Exhibit F - Responses to Supplemental Letters — San Jose City Council, August 9, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

D
ata Center weather station in Newark (#046144), located approximately 9 miles northeast of the Study Area (WRCC 2018).

Soils in the northern portion of the Study Area, including the parking lots, are mapped as urban land complexes, either Urban Land-Xerorthents, Anthropogenic Fill Complex or Urban Land-Clear Lake Complex (NRCS 2018). The former golf course areas and central portion of the Study Area are mapped as Drained Clear Lake Silty Clay and Campbell Silt Loam; while the southern portion of the site is mapped as water (NRCS 2018).

Methods
Li
terature Review
P
rior to the site visit, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2018), California Consortium of Herbaria (CCH 2018), and California Native Plant (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2018) was conducted to determine whether any new occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant had been documented within the vicinity of the Study Area subsequent to H.T.

Harvey’s 2015 assessment.

Fi
eld Survey Method
A focused rare plant survey was conducted on October 24, 2018 by WRA biologists, Rhiannon Korhummel and Rei Scampavi . The survey covered the entire P roject Site, including the Permanent Impacts area (Figure 2, Attachment A), with particular focus on the California annual grassland habitat along Liberty Street and the diked brackish marsh in the southern portion of the Study Area, areas that were identified in the H.T. Harvey biological resources report as having the most potential to support the species . T he Study Area was traversed on foot to determine whether the species was present. Plants were identified using the Jepson Manual, 2 nd Edition (Bladwin et. al. 2012) and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2018); plant nomenclature follows the Jepson eFlora.

R
esults
A
total of 65 plant species were observed, including nine native species and 56 non-native species (Attachment B). No individuals of Congdon’s tarplant were observed, despite surveys occurring during the blooming period of the species.

C
onclusion
The O
ctober 22, 2018 focused Congdon’s tarplant survey was conducted in compliance with IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO 1- 1, which required that a survey be completed during the appropriate blooming period, between May and November, to determine presence of Congdon’s tarplant. No Congdon’s tarplant was observed within the Study Area, and therefore no impacts to special-status plants would occur as a result of the project.

Trang Tu-Nguyen
November 2, 2018

Page 3 ends

S
hould you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

S
incerely,
B
ianca Clarke
Associate Regulatory Permitting Specialist
A
ttachment A: Figures
Attachment B: Plant Species Observed within the Project Area

Trang Tu-Nguyen
November 2, 2018

Page 4 ends

Literature Cited

Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed: October 2018. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2018 . Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Online at:
http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed: October 2018.

City of San Jose Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 2016. Mitigated Negative Declaration for TopGolf @ Terra Project. Project File Number PDC16- 013, BPT16-001.
[CCH] Consortium of California Herbaria. 2018. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Online at: http://ucjeps.berkel ey.edu/consortium.

Accessed: October 2018.

H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2016. TopGolf Biological Resources Report. July 19.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2018. Jepson eFlora. Online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.

Accessed: October 2018.
[NRCS] National Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov. Accessed:

October 2018.
[WRCC] Western Regional Climate Center. Regional Climate Summaries. NOAA Cooperative Station, Newark, California (#046144) Record of Monthly Climate Summary from 4/24/1906-5/31/2016. Online at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi -bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6144.

Accessed October 2018.

2-4

Exhibit 2. Permanent Impact Fee Calculator

Project Applicant:

Project Name:

APN (s):

Project Number: to be provided by local jurisdiction
Date: November 20, 2018 Jurisdiction/Agency:

Square Feet to Acres calculator square feet is 0.00 Acres Note: There are 43,560 square feet in 1 acre
DEVELOPMENT FEE (see Habitat Agency Geobrowser Land Cover Fee Zones and Habitat Plan Figure 6-1 to determine land cover fees) Habitat Plan Fee
Type
Land to be
permanently
disturbed (acres)1 Fee per Acre Fee Type Total
Land Cover Fee 27.57 x $21,239.00 = $585,559.23
x $14,725.00 = $0.00
x $5,380.00 = $0.00
= $585,559.23
Serpentine Fee x $69,114.00 = $0.00
= $0.00
Burrowing Owl
Fee 1.96 x $57,862.00 = $113,409.52
= $113,409.52
Wetland Fee Willow Riparian Forest x $160,273.00 = $0.00 Mixed Riparian x $160,273.00 $0.00
Central California Sycamore Woodland x $292,745.00 = $0.00 Freshwater Marsh x $196,541.00 = $0.00
Seasonal Wetlands x $430,019.00 = $0.00
Pond x $175,890.00 = $0.00
Streams (linear feet) x $675.00 = $0.00
= $0.00
= $698,968.75
Nitrogen
Deposition Fee
Fee per New
Daily Vehicle
Trip

1. Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips 6691 x $4.96 = $33,187.36 and/or

2. Number of New Residential Units x $48.33 = $0.00
= $33,187.36
TOTAL HABITAT PLAN FEES (E+F) $732,156.11
Internal Use only
Total Fees
Perm $732,156.11
Temp $0.00
Total $732,156.11
Notes:
1 Stream fees are calculated based on linear feet.

B. Serpentine Fee Total
Exhibit 2: SCVHP PERMANENT FEE CALCULATOR WORKSHEET
PROJECT APPLICANT INFO:

Shops @ Terra
Shops @ Terra
015-39-026, 015-39-020
Rev.Draft 7/1/2018, FY1819
Fee Zone A (Ranchlands and Natural Lands)
Fee Zone B (Agricultural and Valley Floor Lands)
Fee Zone C (Small Vacant Sites Under 10 Acres)
A. Land Cover Fee Total
C. Burrowing Owl Fee Total
D. Wetland Total Fee
E. Total (= A+B+C+D)
Disclaimer: The fee calculator is available for your convenience. You may enter data to calculate an unofficial projection of the fees that will be required to be paid for your project. This is not an official SCVHA estimate. You assume the risk associated with using this calculator. The calculator approximates fees for your project and the reliability of the calculations produced depends on the accuracy of the information you provide. The calculations created by the fee calculator are not intended to be used as a final statement of fees for your project. Please contact the Planning Office of the SCVHA member agency where you have an active land use permit application to determine fees the specific fees and amount of fees that will be required for your project. CALCULATIONS CREATED BY THIS TOOL ARE NOT OFFICIAL SCVHA ESTIMATES.

