Town, including the project site by the Purissima Hills Water District. The nominal increase in demand for municipal water supply that would be created by the project would not trigger the need for new water treatment facilities. Similarly, the nominal increase in demand for wastewater treatment capacity would not trigger the need to construct new treatment capacity. The project site is currently not served with municipal utilities (water and sewer). A water main would be constructed within the on-site segment of Charles Avenue to connect with an existing six-inch water main in the off-site segment of Charles Avenue to provide service. The Purissima Water District has provided a letter to the Town (Pakpour 2015) stating that it can provide the water from Natoma Road. Extension of the water main would have no effects that are not already addressed and mitigated to less than significant in the discussions of other environmental topics evaluated in this initial study. A new low-pressure sewer main would be constructed within the proposed new segment r and existing segment of Charles Avenue to connect to sanitary sewer system via an existing main that is located within Natoma Road at the intersection of Charles Avenue. No impacts on the capacity or function of the existing sanitary sewer system are expected because the system is a gravity flow system. The project applicant will be required to pay fees for connecting to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to a reimbursement agreement that applies to the project site (Personal Communication with Cynthia Richardson, Town Planning Consultant, May 7, 2015). Extension of the main would have no effects that are not already addressed and mitigated to less than I significant in the discussions of other environmental topics evaluated in this initial study. Storm Drainage. Please refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section for discussion of storm drainage infrastructure requirements. Construction of storm drainage facilities would have no effects that are not already addressed and mitigated to less than significant in the discussions of other environmental topics evaluated in this initial study. Solid Waste. Residential solid waste removal and recycling service is provided by Green Waste. The proposed project would not impact Green Wastes service capacity. Green Waste is a franchise hauler that must comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste collection and disposal. Town residents can dispose of household hazardous waste through a program run by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Given the character of the proposed project and its demand for utilities and service L systems, the proposed project would create no unique impacts related to utilities and service systems that are not already addressed and mitigated to less than significant in the analysis of other environmental topics evaluated in this initial study. 86 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. r i STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Does the project have the potential to ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (26,27,28,29,31,35,36, 37) 'r b. Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ✓ ❑ ❑ individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a _J project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)(1,3,6,26, 27,28,29,31,35,36,37) c. Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?(1,3,6,26,27,28,29,31,35,36,37) Comments: a. The proposed project could have significant effects on several special-status plant species, wildlife species and nesting birds. Mitigation measure BIO-1 requires focused pre- construction and creation of an open space easement should special-status plants be located on site; mitigation measure BIO-2 requires pre-construction surveys during the nesting bird season, and implementation of appropriate avoidance measures during construction; BIO-3 requires that appropriate San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat avoidance measures are incorporated into construction activities; mitigation measure n BIO-4 requires appropriate monitoring for and avoidance of potential impacts to CRLF and WPT; mitigation measure BIO-5 requires pre-construction surveys for American badger and incorporation of exclusion/avoidance measures (as approved by the CDFW) should any dens be found; mitigation measure BIO-6 requires pre-construction surveys rte, EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 87 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY i I for nesting bats and incorporation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures should evidence of nesting bats be found on site; mitigation measure BIO-7 requires permitting for the proposed pedestrian foot-bridge if it impacts jurisdictional features (bed or bank of Matadero Creek); and BIO-8 requires replacement Heritage Oaks tree plantings as deemed necessary by the Town and implementation of protection methodology for tree preservation. These mitigation measures would reduce the effect of these biological resources impacts to a less-than-significant level such that the proposed project's cumulative impact on biological resources would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not affect important examples of California history or pre- history. b. The proposed project would result in construction of nine new residential units within a region of several million in population. Population related effects of the project are; therefore, less-than-cumulatively considerable. As described in (b) above, the proposed project has the potential to impact special-status plants and animals. However, mitigation measures are required which would reduce such impacts to less than significant. Given the small project site size and the wide distribution of species that could be affected, the contribution of the project to significant cumulative impacts on these species would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. c. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects on human beings. r i 88 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. I 1 � STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY E. SOURCES 1. Town of Los Altos Hills. Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan.Amended May 2008. 2. Town of Los Altos Hills.Initial Study. 2007. 3. Town of Los Altos Hills.Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/ (accessed May 2015). 4. County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County General Plan. 1994. 5. Project information/planner's knowledge of the area. 6. Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying&Planning. Tentative Map. May 22, 2015. 7. California Department of Finance.E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2015, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Report. 2015. http://www.do£ca.gov/ research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php(accessed May 2015). 8. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2012. 9. California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed May 13, 2015). 10. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2012. 11. California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol September 2013. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf(accessed May 15, 2015). 12. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. May 2015. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Geobrowser. Morgan Hill, California. http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/(accessed May 15, 2015). 13. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010. http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx(accessed May 15, 2015). EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 89 I � STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 14. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx(accessed May 15, 2015). 15. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May 2012. http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx(accessed May 15, 2015). 16. Richardson, Cynthia, Planning Consultant for the Town of Los Altos. Email message to consultant, 7 May, 2015. 17. Pakpour, Joubin, District Engineer for the Purissima Water District. Letter to Cynthia 1 Richardson, subject: Response to First Plan Check , dated April 24, 2015. 18. Town of Los Altos Hills. Website. 2014. http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov(accessed May 2015). 19. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. EnviroStor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp(accessed February 17, 2015). 20. Google Earth. Accessed May 2015. -' 21. Los Altos Hills County Fire District. http://www.lahcfd.org/community- programs/weed-abatement programs/weed-abatement(accessed May 2015). 22. Romig Engineers.Engineering Geologic Hazard Investigation-Lands of Stirling.May 15, 2014. 23. Cotton Shires and Associates, Consulting Engineers and Geologists. Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review, Stirling Tentative Map 193-14-TM,28030 Natoma Road. August 20, 2014. 24. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2012. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/sc112.pdf(accessed May 2015). 25. U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/(accessed May 18, 2015) 26. Federal Emergency Management Agency.FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer https://hazards fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMS(accessed May 19, 2015) ii 90 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 27. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for Woodside, Palo Alto, Mountain View, La Honda,Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Franklin Point, Big Basin, and Castle Rock Ridge USGS quadrangles. April 2015. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp(accessed May 2015). 28. California Native Plant Society(CNPS). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Records of Occurrence for Woodside, Palo Alto, Mountain View,La Honda, Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Franklin Point, Big Basin, and Castle Rock Ridge USGS quadrangles. April 2015. http://www.cnps.org/inventory(accessed May 2015). 29. eBird. eBird:An online database of bird distribution and abundance. May 13, 2015. http://www.ebird.org(accessed May 2015)_. 30. EMC Planning Group. Biological Reconnaissance Survey. April 13, 2015. 31. HortScience.Revised Arborist Report:28030 Natoma Road,Los Altos Hills, CA.November 2014. 32. H.T. Harvey&Associates. California Bat Mitigation Techniques, Solutions, and Effectiveness. December 29, 2004. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=10334 (accessed May 2015). 33. Live Oak Associates.Analysis and recommendations regarding the comments from the Town of Los Altos Hills regarding proposed development on the Stirling Property. November 2014. 34. Live Oak Associates. The Town of Los Altos Hills Wildlife Corridor Study. December 2006. 35. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Geobrowser.Morgan Hill, California.May 2015. http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/(accessed May 2015) 36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Endangered Species Database. Species list for Santa Clara County. April 2015. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/(accessed May 2015). 37. USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. August 2005. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocols-guidelines/Documents/ crf survey guidance_aug2005.pdf(accessed May 2015) EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 91 I i I � L_1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY 38. USFWS. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. October 2003. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocols- guidelines/Documents/cts_survey_protocol.pdf(accessed May 2015). 39. William Self Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Sterling Subdivision Project 2015a. 40. William Self Associates.Addendum to Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Sterling Subdivision. 2015b. 41. William Self Associates.Addendum 2 to Cultural Resources Assessment Report. 2015c. 42. City of San Jose. Envision San José 2040 General Plan Draft Program EIR. 2011. http://planning.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/ESJ2040_GP/Section%203%20- 20Environmental%20Setting%20lmpacts%20and%20Mitigation%20- %20Part%203.pdf S 43. United States Geological Survey. Quaternary Geology of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. 1994. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-231/sccomap.pdf 44. California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order R2-2009-0074 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. October 14, 2009. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phase 1r2_2009_ 0074.pdf(accessed June 8, 2014). 45. EMC Planning Group.Habitat Assessment for California Tiger Salamander, California Red- Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake.August 3, 2015. All documents indicated in bold are available for review at the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning and Building Department, 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, 650.941.7222, during normal business hours. All documents listed above are available for review at EMC Planning Group Inc., 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C, Monterey, California 93940, (831) 649-1799 during normal business hours. 92 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. j I I�I 1 i APPENDIX A TENTATIVE MAP 1 ' 14 1 Ii tV t0M./ }�\p,� A r; \fit. OWNERS 8,SUBDIVIDERS: . NSA,,,.. STIRLING FAMILY t r..rP V I „.. (AVIGALE MCLOUGHLIN,ARIANA OWEN A LOS ALTOS PROPERTY LP(REBECCA STIRLING) Z ., / C/0 AVIGALE YCLOUGHLIN Yj,. APP)IDKNIATE PAWNER,WIDTH 22 / X, .w 1520 08110 ROAD •r NOLOA,HI 96156 All �1)) /1 �„ '� ,..... PHONE: B0216.2-0171 '. Y^"•' ETETIN6 FMK NYORINT 0,4 IP �' '�` MAP PREPARED BY: 'II;' �, N. R NOISE 1481 INC 1 '�. ••••... .._� C/O JEFF PETERSON r 1 3130 LA SELVA STREET,SUITE 100 I r 64..._,,,, !� { J'II / I SAN MATEO,CA 91103 ----��11 II! (650)319-1151 I I pp+ .� _ I ` 1 r pp 1 I 101 t _- ! 4 L, ` d `4 PROPERTY LINE - LINE TABLE �" LINE LENGTH BEARING 1 1 t°' <. , PC r ,� LI 69.92 N66'00'DB'E f I PAPP 1 SAHAMOTO 1 MURAISAMI NI / �� >li � " .�....• ,tI 62 6.09 MS7'x'00'W 6 1 0411,263 SIMON LANE! 13315 SIMON L NE 13313 SIMUN L ` a _ I4 AC .'A.DDI U ITL J`AG �` �'� LS 173.17 NIT0/11' 16 210 1 '�1�92.I. ..2 2-21'. I ` LI 157.95 NI 163 Wti� '���+ }� • N01'70'00-W 115 -........,--,-,.--=4- e / L5 159.17 N16721034,- i4j �9 T7I��\- i L6 10.61 N6e•00'00'E 2 I i �/ Im ( J • 1 Efi rFNCF(71'P), C 7 v Vw' /r A 4 �A �'�1•• • g ,Ii ��AC g o t. �. "I .• tilr �p 1 • -'r• VTR. wu�D / ,�'• `` �,I�,� 5 PROPERTY LINE - CURVE TABLE f 5=8.6x e wl LOT 3 1I 1 06 Ac _ I$` LOT 1 TDO MELODY LANE, ' , WW.ww ` - CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA :,I OF 1.15 .g 1.03.ALC �Ig:! 1010)06 • h 11.08.: 1 I„) 3.85 Ac ` 1,� "' . CI 156.03 170.00 71.30.00" 4 - S-9 IX y •, ( 7 6x I I /' CZ 63.99 9500 SP}9'11" '�� LUF I O} I , l F 1.08 }� O C3 115.618 22000 29•x•15' c3 • - �! I VICINITY MAP Cl 32.18 50.00 !6'}7'11" YON6 j A V m''' 39e •1 4 C5 221.13 50.00 255'11'23" .3156 S.FORK 609' 4 N1111'OYE 59 c1 _ 4 A 83 N. / UTILITIES 2.40 AC 11 6+1:69' -fnl C2 03.05 160.00 5R•02'I! u.G _ , THE PROPERTY 15 CURRENTLY SERVED WITH WELL WATER A PROPANE lAMK SEPTIC TANK. C] 137.0! 15500 SO'x'11' 1 a3�ar<:�-' ,G- �- \ • y .jr.gELECTRICITY AND TELEPHONE A FIRE HYDRANT SERVER BY PURISSIYA HILLS WATER DISTRICT co 131.05 Ie0.00 71'x'00' 986 ON' Jr)9�' � 9. •L4 `...0--T- j✓ $6'9 IS LOCATED ALONG THE DWVCWAY SERVING 28025.TO..(IRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PLACED1191 ,$ BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WATER PURVEYOR PRIER TO FINAL MAP. ALL LOTS IN THE MOW - Wj , 5.96,.-- N ` ��/. ',17{ SUBDIVISION WILL BE CONNECTED TO PG&E GAS AND ELECTRICITY,PURISSIRS HILLS WATER 6i T 5 ./ N60'29'20'E 7 � DISTRICT FACILITIES.AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AS DESIRED BY THE OWNERS AND DIRECTED -- LQt V } - 1,-1.2 {.76 9 BY THE TOWN.A GRAVITY SEWER MAIN EXISTS ON NCO.ROAD AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE I .6).--W _}.34 AC O c? b1.1.9 1,97 AC . 'L01-8 c32.76 AC PROPERTY.SEWER SERVICE WILL IIATO,OF INDIVIDUAL GRINDER PUMPS AT EACH HOUSE, 5'428.2% \.,l • 2.23 AC I'D G 5=36,4% % TOP Of CONNECTED BY A FORCE MAIN TO NATOMA ROAD. -T. SIR B1 99 �I.8 n/ \ \ 1.10=1.1 3=3/.0x LUF.f OB Q MATADERO CREEK Par ACCESS i 'luF= • l • CONI•! �. \ +S 1' 27790 COGENT ON RL THE 60 FOOT STRIP LINKING THIS PROPERTY TO HOYA ROAD WAS FORMERLY A PART OF 1- LIT".-_,Ni 1- 6 i K, S 1,•• ) 2.64 AC THE STIRLING OWNERSHIP.IN 1999,BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD.AN IRREVOCABLE RI LO,B.' / OFFER OF DEDICATION WAS MADE TO THE TOWN AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN.THIS RGHT ynl` 10 1/ TY'''�.p \3. ' OF WAY DEDICATION CAN BE ACCEPTED Al THE TOWN AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL MAP. t�"Pi 2.30 AC , I X1,5 'P� ` 1 a 1 5/11011!191011 101ROYY iA TOPOGRAPHY . �- ROADS.ELEVATION A71.70,NAVD 8B.CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FEET. .5 I'•:s -0,0, 1 1 1 I W�77 .'.LIN 0 01 6rACE (0 `' `" ACREAGE 1- i-,14,11_, ( '�; 19.Ap , \ 277 EDGERTON RC - - 10 _ BU 2,21 DIC THE TOTAL PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ACREAGE=tB.TBa<GROSS;16 920c NET �-. 1 294 (EXCLUDING THE OEFSRE,DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY) ` SEC TABLE ON 541.1 FOR GROSS d x197 OF AREAS. - _j %• % � \ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I, .-....-=-=--..---.--- --•-•---- '- .19�h O" 1 THE 5UBNVRION IMPROVEMENTS WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING A D1 FOOT YAK STREET FROM (( XE� HAIOYA ROAD TO THE PROPOSED CUL OE SAC'EYIENSWN Of WATER MMNS INTO INC SUBDIVISOH 1-_ I �- % 00110110 THE LAIN WITH OF WATER SERVICES,CONSTRUCTION OFA LOW PRESSURE SANITARY 1�77-_,.2,-7 ,� .6 : 4frCtSEWER FORCE YNN WM SCRVNE ATER SEIgIS(OR A GNMDER PUMP SOWER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION 1315 <yA. I-' -i / ' L�6RI91,9RDOF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEW STREET.CONSTRUCTION OF ROADSIDE(TYPE IIB)AND 111��1 •IA 3/5/L' $' 0FFR0A0 PATHWAYSCONSTRUCTION OF SYORYWATER TREATMENT AND NYUROMOOIICAIION FACUIICSE: w� / �_ © �A- Wp PROYKNM FOR GA$ELECTR C.T[1FM10N(AND TCI000MAUMICAINWS SERVICES. 180 II I*RWOOEYCNTE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ARCR APPROVAL a TAR TCNTAIM MAP IN CON(ORYANCE - 1N TIE APPROVED SUROHYSION AGREEMENT THESE MPROVEMENTS WNL BE COMPLETED WITH N MO _� �- _ A RFO mIC<LIPMAICD N INC SIROIVISION ALREEMFN'. Ii s6z3z4z3a,w S IB p 180 240 ! 10769 D,b2. RIGHT OF WAY / THE PROPOSED RICHT Al w•1 Rai IRE CUL D(SAC WRNM ENE SUBDIVISION IS 60 FEET WIDE.ORS { LALCNANDAHI 1 .-: : IiiNiirIIIII� IS PROPOSED ASA PUBLIC STREET. A 60-FOOT RIGHT DI WAY BETWEEN NATO.ROAD AND THE �i 133'JO COUNTRY WAY FR[HILL ` SUBOMSITIH.S ALREADY BEEN ATOAATED ML TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AND WAS REJECTED. p 2.218 DIC 13311 COUNTRY WAY THE CS O/.RICHT OF WAY IN.10.ROAD VARIES W WIDTH FROM AO l0 50 FEC)IN MOTH. RQ• I I.M.6 AC I I I APIC 182.10-057 WILSEY':HAM • HY:.;^A ,�,•°�N LANDS OF LOSALT O s m/u/Is TUR.mE Mu MIrrtTM 28030 NATOMA ROAD ALTOS HILLS.CA 1 .0 STIRLING FAMILY 2,,nRbrme,Survey�D 8,,Y,T,,0 ■ C/O STIRLING MCLOUGHLIN III/I,/I. rzHT.mE MM MrmM = .k • -� TENTATIVE MAP _ __ 3 4252E()MAO ROAD J 'o1n>/IA rzNn1IW MP 1T Saw spew.94403 100 R1 nstruL'O 1 .�, �„. _. KOLOA.HI 96756 PHONE'(808)6520427 s aR/m/u PARAWAY Mn UNREAL BSD 5192151 OVERALL LAYOUT re /Is/tJ 80*IAO.O,0 ,0181xi w999yNrncpR ?a cu6'¢ ,. I,, LOS ALTOS HILLS I. jY40 A LEGEND I '( • . ! r � SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY N W0'„ W 991. ''----.---, -y •4 - 6.7 W f! 14T, I / I -1 _- - -) 1 / If\ -----_ PROPERTY UNC % 1I (- 1 • 1 rF 1•�•�.�i Y \• $A a .n�= CASENETY UNE 1 1 \ \1 ip/-11011 1 I I 1 LOT - f 661 'I4 Ii . • \ / 350'nRCLE\. \ - CDGf a PAv[YEMI 1 1170 I I LOT : ;I ilk I W'CIIKIE '1 1 1-i1 f� S•%.9% '•0.5 N LOS ROAD CENTERLINE 1.13 ACil- /4..1 IIT ( .� - _' • ` 4. EN / .) , r �f /. _. EXISTING BUILDING 1 • 1� l EXISTING FENCE , . 6 \II -1,, , \ I -Ill '' -"''''' ' „'It, .1161:-:1--'''llirill �;V.>� �d � :'f Imo'�� NOTES --� hIII = A. e �^'" .// f21� �' 'I I SEE SHEET 4 FOR STREET PROFILE. rr:' 'v , � 7 I� 2 STORM RUNOFF OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS WILL BE CONVEYED TO 350'CIRCLE .r)V_+��0�� / 1� �, *411r), �,,, �A 1 �ir/ I :;1 BEM STORNWATER TIIElaNTO AND MAUNROOMODPICATION FACILMES BEFORE _ _ - CREEX 3. STREET SURFACE'NANM THE MKT-OF-WAY WILL BE AC.PAVING - I P-4-.111T141.„.\@@ '� ,' , 1 OM/ DETAILED DESIGN ON THE PAVING.WILL BE DETERNNED AT rui„ 19�A[ •� 4. 1075 1.5.e.7.AND B WILL LOCATED 50 AS TO AVOID 1 *[�� -0T-5-.��� •¢28.% / PULEYENT OF iNE STRUCTURE NWN03710N5 OR BASEYENfS ACROSS I. I -331 - r- -.5D IE 04.-- ® I I�; / TLC SURFACE O TRACE OR THE SUBSURFACE PUNF BA TNC YOHC VISI, 3'•288% ��of "Imp.� \` 27i wi/ / • FAULT. SEE fX07ECNNMl1 RC^ORI FOR YORE DETAIL �.A/moi • . LI >, _ .1 I.. ` ` 3\ �'�\\ 1.235 A� /f Ik ��!r IQ OF WTAOCRO CREEK BANK ' ► _ S=34.03 .44'. 4. '. - �� -- ` LUF=1.08 S t/ fHET -.or \ 1\ y _ ..,JN RJ OOO k L_ { SO AC �N WIIE VISTA Ti :.- • /. 5� __'- _ /' LUF ARRA WITHIN _ .. I _ I j '- _ LOT CROSS NET AVERAGE g'`_ �� I (- 16O'cwpE_ < \\. / il/'_0)IICiE , --AW ACREAGE ACREAGE SLOPE (ACREAGE) MOA MFA 350'CIRCLE L - t I ,C8%7L \ r.. \ - _y -_ I J50 CIRCLE......>"/ ..,,c; 2 1.06 IAB 7.6% IAO 16,200.1 6.0007 I.Obe `-,.� -- 1 I 1 - /" - 41 2 LO6 1.03 0.i% 1.06 15,9000 43600 1,06« _) s b\ 4 1. 1. 0.i% 1.07 15.050,7 6.181.1 7.03x ` I.IS 11,1500 6.900.1 t.lSx +1 .. y�, _ S q D _ 199 -- I .Pi0/ 0 SPAM 1. .� - J.A''CIRCLE /f � S 3,34 1,19 20.8% 13.8210 10.069.1 I.SI9c TGA5FJIF _ ,..�C�(t 6 1 .--I 1 ... 1 - /z> -•�']6�1�»p:r. 7 12.17 1.=i 28-514 1.19 9.603.1 6.051,1 13.34x0 ry 77 _"-- , _ -_ Ito' , / .,. /,- 9^^ •.. \ 0 2.23 1.08 300% 1.06 8,1000 7,400.E 1.32ae `-�-- _-' _I -- /�' 9 2.76 LW 70.4% 1.08 8,10031 5,400.E .73ac 8 - 1 so li _ _ "SSE•L61nE y, �j/ m I 75'PROPOSED ��_ PA1NwAY EASEMENT ��.�{-_,21 'A=. _ - I �Tir - _. _ I S _ / ' / ----- 7-P, - 1 I 1.-_-___'. -I zl ,4 f ` f A:+F. r,.� i.-- _r \IL & 1 - I TOP a luTA1E1p1amLwIR /% /a ' /pg� I g) \ (.1 ( 0 25 50 100 150 ! - _ q \ Seale:l•=5 y 67.76 724 �- T \\ \ 1 t _ ojf / ,§, `\'f ( of\ { 1 3 __ �'k. I 149._ '.z.. s �_ .wn,w n- Y APR:182-10-057 `o rPort33D,w LANDS OF STIRLING .",O WILSEY ii HAM \ N.g x01,40 '" 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA 2 j STIRLING FAMILY s w/u/Is IInATFrt Fur swnu A• E„1,,,e,,,,y,5,,,,,•r,,,e s r•„,:,,,, 0855', L ""q" '" $ C/OAVIGALEMCLOOJGHLIN 1 11/1 14 ' mar smarm • �kxDar♦Or' ., LOT CONFIGURATION PLAN ,. 3 4252C OMAO ROAD 3 66/11/1. IDI5AIIK Nr 50166000 i 3130 30lLa 3•40 011041 i�100 9s,nstrecti,- ,nN, 2 10/66/13 6601141662•I 5.6694 ♦ 000.Mateo C i Flaw, wan. mix Ne 4.44, R KOLOA,HI 96756 PHONE:(808)652-0427 I temps WAIYWI AW•OMI. s N, O. 0.11.00.0.00, 4 ""tO m.Cd1" ? 0I4/ 4 olr LOS ALTOS WLIS SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA 166.OM 11 100 0f A ti, ''''\-, \ LEGEND r EXISTING PATHWAY: - �'` - - C . EASEMENT I ` - _x -111 3 A:: / ` '\��\{ -+y --- SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY a PROPOSED WATER MAIN :0 ';20.9P 210 4 i,{� _ EASE TY UNE Sir,+ PROPOSED SAINT ART SEWER FORCE YAn • N 04'20'00 991. .c `A'. - • - . + EASEMENT UNE OR SETBACK Ji PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH S , i 7, _---__-- I.... 1 REMOVE EX POKE(TYP) I, 1• 1 IOtl.aS 6 •.,. ' II -- - - FAULT UNE SR PROPOSED SUBDUER PIPE 60 1 117 IM 131. 120 Ite EX PENCE TO BE REMOVED I R¢UCEOINWTN IINDLLIIE PEIORAaL EIEME SI I I I i 3 1 1' t0j y ROAD Cr PAVEMENT ,int 1' § ROAD CENTERLINE G EXISTING LANDSLIDE AREA I I �4 I I •I I , 34 1 'Is 1 • U A •i1 TREE To BE REMOVED i ..11 ((( Ex nNc B nIN R,T I . LOT 3 I LOT •51 I B p 6 EXISTING FENCE • L0T 1 I ( .I '�L"�'^�^ `V PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT Ir 1•0 2t 377 /I II• I 1i^���`,' �j• I _ • I II FORCE MAIM i3 \ I 1.13 AC 1 I 1Ja AC I_.--.1 y, I E •�I s1 a t I ARY \ TREE TABLE PROPOSED INLET ES '•. I SARI I U' f.. I II :w7E.a _ I I'S •ISO11RR • tur.,.a ) I \ `',, No WOMB m..nr, ca.w.n I �- PROF n •151. I :, ifr,- `� ,,xv. / ..«. rucc.l.. .eaaR6VWTNN. --iihhi, €• I Ip EASEMERTi i 1, '.4:4114111111111 II ... -. . i Y G.'44-1-7.7-1.1 OII Toa Isea PULLOUT .41 J 1 J \ e 13 I'a • Taman.W. �.. y.� I-__..-____1....__- ''77 .4 Ar'''''''... -' -'7 ff., '..00.11 .* '4 ' (,e‘'. - . -::\:-....Ity::‘ ''.. 4' 4111/4- I .. 11 � '-JsI� 1 to Y'P .r .. N.: .r. .X 1 _ _ —�/ ~I A6 alrnxc „ ✓ /�' I 1 . III ,,..,.. . '�"�......e�.:: MY" - A ,BE DonRO I Rti1G ' / . err s mr o.,rr «,ws...e. ▪ I TOT 5 —y— /�.�/ �3�Luf .5;At�— — _ X \. i �,,/ „ �.»r AN 12 .. m. :. sir°Tae / �( 8 -� 6• �_., , z, //� r'l .... `�� LANDSLIDE AREA � - eol10i•�'" \ ..n' \ I ' % g r 01434.1440.No NMI& 9. INornouu su6oRUNs '� - 1/ t I C / ,!> 4.».. wa .. �•••••... --- \To BE INSTAUED.gN y , * 2.23 AC `' i 1121004. .rr. `iDl wi H COIfORINICAL. {-J__.,�� , `1 S \ UF=L A S \ EXISTING NOOSE.' / .,� CCR X BOf ANN RO n »s .,r„ Y. Nolo. ....«..Rr is NTH GEOTECWNEIS E J rAU.REVVOVIEDD ; I LUF-1.a RPOW GARAGE i0 R6PoRI RECOYYExa7M1NS 1 1,,T - TO K-'�T" �. _ / ,z«=.« I 'IT' �T I i• ; . hm-I-_1- EXrsTrosrsDE� 'BANDONED 4 94 „ �»u. Wa 0 Os .r ..«e.� . 1 l t IG _ 1 1 { ACCORDANCE WIrN _ Y\ 4 ' } run»r w i- wy++rs z.r.-rrwrr 7 S.. 170 ii7� -�"'R.--. 10NrA 1��uNE OEPAarMENr a w. ee. 1 , `A f n FAULT NC�` lSIVINONYExTAL HEALTH r� i n an»r r .rN Avr.er i F.--'`�1 i,....- g 1- Try 7......,_ , -�. - ., 72 r "-„ uMlTs otvROPosEp f ' �� a r.r»» 11.. Y. ....,. .r..r�. .r«... I ..\s7ReuunoR.xE,PIR --\ -------_,--.----___:__---"l',' i \ CO n••Wr. I R S. R y IN ACCORDANCE mei _, � -I + UNW I.T7 1 FNC PAOJEFy GFOTECNMCM �� qe� N .,!l� _-�_ a =r u v. ..r.. ur▪....r..r...._...«FON... ESr r , �� F t 'REPORT TED MAY 2014 _/ /�`+. a I '.' I 9" e 0 25 50 41 GNI.co 20 V44 ONO 100 150 +^ { N MC BErag4 20 , { -T �ws AAG u2 \PER GEOTECNNIGL REPORT I \� , ", _ I / O t - ` \_- .. rr Yea 6.4, Y. w. .....�r.w. l \ �. _ / I 44 CONY. , ( I - - I , ER DRAINAGE SNAIL 10I T WIK'. 29Spi .. Cool u Y.. rr.. v ram*a* I s I \'''��`^ -.� '..L E%STINGYPAiXW�1 « s r a .. .as r.e................ / PR ,SPAOC /. t..,,U` w ..apply Err.w.. In- '. - \ o. ' SHEET 4 FOR STREET PROFILE. �,, / N v». . Y. `:Trap»ti I �� I _ice .�.czyp iM 1 I 'tom.=--�- Od . -�" 2NTREE ININ SEVEREE,STRUCTURAL . v.r,r N .w ra nnw W.a.e.. p I - 1 S,Ly aS / .i I' / / - v vrra s Y. .wap. _ .a N. .em. £ Z `L_ E COMgIION. ..n.n / ` _ DEFECTS A MODERATE BE ABATED �..,.n _r _ \_J R FASEei"MENI 1 �1" S TREE WIIX RIGOR. AS vr.rr " •r o« •z s..«wn. p __ __ 5 11'311 _ / / S=A REARM'VN'OROUSCTREE IN VIGOR. : v.»r a r. ANS r..««r. [E .....'&1° s_. _ 1 • . TC. rAtEIsQ' , /// I� ft, ,s. 4 IR' 2' ..._r..... T. `. / i l IRIE.IIt --I ./ MX eRIR :.r i J/ 0 / TYPE PATHWAY* .. . Y. pa▪pa.. • r."'.n:«N p- "� _ IM 2' II' TI I 3• I-IO w �.r. « . Ern ▪ ..r�r: 8 '15' ,� 'I I SCE SHEET 4 FOR STREET PROFILE. 1%- LP � -/ . ,,.,r N Y. �. ON,* r --- -I _ 2. STORY RUNOFF OF INDMDIAL LOTS WILL BE CONVEYED X31- , t-- I • .r.rrWW.rTara. V E I MI S0 SIORYWAIER TREATMENT AND HYDROMODIFICATION ,:. .. s a .. urn .v...a.Nar. 5° 111 ,1 FACILITIES BEFORE BEING DISCHARGED TO MATADERO *PLEASE MOR.THE FARAWAY*ILL BE SEPARATED / - - __Lj CREEK. MOM TRE EDGE OF PAVEMENT WNFRE FEASIBLEPAVEMENT TO . • o...»r 4e Y. .w..,N. .................... yea.+ 1.76 JNEEY - 7. STREET SURFACE WITHIN THE OW-OF-WAY WILL BE AC. COMPLYPERMEAWIE ACSECTION C.3 w 6726' -- PAnHG. u�..w��' F,. STREET SECTION A-A '-9393°N. AIR•1e2-10-057 WILSEY::HAM ,-,711,% ^°�'W LANDS A LOS ALT 931•40 p STIRLING FAMILY s qm/n TFnATM.Iv swmr 1 1,9.,06.,o.9...,,..,,V,,,e a Plarnr,M Tess °=Wn I• 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,C8 3 E croawcALEMCLOUGHLIN . rl�l„I. iB A,M..SINY^Y i Maher` PROPOSED SUBDIVISION e. i 4252C OMAO ROAD s •/n/IA imTAmc MAP N.e.NFAL 3130 La Saha SWAN.Sulo 500 ewv 2 10/01/0 Paea.4.Y Ir swarm San Wb,G 04403 +'nSIrMCiI, yawn Pwrpr ..,.,5 i..0.1.wTm, z KOLOA,HI 96756 PHONE:(808)652-0427 I ospos M.A.NAP swnr 66.340.2151 an mss* s,y.,-w Ne n. lan,N...a.D..a.. In w6seH•m.Ron ?4rA 4 n. LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA oa.1•,a..„ TREE TABLE ,� �' w. .a., 001.1061 common, ,.1111.2101 0 m =MOO .111.1.111. C01011016111 111162610.•011 ...I 160-Pno... 161.6.1111•0111 n orrr n r. w.0... no um.nova. ' .f i1 1 -- EX. B-WATER ,. u.rr ,.n .. `� en..n...r• �� .v ..... • .. . ......... . , ` EX.SANITARY SEWER Lo._ ova 271 n err n .. .Orr a....... .n r . .. m'o"'mr.m r...�w 1 4 Me r DA C.ti . .r r6 I EX.WATER MAIN e rsrCI = n .. x.r. 11......6........6 in c..rr am V. ....r rr.�e + 11 1 17� _1 • _. rte"�... no .on mow. .0 .. r .+.. 1).\'\•T23t n C.r. 26.10 r 6663... ...1.4444.0....,.._6.6.6,.6. u "+�c0Y4.0.11.404/ .- 0 25 SO 100 150 . <=...r .....63......6 .+rrr 400.14_ ` `�� 1i17.1 Scale:1 =S0' ���� EX.EN m m.rr ,.w .. ..u-.. ....��.rra.63L ,. rr s r. mr,.�`... .mrrw.rw .63.r+a.0 On MOW 0040 '� �11 CONNECT PROP. m r 4444.44.00 �rr = wwµ.�.w�`w -.��1 i`' WATER MAIN 70 EX, no ono An 21 Y40 mrr w.+.mrr T �� 6'WATER m Gorr vn . w.. 0.6.....rr.a. , �...r .e.Low �mwr0t,.;,`�~".,..... EYERCEHE1'PIIIlOMT '1 ('o -PROP SANITARY .. V.I. . . u. ...e........,.,... o.... °..r63r� ■,' SEWER FORCE MAIN a...r` ... .n u�...rr anew ... ••••••• r.... ' •yT' 'D 1 r 004444040.411 161 ...a„m 1. r 1. ,r�r...ir....r.. .op u...r w1. r. r� �wr`..iir.�=s..�.., I � PROP.WATER MAIN sqcrr= w . -r "00r n . . 1.6. 6...0.00. . 1 ... slEE 14 N. .w I � l _ . drr „ _ VI 1 9 .. carr i3 x 0,1•20'00'. 991 ;.r _ i • E „ ... FCI d4 .n � 7 _ —nl7lu 131• 129 X123 �.�6 A li r ID = m:. 7p4 li12 A/Y W..--. 91 t Tt't 7RCE('011dfIDN� WWI N SEVERE DECLINE ___ 1 I � � •/ c. � .- 2=TREE N SE01 NOTSTRIOR RAI ---- r • - - • I - _. .._ 1 DEFECTS THAT CANNOT BE ABATED I NI �� T • w ' 1 I=TREE WITH MODERATE VIGOR -- — __ • ._ - .TREE WITH SLIGM DECLINE IN VIGOR. . 1 EX rma(TiP) 116 tl2 1 10�.1,• � \ 5=A NGETM VIGOROUS TRU. 1; - • 1� 1`'• '12`• \1`1A .I 57• I I!5 •I!/ 11 1!1d ♦I s. I I 3 I( 14 •56 • T– 1.. su It BIS I O::.3 LOT 2 16 •?! " I 62 C 1 .-_ Ia1 AC •55 h; 1d3W•19 1.00ACf 5536 Iy 4 '� LIS ACI -� .. u✓)`.Isl _ 5�':IsD uLOT 1 �I Y� `E S.{2 ,I,'.� !L{Y 65 - 'V 21•/L1 / /. ) . ---rJPP µ - SIe ____-__ 2...a � �, ...i.-.`: Ir" ' ._._ 20 .l--t- :I 524 - ss _ _. P4T -19. E- 520 m.1 MEM 5f6 w PrL ._4a04- • LEGEND S . „ : __ _ _ SUBDIVISION oC �BOUNDARX: 111!®H1111111111111M11111111 11P11111111 _ _ _ 196IIUIIUUl1......l�I....I11.\!!1F,IIuuI I...Il.1111496 -. -- ___ - - EASEMENT LINE 492 e���tit•1•� Z"."1144111111111 -- R e7t3�22PMMI VVIIINE�_ _�" '.�._. a92 - MN /86 - -.._ ._ - EDGE OF PAKUENT 44 414MI��la>• - ��� - - d8/ ROAD CENTERLINE • ____________________=■��EI■I■I■I■. ����....�..==... •_- --. 480 _. 147e 1111f11i IICiIIflhIbiicj,iuiucii,ciic :6xAP GUTTER EF BC REMOVED IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 7400 NOD 140010400 II.00 12.00 15.00 11.00 15.00 WOO 17000 WOO19.W 211x00 5 WIDE PATH STREET PROFILE STA.7+00 TO STA.20+00 Scan 1..5.0.11.nkm APN:182-,0.057 WILSEY::HAM �.R.a..,.NW.J. LANDS OF STIRLING 20030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA P STIRLING FAMILY s 11/n/, WONT WY eurrlr AogeweDnq.Survey',s vl.,���nn2 D+W+ w ®63. $ C/OAVIGALEMCLOUGHUN ,I/ISI/ 1pR�^��W-^Tm Nattier` • � , ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 4252C OMAO ROAD ' N/,n. �A`x`.6r W..Wnr63 96n ARM.a 9.40Snot3 �� V.nstructi,- ,mr KOLOA.HI 96756 PHONE: 608)652-0427 2 1R/N/w rm6m131•NAP Mbar. 6.rW. nava saki.w..,m� I ( N/15/1.1 ao.nnr I.SUS,. 65034921st ''.4'w' M' :I BYLOS ALTOS IC lS SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA ,,,...,,,,,,,,,=...,, I1 a illir i .