F. Nitrogen Depositon Fee Total (1 and/or 2)
2-5

Attachment 3 Qualified Biologist Resumes

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Bianca Clarke is a regulatory permitting specialist who specializes in natural resource regula tory agency permitting and biological compliance requirements. She has managed and been a part of a larger team effort for a diverse range of projects, led field efforts, and has authored and co- authored several California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and non- CEQA level reports that have been accepted by various agencies. She is trained in project management from PSMJ Resources, wetland delineation through the Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies and the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) through Moss Landing Marine Labs and Southern California Coastal Water Research Project for the Sunrise Powerlink project specific module. Prior to WRA, Ms. Clarke researched the effects of global climate change on tidal marshes in the San Francisco Bay.

Ms. Clarke has extensive experience managing large scale projects that require coordination across several disciplines and various local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. She also has several years’ experience managing and conducting wetlan
d delineations, biological resource
assessments, and many aspects of regulatory permitting and mitigation requirements. She has conducted formal wetland delineations for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and wetland mitigation monitoring in local habitats as well as in Southern California. She has also prepared permit applications for a variety of projects including nationwide and individual permits for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), and the State and Regional Water Quality Control Board (SWRQCB, RWQCB) . Her experience in wetland ecology and environmental permitting has given her the knowledge and insight to assess the clients’ needs and requirements.

Representative Projects

Tejon Ranchcorp - Grapevine Specific Plan Project Permitting and Biological Consultation, Kern County, California 2017 - Present

As project manager, Ms. Clarke is responsible for managing the overall project contract along with oversee ing the regulatory permitting process and providing strategy and consultation services for the client and for their Grapevine Specific Plan project. The Grapevine Specific Plan project is a large-scale residential and mixed- use development project that requires consultation with the CDFW for disturbance to sensitive resources. Ms.

Clarke is working directly with the client and the natural resource agencies to ensure an agreement suitable to all parties is reached and adequately protects the sensitive reso urces. She provides regular client updates and represents the client at agency meetings. Permit application materials are anticipated for submittal in early 2018 and Ms. Clarke will continue to negotiate with the regulatory agencies until permits are iss ued and terms and conditions are accepted by the client.

BIANCA CLARKE, MS
Associate
Regulatory Permitting
Specialist
[email protected]
o: 415.454.8868 x1470
c: 415.342.9907

Years of Experience: 9

Education
MS Ecology & Systematic Biology
San Francisco State University, 2013

BS Biology (Emphasis Ecology)
San Francisco State University, 2007

Specialized Training
Project Management Bootcamp,
PSMJ Resources, 2014

California Rapid Assessment Method
(CRAM): Riverine and Estuarine
Module, Moss Landing Marine Labs,
May 2012

Clean Water Act Section 404:

Nationwide and Other Specialized
Permits Workshop, UC Davis
Extension, 2012

CRAM specific for the Sunrise
Powerlink Project, 2010, SCCWRP

Wetland Plant Indicator Workshop,
Romberg Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2009

Basic Wetland Delineation, Romberg

Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2007

Restoration Ecology, Romberg
Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2007

BIANCA CLARKE

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Caltrans / City of Pleasanton - 5 Bridges Maintenance Project NES -MI and Section 7 BA, Alameda County, California 2017 – Present
Caltrans identified five bridges within the City of Pleasanton requiring maintenance. Due to the presences of sensitive resources at each bridge location, consultation and authorization is required from the natural resource regulatory agencies. As Project Manager, Ms. Clarke is responsible for advising the client on the permitting pathway and obtaining all biological resources data for each location. Upon completion of all biological studies, Ms. Clarke will oversee the preparation of the regulatory permit applications and will then coordinate with each agency until final permits are obtained. Biological studies are compl ete and permit application preparation is anticipated to begin in first quarter 2018 and agency permits finalized by summer 2018.

Denman Reach - Phase 3 Project, Project Management, Biological Services, and Regulatory Permitting, Sonoma County, California 2015 – 2017
Ms. Clarke was the project manager for the regulatory permitting required for the Denman Reach Phase 3 Project. In an effort to alleviate flooding, this project proposes to grade an area adjacent to the Petaluma River to create a floodplain terrace. Minor impacts to jurisdictional wetland were proposed along with minor project work within the Petaluma River thus requiring authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, and the CDFW . Ms. Clarke managed and coordinated all biological surveys necessary to support the regulatory permit applications. In addition, Ms. Clarke worked directly with the City of Petaluma and provided guidance on the best permitting strategy to ensure project timelines were met along with details regarding project -specific informational needs for the permit applications. Project permits were obtained in 2016 and project construction was complete in 2017.

Refinery Project- Permitting and Biological Compliance, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California 2011 – Present
The Refinery required services for permitting for wetlands and special -status species issues arising from regulatory closure of waste management units. Ms. Clarke is instrumental in assisting with and coordinating investigations and permitting across five remediation projects and a combined mitigation project. She assisted in the final preparation of the Individual Permit application package for the USACE, BCDC, and RWQCB and will remain in contact with all agencies until all permits are secured. She is responsible f or overseeing and coordinating a large portion of the permitting efforts and is working closely with the USFWS for the project’s Section 7 consultation. Upon receipt of regulatory agency permits, Ms. Clarke will assist in negotiating the terms and conditi ons of each permit with the agency and the project proponent. Ms. Clarke is also expected to be heavily involved in most biological compliance- related tasks for all waste management unit closures. The project is expected to continue for approximately the next 5+ years.

Blu Harbor Shoreline Improvements and Project Permitting Services, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California 2014 - 2015
The Blu Harbor is a residential development project that requires the demolition of existing abandoned buildings and associated pier removal, grade altering activities, and marina reconfiguration. A uthorizations and negotiations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are required for the pr oject. Ms. Clarke is the project manager for this project and will be overseeing the preparation of all permit applications and client/agency communications. As the project manager, Ms. Clarke is also responsible for navigating the client through the regulatory permitting process and developing strategies to meet all measures outlined in the project -issued Environmental Impact Report and obtain the necessary agency authorizations.

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Patricia Valcarcel earned a MS in Wildlife Sciences while conducting research on the spatial ecology of the threatened giant gartersnake. She has worked on a variety of field research projects ranging from animal movements to behavior and reproduction. She has presented her work at conferences and published in peer -reviewed journals. She has also been trained on collection of samples for environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis and implemented this method for detection of giant gartersnake. The results are used in combination with other methods to help inform on presence of the cryptic species.

Patricia has extensive experience work ing with and permitting for special - status species in California. Her focus is reptiles and amphibian species, but has broad experience with wildlife species in California’s Central Valley.

Patricia has also led a large trapping and relocation effort for Pacific pond turtle, conducted protocol-level surveys for Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, assists with sampling for California tiger salamander and vernal pool crustaceans, and performed assessments for San Joaquin kit fox and blunt- nosed leopard lizard.

Her primary responsibilities are to conduct surveys, habitat assessments, prepare associated technical reports, prepare permit applications, and consult with wildlife agencies on special -status wildlife species during the permitting process. She consults with both federal and state wildlife agencies and has prepared federal Section 7 Biological Assessments, federal Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans, and California Incidental Take Permits. In addition, Patricia is involved in environmental permitting, permit compliance, and mitigation and monitoring efforts associated with these permits.

Representative Projects

Sherman Island Whale’s Mouth Wetland Restoration Project, Sacramento County, California (2013 – 2015)
As part of continued collaboration with D ucks Unlimited, Inc. and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), WRA assisted with the permitting process for a habitat restoration project on Sherman Island.

Sherman Island is located in the extreme western Delta near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The project restored approximately 600 acres of palustrine wetlands on lands owned by DWR which are currently managed for flood- irrigated pasture lands. WRA performed rare plant surveys and consulted with USFWS for listed species including giant gartersnake and Delta smelt. Patricia conducted the habitat assessment for wildlife species; provided analyses and measures to avoid and minimize impacts for giant gartersnake, Delta smelt, and longfin smelt; and wrote technical documents used in the consultation process. She wrote and implemented the Pacific pond turtle Trapping and Relocation Plan and submitted the plan to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for approval. Patricia coordinated and led the pre- construction trapping and relocation and capture and salvage efforts during construction. A total of 222 individual turtles were successfully relocated during trapping and construction salvage efforts.

PATRICIA VALCARCEL, MS
Associate Wildlife Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.524.7542

Years of Experience: 10
Education
MS, Wildlife Sciences, Oregon State
University, 2011

BA, Environmental Sciences,
Northwestern University, 2003

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications
USFWS Recovery Permit for giant
gartersnake and San Francisco
gartersnake (TE-64146A-1)

California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Scientific Collecting Permit

The Wildlife Society

Specialized Training
• California Vernal Pool Crustacean
Identification Class with Mary Belk,
December 2015
• Biology and Management of the
Alameda Striped Racer, Alameda
County Conservation Partnership, May
2014
• San Joaquin Kit Fox Ecology,
Conservation, and Survey Techniques,
Central Coast Chapter of The Wildlife
Society, Summer 2013
• Swainson’s Hawks in California’s
Central Valley, Sacramento-Shasta
Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Spring
2012
• Workshop on the Biology and
Conservation of the California Tiger
Salamander, Alameda County
Conservation Partnership, June 2012

PATRICIA VALCARCEL

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan On-Call (2012 – Present) WRA is contracted for on-call services related to the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMS CP). In addition to conducting surveys, Patricia oversees pre-construction surveys and recommendations for avoidance and minimization to ensure participants are in compliance with the SJMSCP.

Wildlife species and habitats Patricia has encountered as part of this work include burrowing owl, giant gartersnake, California tiger salamander, Swainson’s hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox. As part of this project, Patricia has prepared and consulted with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on burrowing ow l exclusion plan s, and implemented the exclusion and monitoring plans.

Ridge Top Ranch Wildlife Conservation Bank, Solano County, California (2012 – present) WRA and Ridge Top Ranch, LLC (RTR) are in the process of developing over 280 acres of high quality California red-legged frog and callippe silverspot butterfly mitigation habitat located within Solano County, California. WRA, in consultation with the USFW s and under 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit TE -212445-0, successfully translocated California red-legged frogs to created habitat within the RTR Wildlife Conservation Bank. WRA has been involved throughout the process, from selecting donor sites and planning habitat creation, to translocation of egg masses and monitoring the frogs to ensure that establishment at the receiving site was successful. Through the monitoring phase, Patricia assisted permit-holder Rob Schell in survey efforts, which included egg mas s surveys at the donor site, visual counts at the receiving ponds, as well as the capture and handling of juvenile red- legged frogs to measure and install PIT tags. She also conducts Callippe silverspot butterfly surveys as part of annual monitoring efforts. Monitoring at this site is ongoing. The mitigation bank was approved in 2015.

Burrowing Owl Surveys and Passive Exclusion, Legacy on 101, San Jose, California (2014) The Legacy on 101 project is a 16.35-acre property in Santa Clara, California that is to be developed into two 6- story industrial park/office/R&D buildings. The area is known to support burrowing owl, and a series of take avoidance surveys was conducted from 2008 to 2014. Patricia observed one burrowing owl occupying the property in 2014. Patricia developed the exclusion and monitoring plan submitted to CDFW. During the non-nesting season, she passively excluded the owl and excavated all potential burrows at the site. Patricia conducted monitoring at the site every other week un til construction activities were initiated and performed a pre- construction survey immediately prior to grading, per the exclusion plan.

East Bay Regional Park District, Breuner Marsh Restoration and Public Access Project , Richmond, California (2012-2016)
WRA teamed with Questa Engineering Corporation and several other firms on this San Francisco Bay Trail and habitat restoration project for the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). WRA led the biological technical studies, including mapping of sensitive biological resources and completing the wetland delineation for the project.

The site included many acres of tidal marsh wetlands and associated federally endangered species such as the salt-marsh harvest mouse and California Ridgway’s rail. WRA prepared the biological resources section of the project EIR and participated in several public outreach and CEQA scoping meetings during the project planning phase. WRA also developed the restoration design for approximately 30 acres of tidal marsh and seasonal wetland habitat. Patricia has aided with protocol -level Ridgway’s (clapper) rail surveys and positively identified individuals during 2014 and 2015 season surveys. California black rail were also identified during these surveys, and construction activity areas were adjusted accordingly during both the 2014 and 2015 work seasons. Patricia is also a USFWS-approved biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys and monitoring for salt-marsh harvest mouse and California Ridgway’s rail required during the many phases of the Breuner Marsh clean-up and restoration project .