}'. it•, G6 SLOPES TABLE COLOR SLOPE X LOT 2 I s 0 i LOT 4 '. LOT 1 IC-m 1 • - '---1.41........s441••• 4i. 0111 40-55 I 401,„ _- _ ., .. --,......,........._ ___ ....-7/ : l' 91 ,,f' - t a;- LOT j 1�� ,� I . ijiti . O j; • • _ • dr K.,/.; ..... 4\ . Nr „ • 00116 3 � a6 t fedi i i r \ bc j tz,\ V s,.�� I AllrlikbHOI''; - 1 519.,Sa roe a eater 0/a ' -- A .N s,..30.0"L n45� . - • f • -- 0 ' - i • ILI D 25 50 100 150 1.74e15 • 6 _...Seale:P=SO' o7•s t 01553, M APR 182-10-057 "'111' LANDS OF STIRLING O STIRLING FAMILY 6 as/W' mw.•v ZOOM .• „`i less . 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA CIO AVIGALE MCLOUGHLIN < 11/1y14 WOK WI mfr. Jr ' Not.401. --' SLOPE CLASSIFICATION MAP .- 4252C OMAO ROAD , 44/0/14 10140114 PP 311414141. I x A/an+ 110.11111414 110 3141111114. P I,n4110CLi KOLOA,HI 96756 PHONE(808)652-0427 I 0/13/1+ A111l.W1 Nr MINIM 111 .?w 4. .yam m w. LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA CLAM - r 1 A /6--, r Z y'I 11 ' I W 1 f ' N 1-171 T i __ __ .�, r•' APPR NI<E PAVEMENT MOM 4 �\• / 1 I narmlT1„,,,,,,i„:„.„________.' \\ - 6U' li J J I, L J 1 Jl , .3.00 oAC.A I I I 04.<40' 1 ---••••\ PEDESTRIAN t l I I J• h Y'to NI n a EWESTNIAN At nexna 1 A ' C'. ta0 ) b J 0 Nr I \ / 711 /9- �HI1, Lo�--rA'tx_MAr pfd LOT a 1 ( ,./.-..""7774 r',�},1� LOT 2 Lx P[NcyT P) vw. / 1 f115t1Rn1 tit, S A A% 1 I.OT! 106 A LST �• � / \ / J z 3 u�ios yo°.cv < 1 I S J wr ro L0F:1 oe r o-, \ - ao'PROPOSED \ 1 1' YEN ' - / ° j 1\ n. fro L.LA,,,, J PATHWAY EASL =„ „ 1 240 AC • mac. I . $P` 30 PROPOSED 11 k. r -- ` -- PA7NWAi GSCMLNII� 3 \ LOT 9 p -�--- LOTS 2738i / {} s 37.c .Loi/ 1 1� s7e.az - S6/6 n ` • =`1U� -r.os/ TOP/. a / _ - tt lUi 1.99 \ LJ! •1.19 \ 5=370% yATAOOIC MEED WR CL L0T6 / /� JI _ I 1.30 9 --- V x.442 Ac 5.30 ' >a u \�I... J' 1.. -- ‘:A1::;,,,,-,,, TA.........>. �G/ / 77-77-7-"r________•=___ MiMA1!SMTYT j-------- i rioresEn 1 \ / • N \y t`�/,- ___ / MEN I'It SART — /v, 1 Y� SPACE \ . ' / / •t ,,w �� ENAMOR ' xr mArzc m 20' 1 EASEMENT _ 75 Pfl4PQ�EQI511'J�oDY 7� S1}M1'J PA/NMAr -iT1 ,o rEOE51NMN A �$.EEnNEC A EpAESIEMM T.4._.9 EAM �. PAUMAr GSD+ENt I - 107N' ,M.q `� i-� 442 as Ac QUNTRY ' pa ICOUNTRY.lu A< WM. \ , /1 \ -__ - `, 0 50 00 200' 300 f 1 II MMI ` ale:f'= 00' i / ,PN:182.10.057 :II ,pars .. LANDS OF STIRLING WIs ,g 5 HAM wars 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS.CA Y STIRLING FAMILY s m/7yu MUM Mu swnu-- - En Sur v..,a Pl,nnana ,255 .+o+o 4 C/OANGALEMCLOUGHIJN 7 9" "'� ADJACENT EASEMENTS 11/17/12 MUM•n NNNmu rr' Y . 7 Y/17/I. WAIN NAr' '' A 3130 L.Sava 550.,San.100 `d N7147Mr pw, 4252C OMAO ROAD San Menlo.CA 94403 ''eSITUCN . KOLOA,HI 96756 PHONE:(808)652-0427 7 1"0/17 Mama*re PAM( 9So3492151 „% TM° '° °®% (OPEN SPACE AND PATHWAY EASEMENTS) -- I jf7 I 06/13/I3 No s.. mai Amason nrso7rn.L 3N. o.l. ullwv.o.Lw.9Aa. 4 .nW9Yrom,com rsL Ne INr LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA CLARn CAUi:ORNIA p,,,wv7x.mu LEGEND . 'I - � / DRAINAGE WNAOFYCM AREA .__ 1 _- _ \\,,9 —- USEIIEM UNE OR SETBACK - EAU UNE \cill "�"yam •` / AEG-ahem A • • • I LOGE M v.vnEM u J St�{f-REiuNIHG AREA i �—sry'� - • .~\ --- — ROAD CENTERLINE Ss10�F �.- • • • S. I\ \ I • \ —x—x--x—r x— EXISTING FENCE 4 1 LOT 3, • c.---- , LOT 2 • I • uNwcpR ,, PROPOSED WAR?*IN I �`� 4. • • LOT y PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCE 4919 11- I• • • • \ : SO PROPOSED 50/00910 PIP[ 22 PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH 1 \ \\ • .1 • • ):i: CNISPNG LANDSLIDE AREA 1 I -- - :•:• pI i TREE TO OE REMOVED PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT S A� • ,F p PROPOSED Darr I / .' ':'4 • ••':; w .- R4.`V .tee /. I I I PROPOSED BIORCIENTION AREA PRrvalE STORY ORM EASEYEM /% ' .� ' ` I -—_——'- R • I I I PROPOSED seu-RETAINING AREA • 1 17 r / _l PROPOSED$TORY GRAIN LOT 5 �\ ••••• •• . \ �''N. ,,i \" LOT 9 - `3 —_—_ -- , ••, ..�—.__-. \ • ,,t / c.L2DL-4EiuwNG AREA _ QYflBLOry ISE? yR44 R 2 we BOY 1M,� • t AREA I.J00 SF OORETEMRM'AREA �1.0.� P IBMaKV6'E)CCE55 LASEYLN_``�` '_ • LOT 8 • 1 14-\,1,..1,„.. i Y10S _ \ .J 7_" . \ i - 61OaErEM10N A \E' y WI L V Y / (l 020 �A3p_ J �. -- - 01019 VARIES HATCH 120.02 CO 1 \•to f - / �- v MMM.._44 SF ARF?y-\ \ \ \\ — BDAA^ „f y., - t✓/.. \moi • '2 �'- r� r .<. .-� 't'' A BO 442 0 �� •° ,/Y DAENTKw vAulT ��— fi I \ ` 'IA� `L ,I'•Y-e 6 DIA x 19• I . A t remota >a TAR vim// A �,,' •10 - Du:s PL. / L ', IB °* ORE ENTION&HYDROMODIFICATION 1 a AlI 2 \T i O •I.xi: BI T 7�� -., �•,y �' I 100:. -EG Qo.o: �f ' O q `� v f }' BIORFTENfION T_R�/IfyLN A PoCLUMOUT _—� •� - TB WTIN GAP 1113A F fi \ .c �"�_ LACI,Im.__offe6A-_Dectio�RA1 _ I `tM" - I �' I — ' 6 I I ll 0. 0 25 50 100 150 _'` .,,c,._______________--- �- - •:—_ 80 PER GRADING PLAY '� '°�— ----- ------------ Scali 1'33 SO' _ b��_ —_—' r--"------z'___„- DRAINAGE YDA IYP SURF, WP.SURF. Z SELF-RETAINING REA REQUIRE BIOTREATMENT SOIL WITH YANAREYEM DIRECTED TO DIRECTED TO PERCOLATION RATE BETWEEN (IYP.SURi.) AREA AREA REQUIRED je �° / / AREA SELF-RETAINING BIORETENTION PERCOLATION w/XR-son BACIVILL AS )',_ '2 ROAD OAl M/A M/A 111 OM YIX AND PLANTINGS AS ' 8 LOT 1 16,200 1 1.6300 1.66M1 IS,SIM 37M SHOWN AND SPECIE/ED ON ' .1 I / LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS 11 i 8 {OT 2 Is.9Wtl s.216:r e.132.r LAW 379n LOT J 15.450 0 3.21 Dal 6,62001 B,BlOa0 353.0 ;�� t---___ l0C 117,27Mf3.326.? 5.33601 10,53M /2MTOE3IS.tlINDalDal15,121?? 63.LI `1-PERE PVC UNOCRDRAIN /��, \ 10 mR YIN VISWCCM YCYRRAM WRN pERFOflAilgxS DOWN, IDT 1 9.323Rf0a! Oat9,3011 S1Ia/___________A JbLOT/ 41000ORIOsf B.6Bbf SOd 12'CUSS II PCRYUBIE DRUHINVERipUN155.SEC SIORN LOT6 _ B,IOONORIDal3.500,? 721HYAIFRYLE7�n A LOC 9 B.IaON 2.SOWI A.6aar 3,300?? IIW/ TOTAL NRIIirtNnoN AREA REOINR00 3.320s1 BIORETENTION SECTION(TYPICAL) Seal*MS • APN.182-10-057 WILSEY:: gR1ER w JI'It LANDS OF STIRLING sti WILSEY: HAM W• STIRLING FAMILY , 00/0/15 MUM YY MINIM r E •4" IYP ', 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA 7 C/O AVIGALE MCLOUGHLIN 1 11/0/14 WOK NV Salm �9mee,In9.su..eyl„q&P1a.m1q W ress ' 4252C()MAO ROAD 9 66/17/11 IMAMS YIP swarm A• 3130 Le Sawa Street Suite 100 7' Nobler P a DNEr 1 KOLOA,HI 96756 PHONE:(008)652-0427 0 16A•/O MUM. YAPS "LL San Mateo.CA 94403 CossIructloti Pa„RANW a STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN �Tm 33/15/U MIAOWW YV•••.• 0503492151 ��e W .?p P No a• WwWA Onototm Jr. Isaynam coin -cYt R a• LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA c:' 1.1311,AIIA CALIFORNIA o1.1311 m• 1, +'6 Tf Y'FF!0 I/h IU r H ` 1 0 25 50 100 150 �. PROP MAIN 1 e; •a 50 I � t 16'���-•-.--. ,1 r- x .--p1-'--- '= h 4 1t a fi Irrz ap'/ i5. 5 • t \ 1 4 . Y •e LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT4 si *i •_ LOT 1 v � / L, 4.111l_G3 442 r-i 94 -, ' r 140. k °/ ;11 t •k t •.. 6 Ii 544 • ti g ii 540 / *4*050DE AREA r0.7,--,, /�•�'�\7�r � 5. .:,%/5'° LOT 5 ^^ ✓i 532 % �� Kik `� LOT9 /�/ 521 , .- �^5- / l ��i i`t,. t \� c ` • /11' /7 s 524 LOT ' f 520 - {{��It F;os��r-1���MEt/i:7 ; 506 ■■■.■■■.MO...............�..�71�■..L,.TSf 1IE=111'•tl-SM1�1WIRV1....... 516 g 512 a\ E11•11=li11•18111M1•.MIIIIII!!1.ION=111111111t4l.11111111•1118=tdtf+■ 512 0! .MC_ttt�EJI t 11118111MSf11111111111t11811yMttt�l81111ttt=r-Sl2111111tttElll1111t,11•-508 �����Nti....�i • i'Mit���?71M9���L-���LNII�ME�L9182�M1�ii111•■ 508 G•1111MEJISE IIIIIIISCMMIIIIIIIIIt 1OMIIIIIIIIIIIIF 1Crf11111MMI.911'■ �� � ���� i-lNIIVIN a91����r���IJ•���trlxa��a11�■ 504 LEGEND O C m1;.moi71ts':IN11111111111•h.memem1181MMINI11111111PJvEt7IIIMIs'S1t"l O 500 CAI.....NIIIIl9CT1•.M111111ISEIli 1i1111MI1N1iIIIIIIMIIIIM11111•1•1118=1.44ii1iMIMIEii.■ 500 1 — —- L Mit — SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY �1:>_ 111�ifiitc• •21ii��lirrJ��N-z���ra:31itiift!➢v/■ 496 —--—-- f$ 496 SII�Q� YfilL NMA Urlyl�7��1:-cummomU1���F771i��lJ4l 492 1l919\'�51ldl;-S:�L�MI�C1' �� F•Fati�r.7-11i��10_.11S1M1i�1-HrF. 492PROPERTY UNE & L�i00O04 w �Ea. -:ai➢YtltiOiltf•�� �II��E-22210 iLi3L�tL MFANT i����.111l �wfi:�E 488 1HIHIIIIIIUII1ilti1Z i __Iiii!_iI_l_ IaIII���.. : l:: �i� - DUNatPAYENEM ■�I�1lJY^9:1� =I I9^......t7.. �,....�....,lli�.mitlll■ 176 . rr11 111M�t13.".`�Us �trstl��if�2Y....Ii1)•�I[�]�'-.,j� ��1�*:�4914tt:/;'.111 471 472 ■■■■■■.■...........1i'Et...EWMIPI ri..��fI•r23.......��...h1.A/1 ■.... 472 ROAD CENTERLINE !68 ...■...m......... muti miumewL27f P�aner tA........Gi7...YiY30...... 488 GUTTER I 466 4 D9 � R �� >Sa ac x y r.}a y x_a,=• �v-� - a$j �S �— 13 a44 j ?€ 3 " I n73 3 STORM DRAIN 7M0 1000 1+00 10+00 10440 12442 1700 14000 15+00 0600 17+00 1800 19+00 10+00 § mg MALE STA.7+0010 STA.20+00 t APN:182-10-057 WILSEY::HAM t5" '`'� 4 JP LANDS OF STIRLING Oda ~„`""/'w 28030 NATOMA ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA 8 @ STIRLING FAMILY »/u/19 =ran wr a�er0i r¢SS' P.,...A C/OAVIGALEMCLOUGHUN ��/'•/1• '�^•TM��1-^I•• #1mHoIer - STORM DRAIN PROFILE ; M/1I II =ASK YY MOM . D13D a Sala Sweat Sine 100 �� par 5/N�s Axa 42520 OMAO ROAD / San Malao.CF 90003 .nstructI. Pa,..w_wm1 KOLOA.HI 96756 PHONE:(808)652-0427 IO/aa/s1 nm11u1r NV SWIM r . Tan " i'+' M/1—z_ M101.W1 MO mama1 850349 2151 �� wasaynam corn ?cr oaf 11w LOS ALTOS HILL, SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA Ma wrn,20113 } I � APPENDIX B i , • HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT r 1 • i l I !' r-� 0 V4 0 Planningfor Success. HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER, • CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG, AND SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE STIRLING SUBDIVISION PROJECT Los Altos Hills, California • PREPARED FOR Town of Los Altos Hills August 2015 E..MC PLAN U.G GROUP INC. A I.AllPtXSE PLAN TTG 8a )ESXG'11 FIRM 301 Lfghthousts Avenue Suites C 1VIonterey .Califoraia. 93940 Tel$3i-649-7.799 Fax.831.649.8899 www.em cp1ann3ng.coin I } �^1 I I HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT j FOR THE CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG, AND SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE Stirling Subdivision Project Town of Los Altos Hills PREPARED FOR Town of Los Altos Hills ti r Cynthia Richardson j 26379 Fremont Road, • Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel 650.941.7222 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 -� Tel 831.649.1799 Stefanie Krantz krantz@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.corn August 2015 This document was produced on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Description 1-2 r i 1.2 Site Description 1-2 1.3 Natural History of the California Tiger Salamander 1-7 1.4 Natural History of the California Red-Legged Frog 1-7 1 1.5 Natural History of the San Francisco Garter Snake 1-9 2.0 METHODS 2-1 3.0 RESULTS 3-1 3.1 Project Area Description 3-1 3.2 CTS Occurrences in the Vicinity of the Project Area 3-8 3.3 CRLF Occurrences in the Vicinity of the Project Area 3-8 3.5 SFGS Occurrences in the Vicinity of the Project Area 3-13 3.6 Habitat Assessment 3-13 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4-1 5.0 LITERATURE CITED 5-1 Appendices Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B USFWS CRLF Site Assessment Data Sheet tl EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. I � Figures Figure 1 Project Location 1-3 Figure 2 Proposed Subdivision Map 1-5 Figure 3 Habitat Map 3-3 Figure 4 Map of Upland Aestivation Habitat 3-5 Figure 5 Habitats Within 1.0 and 1.24 Miles of Project Area 3-9 Figure 6 Special Status Wildlife Occurrences 3-11 Iy f y_�r, II EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. r , I .0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence } or Absence of the California Tiger Salamander [United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003], and the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red- legged Frog(USFWS 2005), EMC Planning Group has prepared this Habitat Assessment Report for the California Tiger Salamander ("CTS," Ambystoma californiense), California Red-Legged Frog ("CRLF," Rana draytonil), and San Francisco Garter Snake ("SFGS," Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) for the Stirling Subdivision Project located in the Town of Los Altos Hills in Santa Clara County, California(Figure 1, Project Location). The property is located within the known distribution of CRLF, which is federally listed as Threatened and state listed as a Species of Special Concern, CTS, which is federally and state listed as Threatened(USFWS 2002, CDFW 2015), and SFGS, which is federally and state listed as Endangered (CDFW 2015). Under current USFWS guidelines, any project with potentially suitable habitat within the distribution of CRLF and CTS species must include site assessments i for potential CTS and CRLF within 1.24 miles and 1.0 miles respectively of the edge of the project site. In addition to state and federal listings as endangered, the SFGS is also considered a Fully Protected Species by the CDFW. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for scientific research. EMC Planning Group biologists Andrea Edwards and Stefanie Krantz conducted a biological reconnaissance survey on April 13, 2015. Suitable upland habitat and marginal wetland habitat for CTS and CRLF was identified. After reviewing recorded locality data for CTS, SFGS, and i r CRLF, as well as range maps and aerial photos of the surrounding landscape, it was determined ? that a site assessment would be required for CTS and CRLF. Stefanie Krantz conducted biological survey work within the project boundaries and within 1.24 miles of the project site from July 21 —22, 2015. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site consists of an 18.18 acre parcel in the northwest portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills, at the terminus of Charles Avenue, west of Natoma Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 182-10-057). The property contains two residences, a pump house, and outbuilding structures. The applicant is seeking approval of a tentative map to subdivide the parcel into nine lots. One home, the pump house, and outbuilding structures will be demolished. The other home would be retained '— on one of the proposed lots, such that a total of eight new single-family homes could be developed on the eight remaining lots. Figure 2, Proposed Subdivision Map, contained in the applicant's tentative map plan set, shows the proposed lotting plan, proposed access via a planned extension of Charles Avenue, and other relevant project site and proposed project information. Lot sizes would range from a minimum of 1.03 acres, with the smaller lots located along the eastern site boundary adjacent to existing lots of similar size, to 3.34 acres. The larger lots are located on the edge of the property closest to the steep forested slopes around an upper tributary of Matadero Creek. The proposed nine-lot residential subdivision includes an open space easement over seven acres (or about 40 percent of the site). The easement is intended to protect areas of steep slopes and vegetation located along the upper tributary to Matadero Creek. The easement would tie together other existing open space easements on adjacent, off-site residential lots located along Matadero Creek. The proposed project also includes easements for pathways that would integrate the site with existing pathway easements located along Matadero Creek and along existing lot lines on properties to the east and north of the site. The proposed —` subdivision map shows a 75-foot wide pathway easement along the northern property line within which a meandering pathway would be constructed. At its western terminus, the pathway would cross Matadero Creek via a proposed new footbridge to connect to an existing off-site pathway easement. In the northeastern corner of the site,the 75-foot easement narrows to 20 feet and connects to the other off-site pathway easements. I .2 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Watershed in the southwestern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area in the Town of Los Altos Hills. The property is vacant except for two existing single-family homes, a pump house, several outbuildings, and associated infrastructure (well and septic system). The property generally slopes downward to the northeast from its highest point of about 510 feet in the northeast corner to a low of about 310 feet along the westernmost reach of a tributary to Matadero Creek, which forms most of the western and southern boundary of the property. For ease of reference, the tributary is referred to as Matadero Creek in this habitat assessment. The site contains mainly non-native grassland and oak woodland; coyote brush scrub, mixed chaparral, and willow riparian woodland plant communities are also present. Photos of the site are presented in Appendix A. 1-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. C - ;`\ . --) 4, Foot `-"r - ':'.i. i I x),--- '-..