Major construction was completed during 2014, and boardwalk and trail construction is continu ed through 2016.

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Molly Brewer received her Bachelor’s degree in Biology from the University of California, Santa Cruz and has over five years of experience in wildlife and natural resources. This includes field work across the San Francisco Bay area, Sierra Nevada, Great Basin sage-steppe, Amazon rainforest, Cascade Mountains and Oregon coast . She has experience with nesting birds, amphibians and reptiles, mammals, and invertebrates . Her diverse background in fieldwork has given her hands on experience with hundreds of species in a variety of ecosystems.

With WRA, Molly performs biological assessments, focused wildlife surveys, project support and construction monitoring. Prior to arriving at WRA, Molly worked with the USFS, University of Nevada Reno, the CREES Foundation, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and the California Tahoe Conservancy. She has conducted surveys on greater sage-grouse and state listed birds including marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. In addition, she has performed camera trapping , small- mammal trapping, lek -counts, point counts, mist-netting, pitfall traps, visual encounter surveys, and butterfly surveys.

Representative Projects

Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank, Solano County, California (2018) The Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank is the largest mitigation bank in California at more than 1,800 acres, and is a central component of the largest contiguous vernal pool preserve in the United States. The bank is approved by five different agencies and covers two different Army Corps Districts. In addition, the bank sells both numerous species credits such as California tiger salamander, vernal pool crustaceans, Swainson’s hawk, and burrowing owl, as well as wetland credits to offset impacts under the Clean Water Act.

Molly has performed surveys for special-status species including Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl and assisted with annual reporting as part of the ongoing annual monitoring requirement.

Biological Assessment and Focused Wildlife Surveys for Confidential Client, Lake County, California
A confidential client contracted WRA to conduct a biological resources assessment of a recently purchased property in Lake County in order to determine the full extent of wildlife that occupied the property. Molly was part of the wildlife team that was tasked with surveying for and identifying special- status species throughout the property including golden and bald eagle and special-status amphibians. In total, five eagle nests were located over two months of surveys. Other special -status species including foothill yellow - legged frog, western pond turt le, tricolored blackbird, white -tailed kite and yellow-headed blackbird were also identified on site.

Molly Brewer
Wildlife Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.454.8868 x 2100
c: 916.591.3053

Years of Experience: 5

Education
BS Biology, University of California
Santa Cruz, 2012

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications
CPR, AED, and First Aid for Adults,
2016

Specialized Training
Marbled murrelet surveyor
certification, Hamer
Environmental/Pacific Seabird
Group, 2017

MOLLY BREWER

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Zeiss Graphite Development Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California (2018) Carl Zeiss, Inc. is planning a new Zeiss Innovation Center in Dublin, which will consist of research and development space, offices, parking, and associated infrastructure. WRA is the project biological consultant, responsible for CEQA biological surveys, environmental permitting, and mitigation planning for the project. Molly has provided biological support for the project including breeding season and non-breeding season burrowing owl surveys.

Burrowing Owl, Breeding Bird, and Amphibian Surveys for Confidential Client, San Benito County, California (2018)
As part of a larger wildlife survey effort, Molly performed a comprehensive avian inventory of breeding birds with particular focus for Least Bell’s Vireo along the Pajaro River riparian corridor. Molly was able to identify a variety of avian species util izing the riparian corridor during the breeding season including: cliff swallow, tree swallow, European starling, mourning dove, American crow, red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite, song sparrow, bewick’s wren, Anna’s hummingbird, American robin, house wren, chestnut-backed chickadee, barn swallow, house finch, black phoebe, yellow warbler, bushtit, red- shouldered hawk, American kestrel, western bluebird, Nuttall’s woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, and Wilson’s warbler. Molly also mapped potential burrowing owl habitat and conducted nighttime visual encounter surveys for amphibians.

California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys, Silicon Valley Clean Water, Pump and Gravity Main Replacement, Redwood City, California (2018)
In conjunction with other Capital Improvement projects along the San Carlos -Redwood City force main alignment, SVCW plans to replace the Redwood City and San Carlos Pump Stations, as well as construct a new 36- inch diameter, 5,000 linear foot gravity sewer pipeline. The improvement project is located adjacent to potential wetlands and special status species habitat, including habitat for CRR. Molly coordinated and conducted CRR surveys under the supervision of federal recovery permit holder Jason Yakich (TE-58760A-0).

NVIDIA Campus Expansion Nesting Bird Avoidance, Santa Clara, California (2018) WRA provided NVIDIA with biological support during their campus expansion at the San Tomas Business Park.

Molly provided guidance as to how to avoid construction delays resulting from nesting birds. Moll y conducted risk assessment prior to the nesting bird season and performed preconstruction nesting bird surveys. Surveys were finished on time and in compliance with Project specified measures.

Burrow Exclusion and Burrowing Owl Surveys, Newark, California (2018) The project is at a plant property in Alameda County, California, where burrowing owl is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area, and take avoidance surveys are required year -round by project permits and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Molly surveyed the area and collapsed burrows that weren’t being used by burrowing owl to prevent colonization on the site. Molly conducted preconstruction surveys prior to ground disturbance and provided environmental sensitivity training to the construction crew.

Bird-safe Design Evaluation for Lighted Signs, San Jose, California (2018) A number of parcels in San Jose proposed installation of lighted signs in the vicinity of riparian and wetland habitat.

Molly wrote a discussion of the efficacy of the proposed parcels’ bird-safe and bird-friendly design elements based on the current subject literature.

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

David Zwick earned his BS in Ecological Restoration from Humboldt State University. His three years of experience for public and private projects in Northern & Southern California, Montana and Wyoming includes restoration design, biological monitoring, rare and endangered species salvage, wetland delineation, vegetation mapping, and biotechnical restoration.

David brings extensive knowledge of California environmental law, wildlife, plant flora, CEQA/NEPA, mitigation, soils , and GPS technology . He writes plans for conceptual mitigation, planting, and fire abatement plus monitoring reports for resource agencies . His varied exper ience throughout the state includes design, building, and installation of biotechnical restoration structures, vegetation mapping, biological resource assessments, soil classification, wetland delineation & soil analysis, and biological surveys.

Representative Projects

Premier Property Management, Inc., Menlo Park Development Project, East Palo Alto, California (May 2015 – Present)
David is a plant biologist performing site investigations on two parcels of land within East Palo Alto. The Menlo Park Deve lopment Site is being considered for development into a hotel. David has been performing biological constraint analysis and biological resource analysis.

City of Rancho Santa Margarita, Upper Oso Reservoir , Rancho Santa Margarita California (November 2014 – April 2015)
David has performed numerous biological surveys and monitoring tasks, including construction monitoring for Coastal Cactus Wren, Least Bell’ s Vireo, California Gnat Catcher, nesting bird surveys and native species mapping to comply with mit igation measures of the Upper Oso Reservoir Restoration Plan.

MCTS, San Ysirdo Transit Center, San Ysirdo California ( December 2014 – May 2015)
David has performed numerous nesting bird surveys and construction monitoring tasks which included monitoring for native vegetation and prohibiting impacts to habitat critical to Coastal Cactus Wren and Least Bell’s Vireo during fence installation at the San Ysirdo Transit Center.

Newhall Land and Farming Company, Spineflower Preserve and Salvage, Valencia, California (September 2014 – May 2015) Newhall Ranch had been sold to a housing developer and was going to be converted into housing. Prior to the start of construction, David led field crews performing seed collection and seed bank salvage of the federally endangered San Fernando Valley Spine Flower within the housing development areas. He also performed soil analysis of the collection sites to determine ideal growing conditions for later restoration.

DAVID ZWICK, BS
Plant Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.524.7582

Years of Experience: 5

Education

BS, Ecological Restoration, Humboldt
State University, 2013

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications

Qualified SWPPP Developer and
Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
#25679

Certified Erosion, Sediment and
Storm Water Inspector
#00003720

Certified Professional in Erosion and
Sediment Control.
#00008497

DAVID ZWICK

Page 2 ends

Wilder Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring, Orinda, California (June 2015 - Present) WRA has been in charge of providing mitigation for Wilder, a large complex development project with multiple environmental constraints and layers of regulatory jurisdiction. For this 1,000- acre residential project, WRA was able to locate an appropriate piece of land adjacent to the main development site that could provide mitigation for impacts to streams, wetlands, Alameda whipsnake, and California red- legged frog. WRA conducted wetland delineation, habitat assessment, species surveys, permit applications, mitigation planning, and formal endangered species consultation. David conducts wetland vegetation monitoring as well as riparian monitoring for mitigation areas annually and completes the associated monitoring reports, as required per agency guidelines.

Invasive Plant Monitoring, Hydrology Monitoring, and Grazing Management, Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank, Solano County, California (May 2015 - Present)
The 2,000-acre Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank, located in rural Solano County, California, encompasses the preservation of existing Sacramento Valley vernal pool habitat, creation of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools which host several species of special status plants and wildlife, and maintenance of interstitial upland grasslands.

David has conducted invasive plant species monitoring, wetland delineations , vegetation mapping, helped with grazing management, and monitored seasonal wetland hydrology . David has assisted in writing permit packages for restoration projects in several areas of the property. For grazing management, David assesses the site throughout the year and uses these regular observations as well as residual dry matter estimat es to make grazing recommendations to the livestock manager. In addition, David is the Qualified SWPPP Director responsible for implementation of monitoring and reporting for the Elise Gridley Phase 3 Restoration Project.

Special-Status Plant Surveying and Vegetation Mapp ing, Confidential Project Site, Kings County, California (September 2015 - Present)
David has helped to conduct special -status plant surveys and map the vegetation of a 3 20-acre property in Kings County. Over the course of numerous visits, he has helped t o cover the property on- foot, documenting occurrences of special-status plants and mapping plant communities to the alliance level. David has also helped to delineate protective buffers and install exclusion fencing around special -status species in order to protect them from trampling.

Lehigh Permanente Quarry, Conditions of Approval Compliance, Cupertino, California (October 2015 - Present)
David is assisting the management multiple aspects of Santa Clara County SMARA Conditions of Approval (COA) compliance of the long- term Reclamation Plan at the 3,500 acre Permanente Quarry in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. David is the project’s Qualified SWPPP Director and has assisted in storm water management, BMP inspections, and maintenance reporting.

Refinery Biological Permitting, Martinez, California (February 2015 – Present) A refinery in Martinez contains historic waste disposal and management sites with regulatory agency requirements to closure. David assists as the wetlands and biology field lead for a multidisciplinary, multi - stakeholder working group of consultants and petroleum companies to close the legacy environmental sites within the refinery. David assists in investigations and permitting across four remediation projects and a combin ed mitigation project.

The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California (March 2016 – Present) David has helped conduct the annual habitat monitoring, hydrologic monitoring, and annual reporting for the mitigation wetlands at Loch Lomond Mar ina. He has performed numerous site visits documenting plant mortality, as-built plant quantities, and soil conditions. David also developed the monitoring protocols for this project.

April 15, 2022
Maira BlancoEnvironmental Project ManagerPlanning Building and Code Enforcement200 E Santa Clara St.City of San Jose, California 95113 Sylvia DoDivision ManagerPlanning Building and Code Enforcement200 E Santa Clara St.City of San Jose, California 95113 Additional comments re: Alviso Hotel Project (PD19-031) Dear Ms. Blanco and Ms. Do,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society(SCVAS) submits thesesupplemental comments respondingtothe City of San Jose’s (City) IS/MND for theAlvisoHotel Project (Project). OnMarch24, 2022, thecityissuedits ResponsetoComments ontheProject. BecausewedisagreewiththeCity’s responses toourIS/MND comment letter of November 10, 2021, SCVASsubmits thefollowingsupplemental commentsfor your consideration.