- k l6:tcli,%, i 'I a _ ��.� QagPalo Alto ast�a '1 — -- Los? I { ' Felt _ — -`_: �''Alto — { Lake__ _ -7:I I Aras f i r trayero tea .y / • --_, HJH L_`-i" • r� `.,`-„ i, Fremont Rd, 1 Arastradero ,� --/ l �� ^< I y J Greek PYoject o , ' LH . ocation 2- H - - - — - _ti.� a AGS: ,•\ i stoF� "„ ' _ �'-`� 1 tea` �a � r--- 1 — a C1� r i Charles �' __ - ` r --Ave:. !. Reservoir-y --2-1'-----------r1 ,' i' �' J'T�_ 7 Los_Altos Hills- Francisco !, - ' -„ - - iModestoi '� t i_ .J ,_, • i f.7jectLocatson ti. yti }}San Jose \-.---- ice ' Los Ii, Alt Hills 1 . o� .. .'"-- Santa-`Cru _ • -'i' Monterey.,J JSlifias'-. o; - Regional Location ffl, l J Source:Esri 2014 0 3,500 feet Figure 1 --, Project Location 0 0 0 Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS 4, HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 � This side intentionally left blank. , iR 1-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. I ' pTE1WC PATHWArIpIdS g,, LANE ue,J<UMC LAI E - I EI F 1A A?LAyY[ 13,11"'.' c V `\ \J UU2 f/•// -�laa lO _.I Ipo�.•,_,w--+-..E« y aor.' � u��,] ,:m. \\``11��((}}g •`12n2+ c • 1111 • ""'"O w BB1' • ,,• • /,2 . •'CSI[ 7 r ;( 60 •�9 I]] C 1!• - 129 128 f I� f'�: 1 •jvEEx micro') I '1 I12�' NEWHBBRY iQl[\- 6 \� 'r 7) ."y( I I ei Twor m Br REMOVED A 411.EDIWRH* OE PERMEABLE FENCE 1'.- I )IJ] I] I2 °i 93W I • .1. / \-,A tT • P N61 4 I LOT 3• I •:, .j • LOT 2 fA6 his: a r. I I ,' I iL!u 1 I 4 m u • h�',21,... PnDP.MmAr NL d LOT 1 "I ®® 1.15 AC • I :5 I— f sa6x •Is1 FDeu �9 m uj wo r a s1.15 A% IX'- W t.6 s •,s•ue �]ax 1 s l ` "D_Ac e ,I I I I'..�i�l -- _ ISA 11�• ti ,.wF I Oe / B I�1 TwP�on+r ilMHcd a €• , 4�A _M I\i _-� I I -. •PF1. - s •i'S7 IT°'. :�/ it ' "'`-/-" •• `i /•‘.•1` �. PROP WAIER MAIN 55 • / ,, ' ,\ :-.4.'. I i 201MOO LITEMExL, �� ,66 ..... .. ..111144. •'''•..„ \�1AI 01 °] !15.8]50•CY00. /.ti. / /. . ._ I \\.N I mow_- .�_�., s y l y ,L-�e� c.... B _ .�• ,a ,• FI I1:V I y � wl�l� 1 / ' yy4' i ;a ✓ / ,11,,•V II (`��)--- �- •: ��� • � srpucp��B . ., /�� � � LEGEND ' SCI / .iTa 'ea6ieMB . ` � v 7Q,.er / �I __ BOUNDARY ..: �y .--47v-et,4. \ 2 `` �, p / /' ' J(N/ -- SUBDIVISION BOUN M PROPOSED WATER MAI -LOT-5-'• E ,,,,,27.05...4,-.41 � a S--\ -- T r l. •,.1,,,/?,-.,•4 r - PROPERTY LINE Ssrw PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN - BBd+e BU. IA]AC 1 1 ? ,,-'.'..•••,,vi:'.." / a � _ - EASEMENT LINE OR SETBACK ,Ir PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH IN AC I_. 28 DX 1--A r*y • ,_'=�T 3�7 • \ 27� / `�: r/.../0., FAULT UNE SO PROPOSED SUBDRAIN PIPE 1- l \ \ ` / • a✓ EDGE OF PAVENEM/ /... I �>.t. ��C '1\43, `r`®' ` / y / —- - ROAD CENfERl1NE (F, •i EXISTING IANDSUDE AREA dIs s r •••J•,,,,,••••„.,,...„'�* s `I `I \�'s•Ii, z+'AC siL \Sc / f r % EXISTING BUILDING 'T.q NIPOR ={L,- ./,' 1 \ s lA.az \ L e TArs7IxO xOEIsrX TOP w wrumo Al 8! TREE TO BE REMOVED „L�� MIN Lwl[a,DCAt c J , ;-�.' wAuvr,cns 1 r \ \I wr�((.Be ��\ i Yet e.awrr ro �' /.•.�/ cam Butt _x—x—x—x—x— EXISTING FENCE . 'RECOMMENDATIONS , (� � Cm IlENE1HNE0. `��,1 osEPTsmEv�"'/ /ati�• r. / PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT - ear,.�\T .f,,,,P !:•1,..,I _-,i \ ,,,,:/_A�, , '�\, IOCrBI®ANtt wltmH c�f �Y y' o£05Erfgrl RD cNlrr PROPOSED INLET 1 :...„,& o �� /6B 'ITB ]A,I ' 1 ,4qpp r, MONTH S,isy s l\`G____avoir'in I¢un` 4, ; ,� 4>-i/' l� r / a`'a' z.e.nc .� \I 1 'N 1▪ rola n\ 7. w l ., k //�p T � .:., ff I I �`�� ; s�lO.B /1, \ m BEABU2A?F'�4- .1'4,,V-/... .- ]-'9• 'tee-„,_....,:'...111 I� 1 I EUhI.2/ s t I,II I miPaORoavao icrlro\� � j-- a;T r`� d i -�_. Y 7, � ►I .a , / /1,X. \ /,1'r1M1H DNED. r'4l—_- /ye r • �i�.IND�� aunD°+c /,, \ \ � f/ 3i1_ . IS' IV tom' tl„ I �� -�i^ 1`1 .,Put aorta � 1� \ - �i/4i ✓/yc° // - TYPE 11 B 1. T -�►I 1 �„ ". 1• I\\I -1.. 1\ �'-1 `� •/>, z ,1 / PATHWAY* quq�ii I L. '- I 0 -EEDRAwArlsYLlc .I 11 --.)-op Or MITA°.` •\ , • ! \>// `,;\ \z;>5e rUr+Ln oY 3-IDx �q'�i K\ - I -/ 1 ,1 �_� QO DD E 1B3p° ? AIPHOLYA TNN or z�l a ~� �, .... sr���' ., _ ..PRD. [a' - .vALi' "_1 / 1• °.1\ / • // nanx0PATow \ vT ,..„. s B EP �� '-1 I _ / LOCA *PLEASE NOTE,THE PATHWAY WILL E S ERATED '4th. !i , 1\ »- 4 0 T P .-. - �.-/�� .� ., �. � NOTE n \ FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT WHERE FEASIBLE. �� '-a.1 .1. i '--1 L 1” -S / .,-. ,SEC SHEET A FOR STREET PROFILE 28 PERMEABLE AC PAVEMENT TO MPLY WITH SECTION C.3 I —I I y.._ - \ asp;'� ... / / ,/ 1110000OmoH z SWERE °`DIE°0. co STREET SECTION A-A ''''.-1,-..;.. .; .i! DETECTS THAT CANNOT BE ARM Scut:1'e 40'Nod xanicl =^5 1�.= "\-----'� '"--- -'j..:;:'..-'''7r-''1 : /, ><.;,. / .bora WRx MODERATE MOOR. 1 PAINWA7 FASEIIIX7. .3..11'ID'D�• ‘3Q-.. / AaTREE MN SNOT MUST IN VIGOR ym • 1,--r —__ ��'--%'/'- w for/• / 5=A xru]Nr WEORDus TREE '....g. 1• �- BRIGEAr� ,_.' maw BANK .-✓N i 1 •Ai 2 /� N� I I NOTE 1.-- .. ,, I. SEE BREOT A FOR 515055715015E L 510 01 RUNDir 0!AR1A'OIUAL LOTS WAl BE DIRECTED TO THE *'s1•I.. 11-•••`.. 00WHMLL SLOPE OF PROPERTY AHD DISPERSED.DETAem DESIGN OF l -4 1 F-_, — THE I/WOWAS LOTS SILL BE OOTERE@!m Al THE TIME OF SIZE fizi61u1fY;.'�/ 3. 510007 SURFACE IMO TI¢DWI 5131114. WILL 50 DETAILED DESIGN OFBIL A.C. •61_26.. - _ I PAVOIG,111111 NO STORM PERMEABLE 80410200 S APICY WITH THE 05005555A -.�.0.20 0 1110 2. 1'0' _ . . �4ftn SI PAVING,010001 T TS ARE{WWI BE 40 PERMEABLE AT \= Source:Wilsey Ham Engineering Surveying and Planning 2014 0 125 feet - Figure 2 I .® ® ® Proposed Subdivision Map Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF,CTS and SEGS HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT i 1 .3 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER The CTS Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as Federally Threatened August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47212-47248). Critical Habitat for the Central Valley Population of CTS was designated on August 23, 2005 (70 FR 49379-49458). Draft Recovery Plans are available for the Santa Barbara DPS and the Sonoma County DPS. The USFWS initiated a 5 year review for the Central Population on May 25, 2011 (USFWS 2011). CTS requires two primary habitat components: aquatic breeding sites and upland terrestrial estivation or refuge sites. Adult CTS spend most of their time underground in upland subterranean refugia. Underground retreats usually consist of California ground-squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheya) or Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows, but also under logs and piles of lumber(Holland et al. 1990, Barry and Shaffer 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). CTS primarily uses California ground squirrel burrows as upland refuge sites (Loredo et al. 1996, Trenham 2001). Suitable upland and estivation habitat for CTS typically includes grazed annual grassland containing small mammal burrows or other underground habitat within 2,200 feet of potential aquatic breeding habitat where there are no obvious barriers to dispersal (USFWS 2003). CTS emerges from underground to breed and lay eggs primarily in vernal pools and other ephemeral water bodies.Adults migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events, between November and February(Shaffer and Fisher 1991, Barry and Shaffer 1994), and return to upland habitats after breeding. Ponds, depressional pools, vernal pools and other wetlands are used by CTS to breed and lay their eggs. These sites must remain inundated for at least 10 weeks, the minimum time needed for larvae to complete metamorphosis. Permanent human-made ponds (e.g., stock ponds), reservoirs, and small lakes that do not support predatory fish or bullfrogs, are also used (Zeiner et al. 1988). Eggs are laid singly or in clumps on both submerged and emergent vegetation and on submerged debris in shallow water (Stebbins 1972, Shaffer and Fisher 1991, Barry and Shaffer 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Larvae develop rapidly, and metamorphosis begins in late spring or early summer (Loredo- Prendeville 1995). Juveniles disperse from aquatic breeding sites to upland habitats after metamorphosis(Storer 1925, Holland et al. 1990). 1 .4 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA RED- LEGGED FROG CRLF is the largest native frog in the western United States, ranging from one and a half to five inches in length. The abdomen and hind legs of adults are largely red; the back is characterized EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-7 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT by black flecks and irregular dark blotches on a brown, gray, olive, or reddish background color. CRLF populations have been found from coastal Sonoma County and western Glenn County south along the coast to Baja California Norte, and from near Redding (Shasta County) south along the Sierra Nevada foothills to Fresno County(Storer 1925; Jennings and Hayes 1994). CRLF occur primarily in perennial or ephemeral ponds, pools, and streams where water remains long enough (14-28 weeks) for breeding and metamorphosis of tadpoles (Fellers 2005; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Specific breeding sites include streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, -- deep pools, backwater areas, dune ponds, lagoons, and estuaries. Habitats with the highest densities of CRLF often contain dense emergent or shoreline riparian vegetation closely associated with fairly shallow (< 0.5 meter) to deep (> 0.5 meter), still or slow-moving water (USFWS 2002). Emergent vegetation, undercut banks, and semi-submerged rootballs afford shelter from predators and structure on which to attach egg masses(USFWS 1997). The types of riparian and wetland vegetation that seem to be most structurally suitable are willows (Salix spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.). However, CRLF often successfully breed in artificial ponds with little or no emergent vegetation, and have been observed in stream reaches with only sparse riparian vegetation. Predators such as bullfrogs and predatory fishes, particularly centrarchids (i.e., sunfishes and basses), may feed on the larvae at higher levels than naturally co-evolved predators (Jennings and Hayes 1994); thus, CRLF occupy habitats that are nearly or completely free of these invasive predators. The timing of breeding varies geographically, but generally occurs between November and late April(Fellers 2005). CRLF may disperse from their aquatic breeding habitats to small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, or other refugia during the dry season. However, if there is sufficient water at their breeding location, they may remain in aquatic habitats year-round instead of moving to adjacent uplands. Dispersal and migration of CRLF can be highly variable depending on site conditions and individual frogs. Fellers and Kleeman (2007) found that some CRLF spend little time in a breeding pond before moving to adjacent uplands, while others will remain in the same pond until it has almost completely dried. Dispersal between breeding sites, upland sites, and nonbreeding aquatic habitats tends to be straight-line movements regardless of vegetation or topography (Bulger et al. 2003), though movement along waterways has also been documented (Fellers and Kleeman 2007). During wet seasons, frogs can move long distances between habitats, traversing upland areas or ephemeral drainages. Dispersal distances are typically less than 0.5 km (0.3 mile), with a few individuals moving 2.0-3.6 kilometers (1.2-2.2 miles) (Bulger et al. 2003). Seeps and springs in open grasslands can function as foraging habitat or refugia for wandering frogs(Jennings and Hayes 1994). 1-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. C`1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT -E 1 .5 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE SFGS requires fresh water marsh habitat with a diversity of habitat components including emergent vegetation such as cattails (Typha spp.), spike rush(Eleocharis spp.), and water plantain (Alisma spp.). Where marsh vegetation does not exist, SFGS is known to inhabit aquatic habitats surrounded by willows (Salix spp.) and blackberry (Rubus spp.), however, these conditions are only suitable if there is minimal clearance between overhanging vegetation and the ground. An open water component to the wetland is also important as this is required for their primary prey I� (USFWS 2006). SFGS requires the presence of both Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) and CRLF breeding populations, and upland areas with burrows or other refugia (USFWS 2006). They have small home ranges and remain in close proximity to suitable aquatic habitat;typically within one to two hundred meters of pond foraging habitats and wintering upland sites. However, they may follow their prey up and down riparian corridors. During winter they retreat to hibernacula(USFWS 2006). SFGS occupy a limited geographical range, and enter a zone of intergradation with the conspecific California red-sided garter snake (T sirtalis infernalis), a widespread and common species. The local subspecies has less specific habitat requirements. This subspecies is typically ( associated with permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water, usually areas of shallow water and heavily vegetated shores (Stanford 2013). They are known to occur in grassland, riparian woodland, oak woodland, and coniferous forest. They feed on a wide range of prey items including frogs, salamanders, small fish, invertebrates, rodents, and birds. The local subspecies mates in the late winter to early spring, and the young are born in summer to early fall. They also have a dormancy period during prolonged periods of hot and dry weather(Stanford 2013). ij Stanford University prepared the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan, Revised March 2013, which includes detailed information about the intergrade zone for this species. The Habitat Conservation Plan documents that the population found at Stanford University 5.42 miles north of the site (CNDDB Occurrence # 59) is within the intergrade zone. (Note that the location information for SFGS occurrences is sensitive, so it is not presented graphically in this assessment) (Stanford 2013). The Habitat Conservation Plan also notes that the current scientific opinion is that the distribution of SFGS extends from the west-side of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains, along virtually the entire coast of San Mateo County, and north to San Francisco County. The intergrade zone is located on the eastern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains and extends approximately 12 miles from the vicinity of Boronda Lake (Foothills Park) to Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir. The intergrade populations are not considered either the red-sided garter snake subspecies or the SFGS subspecies(Stanford 2013). EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-9 � I 2.0 METHODS �JThe field investigation was preceded by a literature review. Historical CTS records were obtained from a search of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the I Woodside, Palo Alto, Mountain View, La Honda,Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Franklin