CityResponseH-1contendsthatthedevelopmentoftheAlvisoHotelpropertywasnotforeseeable,andthus, impermissible segmentation of CEQA review has not occurred. - Wedisagree. As mentionedinour prior letters, futuredevelopment of thesitewaspredictable,andreasonablyforeseeableandshouldhavebeenconsideredtogether withtheTopgolf@TerraProject (PDC16-013andGPT16-001)ontheapproximately36acresthatwereanalyzedin2016 1 .The property is designated “CombinedIndustrial/Commercial“ intheAlvisoMaster Plan 2 whichwas incorporated into the San Jose General Plan Envision 2040 with additional employment 2 See page 36, Alviso Master Plan y (1998)https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16053/636681597543870000 1 Topgolf @ Terra IS/MND September 2016https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/27827/637145324863900000

growthcapacity
3 .AmendmentstotheAlvisoMasterPlanandtoEnvision2040havenotchangedthis designation. The fact this particular project was not plannedyet whentheCityprocessedthe Topgolf@Terra Project does not mean that a development project on this land was notforeseeable, and thus, this is aclassic exampleof segmentedCEQAreview. At theveryleast, aprogrammatic EIR should have been preparedin2016toanalyzeafull scopeof potential (andinevitable) development on the property, allowing future development to be added withoutsegmenting CEQA review.

City Response H-1 to our comment letter also states that the City’s Biological Resources Assessmentassessed cumulative impacts of the Project, including impacts associated with the Topgolf@Terraproject. However, this assertion is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as describedbelow:- Section 4.4 of the IS/MND, Biological Resources, does not mention Cumulative Impacts at all,and there is no discussion of the cumulative loss of habitat or of open space. Appendix BBiological Resources Report andAppendixGPhaseI Environmental Assessment (2021) alsodonot include any discussions of potential cumulative impacts to biological resources.- The Mandatory Findings of Significance (section 4.21) summarily concludes that the Projectwouldnot significantlycontributetocumulativeimpactsonbiologicalresources(ImpactMFS-2),however, there is no analysis in the IS/MND to support this finding.- The Topgolf@Terra project claimed that of the 34.51 total acres available for that project’sdevelopment, 27.57 acres will be permanently disturbed and 6.94 will remain undeveloped.Accordingly, the Topgolf@Terra project found no significant impacts to open space. In theTopgolf@Terra IS/MND, the project is shown as“golf course/ urban park” and “annual grassland”(Figure 1), land uses that require payments to theHabitat Agency. TheTopgolf@TerraprojectpaidtheValleyHabitat Planfees for loss of habitat on27.57acres, but NOT for the undeveloped 6.94 acres ofopenspace(SeeattachedapplicationtotheHabitatAgency and associated attachments). Fees forimpacts to burrowing owl habitat on the hotelproject’s footprint, as well as impacts totricoloredblackbirds(Figure2),werealsonotsubmittedtotheHabitat Agency.

Figure 1 Topgolf@Terra Project site
3 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22359/637841721973600000

- The project proposes that 3acres (48%) of theproject siteis “developed” becauseit has beengraded in the past. As we have previously demonstrated (and other comments havecorroborated), the graded landremains valuablehabitat for raptors (includingburrowingowls)and other bird species, as do most agricultural fields in thestate. Thefact that landhas beengraded should not change its definition to “developed”, and should not exempt the full site,including the 3 graded acres, frompaying fees to the Habitat Agency. The cumulative loss ofopen space has not been discussed or mitigated in the Alviso Hotel IS/MND.

Figure 2. Burrowing owl and tricolored blackbirdhabitat, from attachments toTopgolf@Terra HabitatAgency Application (Right) and the Alviso Hotel Projectsite development map (Left) InCityResponseH-2, theCitydismisses impacts of loss of foraginghabitat,narrowingthemitigationtopre-construction surveys for nesting birds. We maintain that the loss of habitat adjacent to theGuadalupeRiverandawetland,initself,isasignificantimpact.Notonlyisthisasignificantimpacttothespecies that couldbefoundonthesite(includingburrowingowlsandtri-coloredblackbirds),butalsotothe many species that flyover thesiteandalongtheGuadalupeRiver. Thefull scopeof theseimpactsshould be analyzed and mitigated.

Wealsoreiterateourdeepconcernthatthefurtherdevelopmentofthisareawillsignificantlyimpacttheonly currentlysignificant breedingpopulations of burrowingowls inSantaClaraCounty(CityResponseH.3). For theburrowingowls of SantaClaraValley,timeiscritical.Untilaviablepopulationisestablished

southof SanJose, thepopulationof theAlvisoarearemains acriticalsourcepopulationforthisspeciessurvival intheCounty.Atthistime,theHabitatPlanisworkingtostabilizetheburrowingowlpopulation,and to establish a stable breeding population of burrowing owls elsewhereinSantaClaraCounty, butthis goal has not been achieved yet. Despite various population stabilization efforts the populationcontinues to decline 4 (Figure 3).

At this time, abreedingsitesouthof SanJosehas yet tobesecuredandpreparedforbreedingpairsofburrowing owls, and show breeding success. The breeding population of Alviso (at the RegionalWastewater Facility) is critical totherecoveryefforts. If nobreedingowlsremaininSantaClaraCounty,fees will not possibly mitigate the impact. At the time this IS/MND is prepared, burrowingowls needmore time, not money, to avoid extirpation fromSanta Clara County. Furthermore, bothforagingandbreedinghabitat iscriticallyimportantintheAlvisoarea.WebelievethatpaymentofburrowingowlfeestotheHabitat Planis not adequatemitigationfor theloss of foragingorbreedinghabitatforburrowingowls in the Alvisoarea. AnEIRis neededtofullydescribe, evaluateandmitigateimpacts toburrowingowls.

Figure 3
4 Burrowing Owl Breeding Season Survey Presentation to the Governing and Implementation Board of theSanta Clara Valley Habitat Agency, March 17, 2022https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1570/03

Forthereasonsenumeratedinthisletter,inourNovember10thletterandApril5thletter,andinconcertwith comments by other organizations, SCVAS maintains that there is a fair argument supported bysubstantial evidencethat theProjectwillresultinsignificantimpactstobiologicalresourcesandthattheIS/MND’s conclusions and findings are not supported by substantial evidence and are flawed. SCVASrespectfully requests that the City prepare an EIR rather than an MND prior to consideration of theProject.

Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.Environmental AdvocateSanta Clara Valley Audubon Society22221 McClellan Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014 1-1

Attachment 1 PROJECT DECRIPTION

The proposed project (Project) is located on the south side of North First Street between Liberty Street and Highway 237 in the Alviso area of north San Jose. The Project includes impacts to two parcels in the Habitat Plan Area (015-39-020, -026).

The Project is a Master Planned Development which includes the demolition o f existing commercial structures, removal of six ordinance size trees, and the construction of an entertainment facility (Topgolf), hotel, and commercial/retail space. The approximately 72,000 square foot Topgolf entertainment facility includes a three-story indoor/outdoor recreation building with 120 hitting bays, a family entertainment area with amusement games, a full-service restaurant, bar, lounges, and a rooftop venue. The Project would include a 200- room hotel on the northeast corner of the project site adjacent to the Topgolf facility as well as one- to two-story commercial/retail buildings with up to 110,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. The Project would provide surface and at grade parking areas below raised structures and public gathering areas at the northwest corner of the development and along the street frontage of North First Street.

Vehicles would access the Project site from three driveways on North First Street. Internal roadways would link the entrances to parking lots and g arages on site. Any improvements for sanitary sewer connection would occur on site in the permanent impact area. Stormwater runoff within the development area will be collected and treated on-site.

The Project will permanently impact 27.57 acres within the Plan Area, including 8.91 acres of previously developed land. A 6.94 acre area in the southeast corner of the Project Area would not be developed. There will be no temporary impacts from the Project. Project activities including equipment staging wi ll occur within the permanent impact area. All permanent development will be located outside of setbacks associated with the adjacent protected wetlands.

2-1

Figures

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28258\GIS\ArcMap\Figure 1 Vicinity.mxd Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: mweidenbach, 11/16/2018 Project Area
View Extent
Topgolf @ Terra
Santa Clara County, California
0 21
Miles
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
±
<

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28258\GIS\ArcMap\Figure 2 Site Plan.mxd Sources: NAIP 2016, SSURGO, WRA | Prepared By: mweidenbach, 11/20/2018 Topgolf @ Terra
Santa Clara County, California
0 400200
Feet
Figure 2. Site Plan Map
±
Project Area (35.83 ac.)
Development Area
Project Site Plans
Habitat Plan Permit Area
Landcover Type
California Annual Grassland (0.98 ac.)*
Diked Brackish Marsh (0 ac.)*
Golf Courses/Urban Parks (17.68 ac.)*
Pond (0 ac.)*
Urban - Suburban (8.91 ac.)*
*The acreage provided represents only the area within the Development Area. 2-4

Attachment 2 CONDITION COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION

Condition 1: Avoid Direct Impacts on Legally Protected Plant and Wildlife Species

The Project will avoid direct impacts to legally protected plant and wildlife species. Prior to initial ground disturbance, pre-construction burrowing owl surveys will occur as described below under Condition 17 compliance. No nesting or foraging habitat is present for tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor, TRBL) within the Project Area; however, tall dense vegetation is present over 100 feet south in the Guadalupe River. A levee separates the Project Area from the Guadalupe River. Although no nesting habitat is present within the proposed Project Area or surrounding 100 feet, pre-construction nest surveys will also be conducted for TRBL if activities are to occur within 250 feet of potential nesting habitat during the nesting season as described below under Condition 17 compliance.

The Project Area is outside of the Plant Survey Area mapped in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Plan). In the Project’s Initial Study
1, the Project Area was determined to have potential to support Congdon’s tarplant. A qualified biologist conducted a focused Congdon’s tarplant survey on October 24, 2018, which coincided with the blooming period of the species. No Congdon’s tarplant species were observed as detailed in the attached survey report.

Non-special-status bird species may nest within the Project Area. To avoid impacts to nesting birds protected under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and in accordance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) recommendations, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey within 14 days of initial ground disturbance if project ac tivities are to begin during the nesting season ( February 1-August 31). If active nests of native or CFGC protected bird species are observed within areas of direct or indirect impacts , a qualified biologist will establish a no-disturbance buffer until the nest has become inactive. The size of the buffer will be dependent upon species, nest location, and existing disturbance barriers.

Condition 3: Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and Protect Water Quality

The Project will not impact water quality or change hydrologic conditions of an existing stream, wetland, or riparian area . The proposed Project will comply with the City of San Jos e’s Post- Construction Urban Runoff Policy 6-29 and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit through the Project design. Stormwater runoff within the development area will be collected and treated on- site. All personnel working within the stream setback were trained by a qualified biologist on November 7, 2018 (training log attached). Training materials included avoidance and minimization measures to reduce construction impacts to streams and wetlands. T he Project design includes general Best Management Practices including erosion control and stormwater measures.

1 Initial Study Topgolf @ Terra Project. City of San Jose. September 2016. 2-5

Condition 11: Stream and Riparian Setbacks

The HCP determined a 100-foot riparian setback from the Guadalupe River (a category 1 stream).

The Project will not have permanent or temporary impacts within the 100 -foot riparian setback, as shown in Figure 2.

Condition 15: Western Burrowing Owl

This condition requires preconstruction surveys and other measures for projects within the burrowing owl Wildlife Survey Area (Habitat Plan 6-62). No burrowing owl have been documented in the Project Area in the California Natura Diversity Database 2 (CNDDB). Preconstruction surveys were conducted on October 25, 2018 and October 31, 2018. A qualified biologist traversed the Pr oject Area and inspected for evidence of burrowing owl including feathers, whitewash, pellets, and prey remains. Few suitable burrows were present in the survey area. No burrowing owl or evidence of burrowing owl was observed during the surveys. See the attached burrowing owl preconstruction survey report for details.

Condition 17:Tricolored Blackbird

This condition requires avoidance of direct impacts to nesting TRBL colonies (Habitat Plan 6-69).

A small portion of the Project is within 250 feet of Guadalupe River and within the tricolored blackbird Wildlife Survey Area identified on the Habitat Plan Geobrowser. A habitat assessment was conducted on November 14, 2018 by a qualified biologist for potentially suitable nesting substrate within 250 feet of proposed activities . Any potential nesting habitat within 250 feet of the Project Area was investigated for evidence of nesting over the past year (i.e., late pre-fledged juveniles and/or closely set nest structures indicative of use by a colony).

Prior to the site visit, a literature search was conducted to investigate any previous nesting occurrences in the area. Sources included the CNDDB and the Santa Clara County Breeding Bird Atlas

3. The nearest recorded occurrence within the CNDDB 1 of TRBL nesting is approximately 0.75 mile north of the Project Area in association with 2 acres of freshwater marsh.