Point, Big Basin, and Castle Rock Ridge U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles (CDFW 2015), and from a search of the catalogues of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, UC Berkeley (UC Berkeley 2015) for all of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties to encompass the site and the area 3.1 miles from the site boundary. In addition, the VertNet data portal was searched i for museum specimen records(VertNet 2015). Local scientists and consultants were contacted to inquire about known occurrences in the region(Alan Launer and Richard Seymour, pers. corn., July 17 and July 30, 2015). The USFWS Sacramento Field Office was contacted on July 17, 2015 and July 28, 2015 via telephone and e-mail for guidance, however a response was not received. fn To identify suitable habitats within the vicinity, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was queried for all freshwater features within 1.24 miles of the project limits. Additional aquatic features were identified using Google Earth aerial imagery. On July 21 and 22, EMC Planning wildlife biologist Stefanie Krantz conducted the field investigation. The Stirling Property was traversed on foot, and habitat features were mapped and photographed. All suitable habitats within 1.24 miles of the project limits were visited where access was allowed. It was not possible to visit all of the habitat features identified within 1.24 miles of the project limits due to private property and other access restrictions. For aquatic habitat features visited, a datasheet was completed using the template included in Appendix D of the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog(USFWS 2005). Habitats were classified either as ponds or as streams. For pond habitats, parameters recorded included size (approximate length and width), maximum depth, dominant vegetation, substrate, and apparent seasonality (perennial vs. ephemeral). For stream EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT J habitats, bank-full width, maximum depth, stream gradient, presence of pools, dominant vegetation, substrate, apparent seasonality, and a description of the bank were recorded. Due to their length and variable access restrictions, these habitats could not be visited for their entirety r_i within the 1.24 mile buffer area. Segments of streams that were within the project limits were Li visited and assessed, and other accessible representative areas upstream and/or downstream r from these on-site features were visited. Li Li Uri ( ' 2-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1� 3.0 RESULTS 3. 1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION Vegetation Communities The site contains mainly non-native grassland and oak woodland; coyote brush scrub, mixed chaparral, and willow riparian woodland plant communities (Figure 3, Habitat Map). Non- native grassland is dominated by ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) and wild oats (Avena spp.); other common non-native species present include barley (Hordeum murinum), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus var. pycnocephalus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Oak woodland is dominated by coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) with many valley oaks (Quercus lobata); near the creek it also commonly contains California bay (Umbellularia californica), toyon(Heteromeles arbutifolia),blue elderberry(Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), California II j buckeye (Aesculus calfornica), California rose (Rosa californica), and dense western poison oak + (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Coyote brush scrub is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis); other common species present include native California man-root (Marah fabacea), and non-native scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Mixed chaparral is dominated _, by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), and wavy-leaved soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum). Willow riparian woodland is dominated by arroyo willow trees (Salix lasiolepis)intergrading with oak woodland, and also contains a mixture of poison oak, blue elderberry, clematis (Clematis sp.), California blackberry(Rubus ursinus), and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-1 -,i H HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT Upland Habitats The upland areas of the site contain mostly non-native grassland and oak woodland, and encompass the transition zone from the riparian vegetation at Matadero Creek into coast live oak woodland on steep slopes. The southern and western one-third of the site slopes steeply down towards Matadero Creek with slopes of 30 percent or more. As the site levels out, woodland transitions to non-native grassland interspersed with coyote brush scrub and the valley —i oak woodland and non-native grassland described above. Portions of the site had been mowed and disked prior to the July 21, 2015 site visit. A colony of California ground squirrels was found in the upland areas of the site. The ground squirrel colonies start approximately 500 feet from Matadero Creek and encompass approximately 46,750 square feet(Figure 4, Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat, Appendix A, Site Photos). Aquatic Habitats r-- Matadero -Matadero Creek and Tributaries. The primary aquatic habitat on the project site is an upper —' tributary to Matadero Creek. Matadero Creek originates just upstream from the project site. It drains to Mayfield Slough and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. On the project site, the creek channel is lined with willows (Salix lasiolepis), and is deeply incised. The banks are covered with a thick tangle of poison oak (Rhus toxicodendron), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis), Italian thistle(Carduus pycnocephalus), and other woody and herbaceous plants. The site was visited two days after an unseasonal rain storm that occurred during a prolonged drought. A small pool of water was found in the drainage approximately 10 feet long, 2 feet wide, and 2 inches deep. The pool was scanned for amphibians but none were found. Algal mats and water striders(Gerrus sp.)were seen in the pool suggesting that a small amount of groundwater seepage may occur. This portion of the stream is listed as intermittent according to the National Wetlands Inventory. The tributary drains downslope and drops in elevation from 384 feet at the project site to 262 feet at the intersection of 1-280 over a distance of 1.41 miles. It joins Arastradero Creek at Arastradero Road 0.82 miles downstream, and an unnamed drainage that flows along Page Mill Road 0.30 miles downstream. Ponded water with emergent vegetation (Typha sp.) was found just east of Arastradero Road 0.97 miles (5,100 feet) downstream along Page Mill Road. Sections of willow riparian were found along the drainage near the junctions of additional tributaries. California red-legged frogs have been recorded in this drainage 1.86 miles downstream on the east side of I-280 near Page Mill Road and Carpenter Road (Figure 6). CTS has not been found in this drainage. Large pools of water were found in this portion of the drainage in the vicinity of Carpenter Road. CTS and SFGS has been recorded from the San Francisquito Drainage to the north on Stanford University campus. 3-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1 . '- I • 1 .„. i• ; 1 — ---k , 1 1 ; , ' ' , " "' '1 ' ' ' -•=:.i.• 1•1;-:"1.-•, 1 'i-:--1 ' : ,---- ; ) ; , • ) ; ' J 1 - 1 -—.T-4-- 7.-;,-,.'- 7.7''',7.`11--7177,::. l''. ,"1',""--:'. ) •1- ,_"_ '1.-1,:,. 1' •, 1.71-1 .• • . ' •. -.-.---;''74''- •k.. -• !......til,',-_-„- -• -' H---- 1. •-';,..-A'.71it%.;.:Ar'e .2)147A-. *' '- *;-,..;' ',, ,. - ..:.. ; ;71.1•1*.I.:, 1 ' • - '' ' . — :, _,,,.‘,: .,..:.7t,_,..,,. . , . : ,: .,..)„ ,, ,,, ••• .. • ..--::-, '..-.2.--,....'2.: :..-_--.:::t":.=-L-;=;'4=k•-•,'AI • • • ' : ii,' ti. _ : !,-.••,, .-_,-,..', ', -_ ' -. ' P.• •-:- .-11 ' . 1-' .1'-'1•• A '.-:- 44-4A'•'',1:•-•- -`:- '';1 : • •'I-- ''' .- -- --.,,..-$1--- --.._-=,-,..1.--;"-f- t"-1-'1-1'-77-7 - A ' r lir ); 1,-i..-5„:„,.„t7,..:...-_-:::: •,:.:-.-,-: ,'-'.'-''''_'''s--• -.E-;:f-..-2-',--' r . . -' , .- • .. _ ,.. WI -:, ----:-, .-.,, • - - • .— - .: - .. .--- --------4-'-7- ' ai A ik 4 /Ali, ''ilt.. ; -.,,,... • . ,-_,„ I. A..,.. .4,-), :-....:T.,..-- ...-:.: ',,.,,- - , '• .: :- ' .- .' 1 4 i CI 4 0 4 0A4DA 4 1.--40P)Ne t t*Zif It A to '• 97 -M1-..'. *::;::,.:Ic.:;.-_-1'''''':.-:':;4-'. '--_:- :-..7-, ..,:-. ..-,...-•.' ..• . . . _ . .•'''','„-:'- :-.. '7i.7-,'<' 'I .-;'''' 1-'- ''-''''''-- i'll'' '''4%..litto4V.V4V44, 14701, **ilk ..44, •-_,-f: --..- -..„-,•: -,...-:.......: : .-. .-, -.,,,,-.-,--L.,.: ,::,,,.._,...:::- ,..:-.--..-4,.,,..i- . r . , . .:. . _ ... - 0 ,„,„„0„. •A ‘i di -,_ ‘4114 tre vsb k.,I'L, .._*;,,,,. r,,, ,,,,, ,,-,,.,, ....-,,,,,c.7...../....;„. ..-4-:_;:,-,.-„ ' . ,,..,--,•,:',- .:,,,.., :, •: ,---,--,-.1 -. - -, . . . ..-It- ,' -400040.411,..-N'4046%-il NAV fikV.:if,,i-:,:-.--.`.,.1"..: 4' '2'..: 'f' '1 •-111'.' .'"•"14.: :::, 1.1,'-',-1 ‘''-. :A-1•••4 ' 1 ' "A 4*IP9170t#414k0) '-' '1,f ' . .if;A -,:.:1-•: '_.-,.: '.',..' _•,-. 1-'°1.,::, - '''',il 1 : ''.."'• .1'•.14'f'• A -. , . I ' ','' ,ii... ,=-',.-z.-... • 1, .,.-;';',„.:3-.-- :-' '', !'.:.. "I. , , _, • , -:.. ,::- ' . . ". • ;;„ - .• r. , .4.4 a41 17#'4 4 04r Nisl'• ot .- le; -1-1',P,-.-1_-."t '...' -''-•-•'.'_.. ::: ,--';'..111A,:-..-.,,•:.1.,-,,Ar.' ; 1:._1 1=-. 1.-r. '.•-1_ - - •- - ' - ' '-1-- - fl'IV1144.. F410+4 . 1. 1 'I. ';'7;:-111;":1,' 1,1-..-'5-7i1-.-,-,,,?--:.1."'"?;-•-•1„.'„,-1;:.:1 -1'., '11 . .:.' 1' ' I 0.„4-4.4 il .-i•-"_:f -,,. . ,....,_7,- , -, -.: _ . . ,, . ..b ,,, „__ .. ,i,* 40:4004111040 / ‘1110:400-10111-4 i - ,-, t . 7 _, . ..,,,f 't ,,,,it/z-,4, A ',,''le:1,` *** drW 11, . N' 4` --;-.: '7-4-; 1 ' "-7:•; ' -1--. ..'„,, i •.,:- ',.;2, ,.--.•:!-.. . .--:-.',-, ' '::‘:.';.;:. .:.,.,' -,.,--;- 7.,:,-. •:.; ..-0:' ,4-,,z,- 1 tik.A.)....4 .., +.4A _ : . .... .,,..„:.1 .i &._.......f _41„,,,...... ..., ,,\v .....,,,..,.., ,,,,.„ .......... . „,.... :: :,,-,7-2.: 4 ,,..b_- •,-,•-_,,,_.4,-„ ..:•,;„ ; ._.-•,,, holto y 040,404.v.::_:1 44.. ... I:: ::.:,__.:„.,,:. , , :.• .77:,_... _- ,---.7 ,,,,,•,....,:i11,-? . • •• •,5.--,---, ';'': ...';• '-.! : ''. ._ -'i- q-ec1/4$'.1'.4 ' .-- --'''' * :-. -'•'\ c l''''--.'';'''''' '' H.'''•'1'.A 1 '- 1:1'11-1 rf-' '-.."'• ':441:1)A74V:41111.44A / Ag&tl&1111111.41"414.1A:)t 71: tj64:Ailibk...irlir,,,, ////ffeAlr4WAgr 1,A.ZrtikV4W:iii / :'..e.... '!.';', 1.:..' . ' ''.:..,' ''. .;:., ,. „'Ceit / / 1/ .4k40.40../7/4P,&-. •,„,-wm- r.-tr44p01.40,4.'.:..; 4,'1,°:1' 'r''.-. Le.., ; '' 1 ' ' ':' -'8.,:;', • :. ..•..„.,.:7;:_,.. . :_ . :.1-..„,:-„--.4-:,-,. .... . "40 _4i .,,„ , „ , ,. ., • ,-. „.• ,, • .0 , -- =.„..... :,--0 - --.:.., . -:...s...-_-_-__1_,,,..-,. ••• • .-,--„,-,i i ,, , . . . , . ' -o vvi 47.1 reT41/4 L.404.40 1 .- , . ,. . , . ' :"-' -4,41L 4 ..wA mows,:it.-..- -.y.:: -:_;--:-. -,.:„.....2.-:..-;...-..,:-_... .... . .. . •-- .,:-.. f, ,-„:-,,,.. • -..- -::-, --.,, -- . ,,, 1.7-,..,,;,_,..:_:?,_, , ''';'•;:-7;''':'-';':*;-!--.-Ti'''-;:f7:::YT•,.C., ':': '..-:,,12;:;'''-1,-1,..'•-trAN ','. - ...--f--' '' • ':::":',',:-,74t. . 41411 40#1, ,, 4111e---itp',s', . --,' .'-._2:-.--, • • . '-' •- .: • ' . ' „ . t 5 . ' , '•":' "- ' . '-''.• '-.- f• ••'. - : ;:.", /Cl.;:. '1. . --:\yak... •.,. suar.-.-otydioi,e4; 4,,: : Arm;. ;iii..,„ . • , !.-...__ ,.:„.._,,. „ ,,--,•„.•,_ ., ..„• \ 4400• . • __.• :. ••,. - .... • : :_ - -_,:-..r,.- ;•=,,,,i*t., , -•- ' - ., --4:::,-...._-' 7,),..-k\,,V410 'M'C''•• Nrir.,,,., :--„.-atea. ,..-.. .-,.: ,, a.; ,, ,... ., v. ,1 ., ,...,..,„„,:„ .., ..,, ;,... .,.;_ ., .-.: .7_::-,, ..- -, , -„,. _. .4.:_.L. ,-.„,1S-. ,--1',..\, A- '.- rm,l4•44.- 4-B, e''!';''' • 1 litaL- L..,:-, ' • ,r ''';''' .--'•-•-•-::: ' ' --'-:-''1--.- ''- - •---7::'''';' :':''':' '',.,,.1.• ':.,-,'_•,:.'--.; -;;;::: : '''',;. '2-''' .;,,,:-;:f-.-. ::- ,:,,,11,, ,,,,,,..•; 1 –'.–?,- ‘?...k,,,,,‘ i ._• ,64.-N‘vPimor„„,,,e7.10,"914-77.„ p:-ic-.'S' .;.-„,,,, 'f. -'''.*-',*..-, ;'''t--•-''..:';',.- -',.*.' i.'-:" ** - . . ':. ':'--7 .:'.',-.,..f;.-''- 7":''. ,,.. . . _. ,_ %-‘7,"41W4,1%NiVir,,e, ,-''-'t '''-'--' ': • :,,' -' ' :Ak '.--447.; ,.'„.,„, ---10)..7Zr.s % - -. .', ' - 3'''-t".- :".-4"' A.,.; -,. ‹:"S'''-'-',- :'--- „iig -A-7 4r.s''. t'"'''..:,:';:-,...!•.. ',- _-''-',',1,.'.;:•,-,2 , . l'•. ....',,•- •-..1'.:-• H. . . " ---' -•I.':- -‘ ------ ' .7:.' .„ .., ,.....4.;i•4,- '• 964 igks--s-- _W 4,1t, 3- :_.. .2.z . ,, ,,_.,- ,.-, -, ,-,.%-,:_.4 - ,--,--.-_,,, - ., • .- ','_-, ---_,,„;,-. .. 6* 32,1400,--b-•, 0.----.:MBVV,...„--0- ,),4 'i ..-', n 2,51.,,,, A, ...., 4,1,-,,,_ • . , .• •, i,,, - __ .- -' : , . : —, ,,.. ....,..,.:,-.:, -„, , .,.. h., — -2._..... - •., i. ..„,., _, 4, •-..„4 ?%ibur .. •%,.-,--ge.5---- -----------,;,.:.1,-.,e-„,.. .„..-.i.,i,.. ,-.s. — Awcs-Aft.:(4.-t.. -.- • -•,, • -- . . :_. — • :.. '._.',4 S' P' ''' " * "---. -`67,' Z.":i" • - --'-- - ''''. . . -,,;----,f r . . . r - ." : :: ' .'..''1-.7-4F---:T-;-:-.. -, .',. - '-. • • ' :. - : _.,..,=.--,.. -,-, ;' . -.,--*4-! .- ,.-- ,,t - -., 3,Ayiti. ,,c, , , , , 4,,„ ., , , .; -,,,,, , . , '' rSource:Google Earth 2014 1/ ,(1 OW:Oak woodland NN MC:Mixed chaparral -1 Project Site PlantCommunities 11., 1-- ,..1- . • -- 0 200 Feet -00-10-Stream //y A CBS:Coyote brush scrub / NNG:Non native grassland ---.,-;-..-1 WRW:Willow riparian woodland Figure 3 0 410 41) . H Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF,acbTist,aatndMSFaGps - , Et a __ l �m1��� ens 1 1 — — ' ' e re'4•4 ""eir i • _ ,,. ' , - - .4:4 , s‘\ , li,, ., , , ,_- _,, ' % ; • / .144 f..,, ,.. . ! • 44ie ,fee .��..,o I - i` `° ' ��i�ii�44 h,..j b. 1 CD/0t: /leS -, 1 , 1# q e 1 � 1 .01 0v IlJ A ,\s `e e ...... ecce tl•• '' } ,t r rE�k t r ee0` ' i � , trib ar .o zr st 0 200 Feet iii 1__j Project Site '//- Small mammal burrow concentrations b.. Burrow high-density areas Source:Google Earth 2014 i—► Stream Figure 4 Map of Upland Aestivation Habitat CO 0 0 Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS r-, HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT Habitats in Adjacent Areas Terrestrial Habitats. The dominant habitats within the assessment area surrounding the site are } oak woodlands, non-native grasslands, mixed chaparral, and ornamental landscaping interspersed with native trees and shrubs. The assessment area encompasses portions of the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Palo Alto including low, medium, and high density residential development, commercial areas, roads and Interstate Highway 280. Palo Alto Foothills Park and Foothills Open Space Preserve are on the western edge of the assessment area. Arastradero Preserve is on the northern edge of the site. The topography of the area varies from rolling hills to steep narrow canyons. Land uses within the site assessment area include rural residential, agricultural, grazing, urban, golf courses, public and private parks, protected open space, roads and highways, and commercial. Figure 5, Habitats Within 1.0 and 1.24 Miles of Project Area. Aquatic Habitats, Creeks and Tributaries. The review of the National Wetland Inventory Data and aerial imagery provided by Google Earth revealed four freshwater creek drainages and associated tributaries within the assessment area, and eight ponds. The assessment area includes tributaries and portions of Matadero Creek, Arastradero Creek, Adobe Creek, and Deer Creek. The tributaries of these creeks are intermittent in their upper reaches, and have riparian woodlands with coast live oak in the driest reaches, interspersed with willow riparian in their lower reaches. Matadero Creek and its lower reaches are described above in detail. Arastradero Creek drains from the hills to the North of the Project Site, and is intermittent until it joins Matadero Creek in the bottom of the canyon that these drainages share. Adobe Creek is along the southern boundary of the assessment area. Like similar surrounding drainages, it is dry in its upper tributaries, and contains willow riparian with pools in its lower reaches. This drainage is over a mile from the site, and there is a matrix of grazed lands, medium and low density residential and roads between the drainage and the site. Deer Creek drains from the hills to the south of the project.area. In its upper reaches it is a dry swale within coast live oak woodland. Willow riparian starts to form when it joins other tributaries near Elena Road and Foothill Lane. In its lower reaches to the east of I-280 along Arastradero Road high quality willow riparian habitat surrounds the drainage, and large pools were found with water in this section of the drainage. CRLF has been found in this portion of Deer Creek. The drainage then flows into a concrete lined V ditch that parallels Purissima Road through a housing development, and discharges into the original streambank. The matrix of heavily trafficked roads, and residential neighborhoods between this drainage and the Project Site makes unlikely that CTS or CRLF could disperse from this drainage to the site. Boronda Lake and Manmade Ponds. Eight ponded water features were identified on the National Wetlands Inventory Data. The nearest ponds to the site were 0.85 and 0.90 miles away EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-7 3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT on the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club and were not accessible for field visits. One of these ponds is Arastradero Lake which drains into the lower tributaries of Matadero Creek. Richard Seymour said that he searched this location and nearby Felt Lake for CRLF but did not detect them(Pers. corn., July 30, 2015). The next closest pond is Boronda Lake within the Palo Alto Open Space Preserve 1.05 miles i away. This pond represents suitable breeding habitat and has adjacent uplands with aestivation habitat. However, bullfrogs were heard calling from the pond during the site assessment. A local - 'ii herpetologist stated that he had checked this pond many times for CRLF, but had never found any. He believes this is due to the large population of bullfrogs occupying the pond. (Richard Seymour, pers. comm. July 30, 2015). Garter snakes from this location are known to be part of the intergrade population (Stanford 2013). The pond is over a mile from the project site, and there are significant dispersal barriers between this habitat and the project site. Additional ponds were identified 1.19 and 1.23 miles from the project site near Corbetta Lane and Altamont Lane. It was not possible to visit these ponds due to access restrictions. There are significant dispersal barriers between these ponds and the project site including heavily trafficked roads, and residential areas. 3.2 CTS OCCURRENCES IN THE VICINITY OF THE f l PROJECT AREA No occurrences of CTS were found within 3.1 miles of the project area in the CNDDB (CDFW 2015) (Figure 6, Special Status Wildlife Occurrences). Two occurrences were found just beyond the 3.1 mile buffer. Occurrence #63 is located in the San Francisquito Creek drainage system on Stanford University Campus and was recorded in 2002. Richard Seymour and Alan Launder identified this as the only suitable habitat in the vicinity of Los Altos Hills (pers. Comm. July 17 and July 30, 2015). Occurrence #621 was recorded in the vicinity of Palo Alto in 1900. This population is listed as extirpated in CNDDB due to urban development. 3.3 CRLF OCCURRENCES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA No occurrences of CRLF were found within one mile of the project area in CNDDB (CDFW 2015) (Figure 6, Special Status Wildlife Occurrences). However, CRLF has been recorded in the Matadero Creek Drainage 1.8 miles downstream of the project site (Occurrence #230), and in the San Francisquito Creek Drainage(Occurrence#231) 3.5 miles northeast of the project site 3-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. • • • \\ I -t 1 e \ 1 % -) !.-f 'e 1, r �' 3. 7`I y/ r Q. :..,. .,''/P 'iN'''t :-** ; ''.1-: —.-=; - ( 4:'-.--1-..7—'—',..„-H1 (�{ ‘: \\ / -` .'k •• ' > it •✓ ^i />•- )..( y , . - ..23(1-):.rt,.0.1 '' ' 4:-I-J,,...°:*14147A,.....›77.------—'11,..$11,04,- :. ..,.-!--L.-14.-;-__ .-t ,,. 4 ,,,ir_44.4.....;.,,,\,,,....., ... t' '0, r \ �` i r--\. ' ) ,..-* 3, , � ` ' -- . -"•-•` ' . - -.,', ,., •) . " ' - - ' ' i __,,, , ; �. 7 ) Y \ e t r �'L •, „”\,, � to �. �' J _:1(:;t, ,/' �T3 �. \ „1 t 1 : L- ( i y r1 \ . r , _ i _- ,7:ii-- -Jet N.,42— - ', r '.X r - t • i - / r %I Wetlands. • 4f \� • Estuarine and Marine Deepwater tt . (E. a • ftr c. t, ` - A• ir- .-- • " s ..:. ' ;. _ • ,� c /. M z J Estuarine and Marine Wetland k• -- _..__---_• ,, '$ ;:+ Freshwater Emergent Wetland (t ✓ '4a -� � j F 66►,N 'x � ° . ; ,__I� 'P')0, U Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland wo.e ' : -` _....,...,..7 "� / J ;,� �. r Freshwater Pond .% "�\• .t„,..1 ••• : . t F >t / r Lake i.. ,` r 1 e,,,, 'V •.... . •'',. ''.4.4` F... --.+ , a Other a •Ak. �e .=: a4: Riverine Occurrence Records with Number - Source:California Dept.of Fish and Wildlife 2015, ® l0 T-- U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, �__:; Project Site L,—0.75 Miles Stream ,---j, Buffer of 1.24 Mile • California Tiger Salamander Figure 5 Habitats Within 1 .0 and 1 .24 Miles of Project Area © © © Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS • �t A • 283 � .y��`'ti ''V .fi 6 \Z���I 1'Z�,62.1�, �♦������`�►�`��+� t 11=1 . I r* 4 ' 0 `•5. !!.,‘2,, k„,�_ ,�'k% We i44j>��.���'�t� _� t lir s \ Aff1:647i 11( +'� ���-`� ~ iit �)�'(••�`� �� ��,, � "r fir • AS ` - -i _/ �e4 �,4�:r •`. l vr�,���Ng I�`144sge(Syib i�,�5�1 �.., ,'�0, P 231 .+ •�fi�� C1110:1 � �► i ,/ ��, 111741,�414 ' T.•d! 0 . . ,. ,..----- ---...,T ,-411-0e • l� —• ! . . ..• � , "r"e ;-`,-'?.t:'\� Cwt.Attfhigr tZii eta'I?;r`' _(�- v ( _ 1 ,,,,...iiir.,, ' ., r _pke y �\,- �, (; IIIIPP +1 230 cel"'=iiit- ,` �+ �, ', �l���l� ��i"r' "'�'iii,•i� �fimi4rilI s. .....4. u.4 p .*• - 43 Ott "i".-4 :;ii-:* 1.'.tt 14P.SiSPAk. •If47."IT 444,,141E . -- . 44i ‘IF ' -----, ',Ilk OW .0 .11i! 7t.„ IV* IL triliiiii Elkqinkt.: 11)..itql.t.... .ir 1 ralli.littiot, & ..Aiiiill) lt.i Pir.a6 ~t^Na + <• , ��elA%h-r i%w-1 i-el!r' .1. _te 1\it.i. r`.:�ilj ���� 1`v ta�gl•pi*"e7fb' . 4 , trtN. frt,1iA`Wll..:C,, I_iV..aft., ( 4 a \ i, ,\\) :e1... _1111 ahri ^WNN1/44 . irop 01111-, 4,11141 \, \ • V. ‘tkVNi.......=:1154:1,71t11,111 Ebe *.'. 0 44,44111i , ,4ii 0 •F . - 1- itiminv , ., ...-4, or-,...ar i _ . i ,IS �,-,- ilv7 .,,,r , i ,• tf '7 . . -- * '; •ilor -r; � - + ' i# f �' j ! Y - 7 �I i�i `:, . � -NsH'1 i ,` ik 'SG'ng fJ... 1 T T. lkT . ► u ; _ .V R. 't . ' < ' ''' -- •1 '' ' -- '\ .‘ „. glOb :°‘ 1 tk*Iliiro* rt'Z 'AilliTili21 iiiiiligitillfigillhe'I . ''' --(- :1 ' - ' , qi!'' .-- ,,\ ' ' - ' .4r-- ,--4‘,...2.' 4tVialimma-lialerifP'H_AIRSc 1/.4"••riltillr. ii . > r` :_.-\-, ` '-, -. > I, �44,,i'Clin:iili h1 1 4e!iiia Ogre er ur LW fir`• )s-\--AIL -� \Y `"7/ � i_1�..t ,�4444, r �;�t� L.�f•� • ,./::.:.). ' / fwilt ` T � �' T . <� .. • 4a1Tjp 37� tri x ..._\... L. 1,? ...:litAINii4 _: istifilik ' ----\\„\i„. ....,,, 4k........sa.. s ,api.Z.411114 OM. ....4 ' M Occurrence Records with Number California Red-Legged Frog Source:California Dept.of ® l 1 ~ Pro ect Site Buffer of 1.0 Mile a California Red-Le ed Fro S ecific area Fish and Wildlife 2015, EL. 0 1.25 Miles --� l L--'� 99 g p USGS 2013 Stream L__i Buffer of 3.1 Miles • California Tiger Salamander Nonspecific area Figure 6 Special Status Wildlife Occurrence 0 © © Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT (Alan Launer, email message, July 17). One additional record was identified approximately 3.5 miles away at the junction of Highway 35 and Alpine Road via the museum database query(UC Berkeley 2015), and Richard Seymour found CRLF in a pond 3.4 miles south of the project site near the junction of Chamise Trail and Upper Rouge Valley Trail (37.337797°, -122.118485°) pers. corn., July 30, 2015). Designated CRLF critical habitat (Unit SNM-2) is located approximately 4.25 miles west of the project limits. 3.5 SFGS OCCURRENCES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA The closest CNDDB Occurrences of SFGS to the site are at least 3.85 miles to the west (CNDDB Occurrences #4, 21, 22, 23, and 24). These occurrences are on the crest or the western side of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the known range of the species. In addition, there is an occurrence (#59) at Stanford University 5.42 miles north of the site as noted above that is within the intergrade zone (CNDDB 2015, Stanford 2013). Please note that the occurrence data for SFGS is sensitive so it is not included in the maps for this habitat assessment. 3.6 HABITAT ASSESSMENT Breeding Habitat Suitable breeding habitat was not found on the project site or surrounding properties for CTS or CRLF. The closest suitable breeding habitat for CTS is on Stanford University Campus approximately 3.3 miles from the site in the adjacent drainage. As such, it is highly unlikely that CTS would occur on the site. The closest suitable breeding habitat for CRLF is in Matadero Creek approximately 0.97 miles downstream and 0.85 miles overland from the project site. This location has an isolated deep pool of water next to the culvert that directs Matadero Creek underneath Page Mill Road. CRLF has been found in the same drainage on the eastern side of I- 280 approximately 0.45 miles from this location. This portion of the drainage could represent suitable foraging and breeding habitat during the wet season for CRLF. Non-Breeding Refugia The upper tributaries of Matadero Creek represent potential non-breeding refugia for CRLF. Sections of the drainage contained adequate cover, aquatic refuge, and overhanging banks and were free of aquatic predators and human disturbance. This includes the portion of the creek that is on the Stirling Property. CRLF will move up drainages with apparent disregard for terrain, EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-13 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT and though there are a series of culverts, narrow ditches, and roads that would have to be traversed to reach the upper tributaries of the drainage, the possibility of CRLF occurring on the site cannot be completely ruled out. Upland Aestivation Habitat The site contains a large colony of California ground squirrels that would provide suitable aestivation habitat for both CTS and CRLF. CTS is not likely to occur in this habitat because the closest suitable breeding habitat is over three miles away, and if there is no suitable breeding habitat within 2,200 feet, upland habitat is unlikely to be occupied. CRLF has a very low potential to occur in this habitat. The nearest suitable breeding pond is 0.85 miles away, and the portion of Matadero Creek that is within the project site may support non-breeding refugia, as explained above. 3-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS CTS As discussed above, the nearest documented occurrence of breeding habitat is over three miles from the project site. In addition, analysis of the area within 1.24 miles surrounding the project site did not identify potential breeding habitat that could act as a source population for individuals potentially migrating through the site. Further protocol-level survey work is therefore not warranted. SFGS SFGS does not have potential to occur on the site. Suitable habitat is not present, and the local population is within the zone of intergradation. The closest source population is on the western crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains over 3.85 miles to the west. This species has small home ranges, and is not known to traverse long distances overland away from suitable aquatic habitat. Further protocol-level survey work is therefore not warranted. CRLF CRLF has a low potential to occur on site. No breeding habitat was identified on the project site. However, the closest known breeding population is 1.4 miles downstream, within the lower reaches of Matadero Creek. This population is to the east of Interstate 280. Frogs dispersing from this location would have to cross I-280 through the culverts under the Interstate, or traverse 10 lanes of traffic. After analyzing potential breeding habitat within one mile of the project site, an additional pond that could potentially support breeding CRLF was identified approximately 0.85 miles east from the project site, within the same drainage. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT As detailed above, the portion of the Matadero Creek drainage located within the project boundary could provide non-breeding refugia, and CRLF is known to disperse along drainages and travel overland during wet weather. It appears highly unlikely that CRLF would occur within this drainage outside of the wet season, and they are rarely found far from water during the dry season. Based on consideration of the findings of this assessment, natural life history requirements of CRLF, and the past observations of the species in the surrounding vicinity of the project site, potentially present, dispersing CRLF have low potential to be found in the upper tributaries of Matadero Creek during wet weather. The project design includes an on-site open space easement parallel to and along Matadero Creek. The easement is a minimum of 150 feet wide. The easement acts as a buffer between the riparian zone of Matadero Creek and the upland portion of the project site in which nearly all development activity would occur. Only a meandering pedestrian path and footbridge would be constructed within easement area. If CRLF were to occur, it is highly unlikely that it would be found outside of the drainage. The open space easement provides an additional buffer between the creek and the active work areas of the jobsite. The following proposed Best Management Practices (BMP's) have been designed to avoid and minimize unintentional adverse impacts CRLF prior to, during and after project implementation and consist of the following protective measures: • Initial site clearing and grading shall be conducted and completed only during the dry season, which typically extends from April 15 to November 15. Site clearing and grading shall halt if significant rainfall, defined as greater than 0.5 inches per 24 hours within a local watershed, is either forecasted or observed to avoid environmental conditions when CRLF would have the potential to be active. • A biologist qualified to assess and monitor CRLF shall be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to the start of construction activities. • The qualified biologist will survey the work site two weeks before the onset of activities. If CRLF, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved biologist will contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination, the USFWS will consider if an appropriate relocation site exists. If the USFWS approves moving animals, the qualified biologist will be allowed sufficient time to move them from the work site before work activities begin. Only qualified biologists will participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF. • Before construction-associated activities begin at the project site, the qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training would include a description of CRLF and its habitat, general measures that are being 4-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT implemented to conserve CRLF as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project occurs. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species appearance would be used in the training session. All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training. Additionally, the approved on site biological monitor will be available to answer any questions about the species. ■ The qualified biologist shall be present on site during initial site clearing and grading activities within the upland potential impact area and for all activities associated with constructing the walking trail and pedestrian footbridge through the on-site riparian area. In the unforeseen event that CRLF are encountered, the biologist shall contact the USFWS and/or CDFW immediately to determine the best course of action. At a minimum, all construction activities will cease until the frog leaves the work area. To the extent that avoidance of the CRLF is not possible, then mitigation shall be provided for the project following consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to, species salvage and relocation, habitat enhancement, or compensatory mitigation. ■ The USFWS-approved biologist shall permanently remove from within the project area any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes to the maximum extent possible. The project applicant shall have the responsibility to ensure that project activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT • This side intentionally left blank. 4-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5 .0 LITERATURE CITED Barry, S. J. and H. B. Shaffer. 1994. The status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: a 50-year update. Journal of Herpetology 28:159-164. Barry, S.1. 1994. The distribution, habitat and evolution of the San Francisco garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia. Unpubl. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of Ca., Davis, Calif. Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott Jr., and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and Conservation of Adult California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in Coastal Forests and Grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for Woodside, Palo Alto, Mountain View, La Honda, Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Franklin Point, Big Basin, and Castle Rock Ridge USGS quadrangles. April 2015. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp (accessed May 2015). EMC Planning Group. Biological Reconnaissance Survey. April 13, 2015. Fellers, G. M. and P. M. Kleeman. 2007. California Red-legged Frog(Rana draytonii) Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology. Vol. 41 (2), pp. 276-286. Fellers, G.M. 2005. California Red-Legged Frog, Rana draytonii. From Baird and Girard 1852(b). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. edited by Michael Lannoo. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1115 pp. Google Earth. Accessed May 2015. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT Holland, D. C., M. P. Hayes, and E. McMillan. 1990. Late summer movement and mass mortality in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Southwestern Naturalist 35:217-220. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 225 pp. Launer, Alan. Email message to consultant, 17 July 2015. Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M. L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282-285. Loredo-Prendeville, I. 1995. Reproductive ecology, microhabitat use, and migration behavior of the California tiger salamander. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Seymour, Richard. Telephone conversation with consultant and Email message to consultant, 30 July 2015. Shaffer, H. B., and R. Fisher. 1991. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game; California tiger salamander surveys, 1990—Contract (FG 9422). California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Stanford University. 2013. Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan Revised March 2013. Accessed online July 31, 2015. http://hcp.stanford.edu/2013HCP/HCP%20March%202013/Stanford%2OHCP%20Co ver.pdf. Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California amphibians and reptiles. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 152 pp. Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 27: 1- 342. Trenham, P. C., W. D. Koenig, and H. B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography and interpond dispersal in the salamander Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82:3519- 3530. UC Berkeley. 2015. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology(online)Data Access. http://mvz.berkeley.edu/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 77pp. 5-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog(Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. 173 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Federal Register Special Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Listing of the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander; Reclassification of the Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County Distinct Populations From Endangered to Threatened. Vol. 68(100). 28647 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. October 2003. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocols- , guidelines/Documents/cts_survey_protocol.pdf(accessed May 2015). United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Federal Register Final Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population;Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 70(162): 79 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California red-legged frogs.August 2005. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols- Guidelines/Documents/crf survey_guidance_aug2005.pdf. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. San Francisco Garter Snake(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)5-Year Review. Summary and Evaluation. http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/San%20Francisco%20Garter%20Snake%205%20Year%20 Review.FINAL.pdf United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Initiation of 5-Year Reviews of 58 Species in California and Nevada; Availability of Completed 5-Year Reviews in California and Nevada. Federal Register. Vol. 72(30). 7084 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Federal Register Notice; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Reviews of Species in California, Nevada, and the Klamath Basin of Oregon. Federal Register. Vol. 76(101). 30377 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered Species Database. Species list for Santa Clara County. April 2015.http://www.fws.gov/endangered/(accessed May 2015). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/GoogleEarth.html. EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT VertNet. 2015. VertNet Data Portal search for records of California red-legged frog in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties. http://portal.vertnet.org/. Search conducted on July 23, 2015. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Meyer. 1988. California's wildlife. Volume I: amphibians and reptiles. May 2, 1988. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. I 5-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOS • hristop.her • ` . 5 rave `• r y"y' ` .. elikr T J• r .ratr• • i••� In`terst •` � — y , ..._� ; , �r( ,+� ate 28� / . ,� • err. ''7t00,C ��r - . ,. ,a _ It1', w v#<,.r r �1,\L� „' •tel ft ♦� +.r, _ •_aiY • „•° .'�\ :•- .-:,�. • • i NA 4' •Cv - �,�rx � fir. '1� r p�,�, P -.,z.„.-,>. �' t.i.rir ”- .,,,,a,• kt—s, X ,fir•. 4 ,j r}- _ `�" ?N .:7f ..` ' rr�. Vic_ ',. .,, ,'S . 4 t' f► h. l ' , ";414 41��i t ,..v r w. i. d.ro 0 o.It fir.►-r • ..`l�' `7;`:r ,.*r .Y w �1 T•.: -1 ir 0 Upland habitat with ground squirrel burrows ‘ 44.111 tt k-a"- a 'd+.,. •..,,j ®Matadero Creek drainage on Stirling Property 4' Or '• 0 •' 04 µ k �. :: c , 7 w , upompwwwwwwwwimplimpimmith of II ! ° S�� r �� . ,1 q I • \.\.4, �1 J• ° ea K Y.� e4 r. 4t�•s s. . ... „v.'., .. .-T; `� . ♦ OAP Ave u i Y 0 Overview of riparian corridor and grassland in L___l Project Site CD Matadero Creek downstream of site where it uplands showing management activities drains into culvert at Via Feliz Source:Google Earth 2014,EMC Planning Group April 2014 Appendix A ® ® 0 Site Photographs 1 Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS , . . ••,,g . ,,. , ,.- .. . -. .1 ,.... .,phers,..... 's . .... • .w„, '-', ' ,,' •,..* - - '1'. " .. ane 0 ", • , • , "r• ,, . .1'. - • • t. •: lb.., -.4,- i, , '• ••;*. - ...' a '':(•1' .• •:'. -' .44 er. • - ' , . ;'' 4 ,--' ' ' , i. _.,, .., ....ait k.f.1; le ; 4-Ice 41. . —s . 4' - . r (11.- '1 • ' 4f.:' ' -4, re;44'' owl .'.„-4•44‘.! ''''' .' : , ',,*,\-;1 s't 4, kho....... , • ' : .t,1,. ..:, ',•••• • • , • k - ••• ! :c 4 ". Interstate 280 , 1 ,: t•4,4" ilk, , - .1i. • . 4 14'• ..'''..4..."'' :,.+r, ‘..‘,.+•'NW: 1 ,,..../., , d 1 '. -Ott...) ' .0' - •, . t ./- .• " -.•, '- ..---O, ,',' 4- 7 - ' . , .. ) k '''" a ` s 4 - 4: 4 :-, ' lf, 4, ,t• ^, ' •- ' -4,1 . ' ,. ' . 0 Matadero Creek at Christophers Lane :.!:, -• - OW .0. • --.‘ .IA It .\- ••• 44 v 'it . 0,...,4,,,1*.S.u, iIii...le bie...d...i4ni,gs, .1::"...:4d 0.85 miles from 4 where CRLF is known to occur 'r.a.s1irao ' t . 4 /trl site next to Page Mill Road erogRo. , ,. ,/ s. a It . '''' -'''''. -444, 644 41 , ao „ft, 1-.4. • 1:•.. .....' . . . . ,. l .1. 4, ' • '. ' . " "°' i " 4 0..4e4k •I'";'kg,. : '',,l''" iA:7 , _ t 10 4 " 76.6666. • r"- • '` '''-'"A' 't 't -, ' . :-•; , i„?': NO. A. •. •• ..;:c 4-Ii‘:4 i • 1.9!... ..7•./. \ • -, • 1 •,,-, .'*, .• ,• •• • ..•t 4'' ..-.....,.k.., ,.,,, .. • , ......„; , , / IC ••".•;,....-,. - ..- ___ - • -, • • ' . ' \ . • ,,.,. trr•-•: _ :-.. . •• . f`.. — -ttr -. , J .t .• 4 ...".n' s. ., A„ 4' ;'.'4. . 11:4';•'4 .4, - Ern, NI 00n 4 4"4' ( . . ‘,.. _4%, •.:C., -•- .,.k .. ,,,... ..1 ,, --,...,,.._ ' 11 — ' ''. --4 - ' 4,-.4 '4 . * , ‘,. 1,, Ir.. ,,.,- „i).4-i . .,,_:-, .. .,.... ..y. rdi'lli--- ,. .. A , •••, -.. - „..... ,... 4.,; L, _ .... '• , ..) ,..4i0/017, 7. _ ,:-.,e, .10,.,t,;.:,,*• 1•. Ir. , v -... . . • t ,. • , - • ,—-, - ' i. ..,4 . -..,!, - ..ir: -4y. i, ,,. •., ; . , , . i.„. r -,, 4...--, .44 - •tt 1 --- 4? ,_ _., . . ".;,' • 4 t..• ., **1,7. ,, ' , ''N- . , • A • ''' -AitM '.,,,,.'. 94t•••.y.„ .. , , , 111 . ... 0 Deer Creek near Interstate 280 where '!-. - 6. • 0 Suitable breeding pond 0.85 miles from .. CRLF is known to occur r• At 4, '.7,; A ; 4 -ir'''' . • . 'l T „ site,looking upstream '.”' `:;- . - • ' 41, ' . - hil: . .17, I', . v d•4 10•.,„. I •- „la f 14;0 - ''.."": 1' , . . + ,,1 +, r 6 1 . .. i I •..„4,: . '. ' . 4.... ,. . .., \ • t - .4101,. 4" ,...4 ' # • ••.. ti ••• ' ' ' ' '. •1.r ..,„,, ;IL 4 .7, ,, ,_ . • . .:,.! •' 4It' ...---------i..a,..:,1111 ' \ . \•." .'''' 4 . t-, • 'A ... ,•N r I • . • I t. I 4441rell°11411tL.• . '' ,oft II ' ' '')..1") ' ' . ' 1 I . • ,.. I • ' ' _ 1“... . ,; .•' i 4, . la .. ,,,. - , - - , . i ...•.. .. e „t 1'' .A. 11' • ,, .. , ..-• • , .c.... i -" %... 0- • , it?, - - ,•• .Ler , •4' * • is v i••• • A- oil A k6/1:10 j 7. 5 '. a • \ - ,444, ' • ••. - 1 0", • '' ill .,,- ' - :. `'4,,, 4 'Jr :6 • i'Ve- -- ...es , 7,-% .. "ft ••. ".. ,. \ . .. - •• r. 0 Matadero Creek west of Interstate 280 r=1 Project Site 0 Matadero Creek drainage at Moon Lane Source:Google Earth 2014,EMC Planning Group April 2014 Appendix A 0 0 , Site Photographs 2 Stirling Subdivision Habitat Assessment for CRLF, CTS, and SFGS APPENDIX B USFWS CRLF SITE ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET tAktlir Appendix D. i V California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet Site Assessment reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (blolo`bt) Date of Site Assessment: -7) ZI 205" (mmldd/yyyy) Site Assessment Biologists: Kra tom, -- (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (1,ast name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) Site Location: 51;1 GId-ret_ Ctun}t. Lr5 A-i l-vS (fl4 S 37 °221 24,, ICI) (County,General location name,tillN1 Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). 7-Z°0913 . 75-it **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 51- ,Yt 9 5LAb d-j'v i Ute' r o Brief description of proposed action./ , V141(.11-4, 4"t" 1 h(761- 4-0J- VA J 3 e_ tviT t of€44riaQ� eli �l- k 1 a„1 `�✓t e-� ,�a✓tc— 1) Is this site within the current or historic range of the CRF (circle one)? ES NO 2) Are there known records of CRF within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site (circle one)? YESNO If yes,attach a list of all known CRF records with a map showing all locations. GENERAL AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION (if multiple ponds or streams are within the proposed action area,fill out one data sheet for each) POND: Size: Maximum depth: Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species: Substrate: Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: 22 31,P1114 Appendix D. 407 California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet STREAM: r l f Bank full width: Depth at bank full: 22_ /r Stream gradient: /4/5. Pte✓ (r) ' circle one ? �'� /� J �� Are there pools(circle one)?. ��r i If yes, Size of stream pools: I.5 / w bc ,o ' Lon/ 2 " dee? . Maximum depth of stream pools: 2, -311 deep Characterize non-pool habitat: run, riffle, glide, other: /tet/ 1.ci Vegetation: emergent, emernt, overhanging, dominant species: d yuJhai i aj = 5") v�e--eu G r�/4 541 !a iPeiS' b wsk$, q.. Lern1 s .10e41/4 44)14 Rus 74k; caL me- y✓�nk( c 1L•,-)Peet, n w Subs ate: j,i L?Y �✓P. u 15• Bank description: 71-r peihti S L tin — -7 0 0 `� b Slee' 1/1 (Zf%.J % 44/, fall 5l[ Psi i. ''`tom by;l/I2 , 1'#-4/ion 4i4$1, oak" Perennial or phemeral (c cle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: u n14),, .7),--, Other aquatic habitat characteristics, species observations, drawings, or comments: Not —- ,`f ,'5 -- nefs. y ea e UV.a/fit - a-N.a e D S h e-c-13 - 't e.d lam•- "-ea-€4 e . bri e? �',�A„� RukcKS) r r tom' op'G` 1 r,. '`1' �?wrams ; t� i` '' Sus rt�. - 51rtA ll pall Necessary Attachments: 1. All field notes and other supporting documents 2. Site photographs 3. Maps with important habitat features and species location 23 U, a Fe<' Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet Site Aste sment reviewed by (FWS Field ol6ce) (date) (biolepu) Date of Site Assessment: 7)ZI /2oi (mmtdd/yyyy) Site Assessment Biologists: Kra(7 t-/ 5 f e e7. ._ (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) Site Location: 514( CI a-r ec (IVO+ .)L r 5 A-Ii-v5 [+-111S 37b 2zLl l,l " ►J (County,General location name,M64 Coordinates or Lat./Long,.or T-R-S). ,L 0't yD p3" **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 5 .iiM) 5 oh pr o t Brief description of proposed action./ N;(L- Ui If 5- vti7IU'vrS/01.- 61(761- Smo► tt 4-0.1 A 1'14 /� wlOf€44 ?pt ens ern ei? eYj s f liytroAd 1) Is this site within the current or historic range of the CRF (circle one)? ES NO 2) Are there known records of CRF within 1.6 km (1 mi)of the site (circle one)? YESNO If yes,attach a list of all known CRF records with a map showing all locations. GENERAL AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION (if multiple ponds or streams are within the proposed action area,fill out one data sheet for each) POND: Size: Maximum depth: Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species: Substrate: Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: 22 V ;Q F ,-�- Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet STREAM: Bank full width: 2-2- ti Depth at bank full: II " Stream gradient: 1 y 5 ' 12.4, /» (t nddls j�s�D1"'— Are there pools(circle one)?tp/440 NO 't °U-1" l5 If yes, Size of stream pools: '7/ I d cd Maximum depth of stream pools: Characterize non-pool habitat: run, riffle, glide, other: I Veggetation: emergent,/ overhanging, dominant species: Po,S� e AGS �! /Ft, d,,,„4 n e v 'r,J - i} GGtllrgnel. $A1:x ip f? r.`b $ v r's, u c, Sr ffl4' S v . QueYz.tI G 1's iia APS eta lc* IA (ern)e�- Substrate: 5./(07 es, R„l,rf e a Pt r r/e flfti) ,J Bank description: Tt%5 i a✓kor1 d y�,j�,,, ,r u✓ts nom f,> cat. 1 +�J' �l d Eevt/Y'I ck t frea–` Perenn 1 or Ephemeral (cr'r one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: (N/ln 't-- —" i/p '714.7 l/ndUS ✓g:" if u ce-`r,) Other.quatic habitat characteristics, s cies observations, drawings, or corn encs: • eW. a V%) I' ;' 4..1;x 9ei N/" y9 ItArd � 1111, erAtt •.11.110. 21 . t� _"A" ki Necessary Attachments: 1. All field notes and other supporting documents 2. Site photographs 3. Maps with important habitat features and species location 23 Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet site Asitentent reviewed by :` (a'w's Pieta o*lke) (date) (Moto Date of Site Assessment: 7)Z /2ol 5 (mm/dd/yyyy) Site Assessment Biologists: K,ra n f�, -e: (/7 (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) Site Location: Sa� ClArec (' ii-)- L f 5 Ai 1-v5 if;it s �?0 3 I ese,-7 6 t (County,,General location name,U1 i C/Qordi}}ates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). I,2Q (• (/I� • **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** el at,/ Z`(4' Proposed project name: 5f-;, i,Yal 5vtb d.,'Ii s 'eks, re) { " Brief description of proposed action,/ N �n ,n�- ;f tb �.-�l'�%s% Arid- Small w�l���-r��j f,,�, I etIn J rtflitotkibr:elie_ w;-- t o l d feta_ eiu ern ei-7/-- 1) Is this site within the current or historic range of the CRF (circle one)? ES NO 2) Are there known records of CRF within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site (circle one)? YESNO If yes,attach a list of all known CRF records with a map showing all locations. GENERAL AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION (if multiple ponds or streams are within the proposed action area,fill out one data sheet for each) POND: Size: Maximum depth: Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species: Substrate: Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: 22 Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet STREAM: ' p t pc wim l 1�.,---a Bank full width: 7 ` 2—i ' — J Depth at bank full: 7' " 3 ' telt, Q co,d I' 6 Stream gradient: /4/5-' e.rr+i It 044^e r r N ct -,tea Gt�i l r,e ' = S O ' re-vm,'lam- Are there pools (circle one)? , S NO If yes, Size of stream pools: _ (fo / X /2 ' Maximum depth of stream pools: _ _ Z Characterize non-pool habitat: run, riffle, glide, other: e--;71-C1-9- I Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dpminant species: �,— tJ fk +ti 9f0 eA"e"' 4 r•Io 1•`e'L , 5'4/x s//� 1 44.10145 urs,,,k5 I k�� X i le der"J..."-Y\---- 9 Substrate: Sa,•1 Bank description: rev! = Concrck 6414416, n f 1.ric.gp 4,114 kv 05.1h`4*li/ .fa ►,IA�vrug bot. 4 -1.- 1f?�c, 'c1 i polbai.e.v, Corin '3 , . f ,k, apc Gi.-O,j '1 S{►6 AG el 61,,,e141-, '(,•.A.5 121)PYea1 -4r'° -- Ep 1 •rcle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: parr+M?5 ....6 ~ Ke 4 Gil too 1-0 &Pt full- W.rt c. tlek►— vfrun A S u€Gc off +ki`/ pod/j l'-I Other aquatic habita haracteristics, species observations, drawings, or comments: - 006,03 4 P ,/--1 ek, s ,r, h1I1II1 ► � � � �,�� - rhe 1_z„ \\ I 5 r �► __ waw401 0.„ ►.� ♦ ..ter r_e4 , 4 A, c(i, ititig 2 t.,2" d- yo, 5 falvill Ail v..,; 40"-"A-4,1--- Necessary Attachments: 61_,010 1. All field notes and other supporting documents 2. Site photographs 3. Maps with important habitat features and species location 23 C re.A__ C- ee..-4-e-,1_ @ Appendix D. r.„-r'-,'fi it.A--- California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet Site Aad esstnent reviewed by . (FWs FieldbMce) (date) . ibiotagls0 Date of Site Assessment: 7)'ii /20! (mm/dd/yyyy) Site Assessment Biologists: Kra n t�, 5 f-e 'n t`e-- (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) Site Location: 5 CIA-r-& Co v n+1.1.1 L r 5 A-I -v i�,14 S 23 i 3��7dJ (County,General location name, U11W Coordinates or LatJLong.or T-R-S). /2.2 sal/4. 9 , **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** �'/ Proposed project name: S-;,rhYl 5 N � h 'vi 5 'Il-1 r'o t Brief description of proposed action NI0., Qn'f SIt )d,s'viS;0-1- A i61- 4mitII W'Itj -1" 4"' I et V1J r A nit (Ari/k1 b cso-al le_ IV tk Of 04 ?tot_ &tie/we-tilJ l t)4i f, e�• 5�" 1) Is this site within the current or historic range of the CRF (circle one)? (....___ ES NO 2) Are there known records of CRF within 1.6 km (1 mi)of the site (circle one)? YESNO, If yes,attach a list of all known CRF records with a map showing all locations. GENERAL AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION (if multiple ponds or streams are within the proposed action area,fill out one data sheet Jim each) POND: Size: Maximum depth: Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species: Substrate: Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: 22 Pter (re•zti Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet STREAM: Bank full width: 3 0 " Depth at bank full: I -- Z' Stream gradient: /0 1 Are there pools(circle one)?e NO If yes, , V /on X Z 40" L'".. --e---- Size of stream pools: J Maximum depth of stream pools: (, " Characterize non-pool habitat: run, riffle,glide, other: - _v144--G — Vegetation: emergent, overhangin , dominant species: N,' eweldwf ur�rha t • �ey _ 5� ,� 0 GO n !L 1 coteIX she, .77.), )Rnr n;hdg;i Substrate: S--ns. _ 1 $oe Bank description: SVS,'.J bang.. iCOlfg ti 2 0---,d d 57 _ Perennial or phemeral (dr le one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: Other aquatic • •itat characteristics, species observati;s,drawings,_opr,,comments: (5,17Asy f wRin I/(ctIA1 iiit4l7 1 .... •,(ott) ' pit L,,; 1.(aw -1...---e (oild' life `�'Y _ titms'sa as P'. „IAA_rl•-•---C2- 74 ()'''- Necessary Attachments: 1. All field notes and other supporting documen 2. Site photographs 3. Maps with important habitat features and species location 23 Appendix D. t ''a& G f California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Slice Site Aeat reviewed by (8wS Field Omee) fda ) hiolo*60 Date of Site Assessment: 7) ZI /20! (mm/dd/yyyy) Site Assessment Biologists: Kr of (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) (Last name) (first name) Site Location: 5 *& CIA-ret_ ClVn} Lr5 A-I i-v5 (inn S 7-7e) 2 Z,.25'l� (County,General location name,U oordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). 11 Z 3.2 y **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** 2-z, 0 Proposed project name: 54-;./.1,Y71 5 t4 h (Fitt � o Brief description of proposed action N,ni- 004 Sktb 1Ufvi5)&m, 61061 SmI! -100 etoj af'11 br e_ with o qta_ e<uerrrer't� /-Mp ex; i/1y 1 0,��`ire-�-,�wl� l 1) Is this site within the current or historic range of the CRF (circle one)? ES NO 2) Are there known records of CRF within 1.6 km (1 mi)of the site (circle one)? YESNO If yes,attach a list of all known CRF records with a map showing all locations. GENERAL AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION (if multiple ponds or streams are within the proposed action area,fill out one data sheet for each) POND: Size: Maximum depth: Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species: Substrate: Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: 22 Appendix D. California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet STREAM: Bank full width: 2- Depth at bank full: H Stream gradient: Z4 to Are there pools (circle one)? YES NO If yes, Size of stream pools: Maximum depth of stream pools: Characterize non-pool habitat: run, riffle,glide, other: ✓ r' �--. Vegetation: emergent, overhanging, dominant species:CP 4: s4 i ,tsA ,� s�prnJ i Ss , a1Sctily rA1ft f .� � S11'401 rG �-rvive.s-,,, A5lans "1°cI5�t Substrate: I 0;1 V Bank description: rYl e i cJ $fla//_R.✓ GI i,. (t...� -e4.. CA/ c a- - /�s•l /A,�n v014- Perennial or Ephemeral (circle one). If ephemeral, date it goes dry: Other aquatic habitat characteristics, species observations, drawings, or comments: 4✓14 oa�S w�►le w i tkuc S Arn +co�-r� let/ Vr 1 G a vl cn�2Q-- Necessary Attachments: 1. All field notes and other supporting documents 2. Site photographs 3. Maps with important habitat features and species location 23 APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PEER REVIEW • ral COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS August 20,2014 L5031A TO: Cynthia Richardson Consulting Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road I , Los Altos I-Tills,CA 94022 SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Stirling Tentative Map 193-14-TM 28030 Natoli Road At your request, we have completed a geologic and geotechnical peer review of the proposed Tentative Map using: • Tentative Map Plan Set -- Lands of Stirling (5 sheets, various scales)prepared by Wilsey Ham,latest date of June 17,2014;and • Engineering Geologic Hazard Investigation - Lands of Stirling (report)prepared by Romig Engineers,dated May 15,2014, In addition, we have been in communication with the project geotechnical consultant, completed a reconnaissance of the subject property, reviewed aerial photographs,and observed several of the exploratory site excavations completed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. DISCUSSION The applicant has submitted a plan fol• subdivision of the subject property consisting of approximately 17 acres. The Tentative Map illustrates 9 proposed lots and an access roadway extending to Natoma Road. In our previous peer review (dated August 28, 2012) addressing the Preliminary Map, we recommended that additional subsurface exploration be performed to better characterize potential rupture hazards associated with the_Monta Vista Fault extending through the site. Initially collected geologic data suggested that the fault trace crossing the site may not be capable of primary rupture. We also recommended that either a stabilization plan be prepared or appropriate building setbacks be established to address Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St.Charles Drive,Suite 108 Las Gatos,CA 95030-7218 San Andreas,CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks,CA 91360-3995 (408)354-5542•Fax(408)354-1852 (209)736-4252•Fax(209)736.1212 (805)497-7999•Fax(805)497-7933 www.cottonshires.com Cynthia Richardson August 20,2014 Page 2 L5031A a dormant landslide situated astride the current common property line between Lots 5 and 6. We interpreted the presence.of a shallow Old Landslide in the central portion of Lot 7 and we have discussed possible grading mitigation of this feature with Romig Engineers. SITE CONDITIONS Proposed Lots 1-4 are located along the eastern edge of the property and are characterized by gently inclined (5 to 10 percent) west-facing slopes. Areas of gentle to moderately steep (10 to 17 percent inclination) slopes are located in the eastern portions E I of proposed Lots 5-8. The western portions of these lots generally contain moderately steep to precipitous slopes(25-to.greater than 100 percent inclination). Lot 9 contains an existing residence;'(to remain) situated on relatively level to gently inclined slopes. The southwestern -portion of Lot 9 contains precipitous slopes. Drainage is generally characterized by sheet flow to the west and southwest intercepted by Matadero Creek in the western portion of the property. The property is bisected by a mapped trace of the Morita Vista fault that separates Santa Clara Formation bedrock (to the west) from Franciscan Complex bedrock(to the east).Based on our review of historical aerial photographs from 1939 and 1948, we observed geomorphic features consistent with an Old Landslide in the eastern and central portion of Lot 7. The configuration of this apparent landslide suggests relatively shallow movement on the order of 10 feet in depth. We note that the local slope profile (below the existing tanks and well) displays a subtle convex bulge. Based on one of the borings in the vicinity,colluvial soils were found to be mixed with bedrock at a depth of 11 feet suggesting the presence of a potential weak zone and possible surface of previous slope displacement. Two younger (dormant) landslides have been identified along the common property line between Lots 5 and 6. The upper landslide has a distinct headscarp of approximately 16 feet in height and a displaced landslide mass with a total length of approximately 150 feet. RECENT GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS The referenced investigation prepared., by Romig .Engineers satisfactorily • addresses the peer review comments prepared for the Preliminary Map.The Consultant has presented persuasive data to support the conclusion that the Monta Vista Fault crossing the property is a remnant feature and not capable of primary surface fault rupture within the site. However, the identified fault trace may be subject to secondary, sympathetic movement and the Consultant has recommended that foundations and basements of future residences should not extend across the fault plane. Specific considerations for each lot with respect to the fault plane location are addressed in the referenced report. COTTON,SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cynthia Richardson August 20,2011 Page 3 L5031A • Regarding the upper dormant landslide along the Lot 5 and 6 property line, the Consultant recommends that a series of subdrains be installed centered on the local spring and a 20-foot building setback be observed from the landslide margin. The Consultant has not recommended mitigation for the lower dormant landslide due to its remote location from intended primary house sites. On Lot 7, Romig Engineers recommends that the colluvial swale area be mitigated by removal and replacement of potentially unstable soils with engineered fill materials along with construction of an underlying subdrain system. The volume of corrective grading may be on the order of 5,000 cubic yards. We understand that final graded slopes could be returned to native contours or be modified to create a building pad. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site residential development is constrained by isolated areas of past landsliding,surficial soils with a moderate to high expansion potential, and the potential for secondary sympathetic displacement along the weak surface of the local Monta Vista Fault plane. We conclude that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has completed adequate site investigation and recommended appropriate measures to mitigate apparent site constraints. We recommend that the Tentative Map documentation be clarified to address the following items: 1. Remedial grading as recommended by Romig Engineers should be completed on Lot 7 as a subdivision-level improvement. Corrective grading extends up to the future property line on Lot 7 and should be completed prior to the development of the adjacent Lots 6 and 8. 2. The Tentative Map should reflect that future residences or basements on Lots 1,5,6,7,and 8 should be located so as to avoid placement of house foundations or basements across the surface trace or subsurface plane of the Monta Vista Fault. 3. On Lots 5 and 6, either the common property line should be relocated to avoid splitting the displaced mass of the upper Dormant Landslide or (if acceptable to the Town) the recommended subdrain system should be designed as two separate subdrain systems with clean-out access capabilities provided separately to each lot. The building setback requirements from the edge of the landslide (as recommended by Romig Engineers)should be noted on the Tentative Map. • COTTON,SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cynthia Richardson August 20,2014 Page 4 15031 A • LIMITATIONS This geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions arc made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession.This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties,either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON,SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES,INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Prinicpal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 • David T,Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 DTS:TS:kd COTTON,SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.