The recorded occurrence is from 1993; Nesting was not observed at this site in subsequent years.

The Project Area does not contain suitable nesting habitat as there are no wetlands with emergent vegetation or other dense vegetation to support nesting. The Guadalupe River is south of the Project Area and contains patches of vegetation with suitable density and composition on the south side of the river. Potentially suitable habitat consisted of mature tules (Schoenoplectus sp) and cattails ( Typha sp)(see Wildlife Survey Area figure attached below). No signs of nesting including remnant nest structures or late pre-fledged juveniles were observed during the survey.

No TRBL were observed during the November 14, 2018 site visit or during previous site visits conducted by WRA or HT Harvey 4. The Guadalupe River is tidally influenced, brackish habitat

2CDFW 2018. California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California.
3Bousman, WG. 2007. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Cupertino, CA.
4Initial Study Topgolf @ Terra Project. City of San Jose. September 2016. 2-6

and may not provide freshwater habitat for TRBL. In addition, the Project Area is separated from this habitat by a levee which provides a visual barrier between the potential habitat and the Project Area.

No evidence of previous tricolored blackbird nesting within 250 feet of the proposed Project was observed during the November 14, 2018 habitat survey, and no nesti ng has been previ ously documented within 250 feet of the Project Area. In compliance wi th Condition 17 and with no documented TRBL nesting within the previous 5 years, the following condition is required by the Habitat Plan:

• Project activities initiated during the tricolored blackbird nesting season (March 15 through July 31) and within 250 feet of suitable nesting habitat as depicted in the attached map will require a pre-construction survey. The pre-construction survey will be scheduled within 48 hours prior to initiation of project activities to determine if a colony is present and actively nesting.
o If an active nest is observed, the 250-foot no disturbance buffer will be established surrounding the edge of suitable nesting habitat occupied by the colony. The 250- foot buffer will remain until the nesting season ends or the colony abandons the site.
o A qualified biologist will monitor the status of the colony to ensure Project activities outside of the 250-foot buffer are not affecting the nesting colony. If the biologist determines Project activities are resulting in disturbance to the colony, the no- disturbance buffer may be expanded.
• No pre-construction surveys are necessary if Project activities are initiated outside of the nesting season.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28258\GIS\ArcMap\Wildlife Survey Area.mxd Sources: NAIP 2016, SSURGO, WRA | Prepared By: mweidenbach, 11/20/2018 Topgolf @ Terra
Santa Clara County, California
0 400200
Feet
±
Project Area (35.83 ac.)
Project Site Plans
TRBL Potential Habitat
250 Foot Buffer
Habitat Plan Wildlife Survey Areas
Tricolored Blackbird
Western Burrowing Owl
Wildlife Survey Areas

October 31, 2018

Trang Tu-Nguyen
The Shops @ Terra
461 South Milpitas
Milpitas, CA 95035

Re: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey Results for the Topgolf @ Terra Project, San Jose, CA

Dear Ms. Tu-Nguyen,

This letter is to report the findings of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys conducted within the Topgolf @ Terra Project (Project) in San Jose, California (Project Area). The approximately 38-acre Project Area is located north of Highway 237 between Liberty Street and North 1
st Street. Burrowing owl has been documented in the Project Area and vicinity in the California Natural Diversity Database1. These surveys were conducted in compliance with the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. MM BIO-2.1 requires two preconstruction surveys with one no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities and one within 48 hours of ground disturbance.

Project Area Description

The Project Area is located in the Milpitas United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map. The Project Area is located approximately 0.1 mile north of Highway 237 and is surrounded to the north and west by development, to the south by Guadalupe River and Guadalupe River Trail, and to the east by a parcel currently under construction for a separate and unrelated project. The Project Area consists primarily of an abandoned golf course/ urban park, annual grassland, and development with a fence around the perimeter.

Methods

A WRA wildlife biologist with training and experience in performing burrowing owl and wildlife surveys in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols surveyed the Project Area. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report).2 The first survey was conducted during the morning of October 25, 2018. The biologist traversed the entire 38-acre Project Area on foot using binoculars and the naked eye to search for burrowing owl presence. Burrows were inspected for evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (feathers, whitewash, pellets, prey remains). The

1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA. Accessed: October 2018. 2 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

2 second survey was conducted during the morning of October 31, 2018 and covered areas east of the parking lot within the Project Area. Significant survey effort was placed in the open areas with mammalian burrow presence. Conditions during each survey were suitable for detection of burrowing owl.

Results

No burrowing owl or evidence of burrowing owl occupation was observed within the Project Area during the survey efforts. The ground was paved or compact in large portions of the Project Area, thus limiting the suitability of the Project Area for burrowing owl. Suitable burrows and debris piles in the remainder of the Project Area did not show evidence of burrowing owl occupancy. Survey results indicate that proposed work within the Project Area will not adversely impact burrowing owl as none were observed during the surveys.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Bianca Clarke
Associate Regulatory Permitting Specialist

2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra -ca.com November 2, 2018
Trang Tu-Nguyen
The Shops @ Terra
461 South Milpitas
Milpitas, CA 95035
Re: Congdon’s T arplant Surveys for Top Golf @ T erra Project , San Jose, S anta C lara County, California; IS/MND Mitigation Measure MM BIO 1-1.

Dear Ms. Tu-Nguyen:

This letter reports the findings of a focused , pre -construction survey for Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) at the TopGolf @ Terra Project located in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California (Study Area; Figure 1, Attachment A) . The survey was performed in compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO 1-1 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Decleration (IS/MND) issued for the project by the City of San Jose Depa rtment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Mitigation Measure BIO 1-1 requires a focused survey for Congdon’s tarplant be conducted prior to the initiation of any construction and the results be submitted to the City’s Supervising Environmental Planner for review and approval.

Suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant was identified at the site by H.T. Harvey and Associates in 2015 based on land cover types, observed species, and nearby documented occurrences (H.T.

Harvey 2016). WRA biologists conducted a focused survey for Congdon’s tarplant within the Study Area on October 24, 2018, which coincided with the blooming period of the species. The methods and results of the survey are described below.

Site Description
The Study Area is located within the 38.28-acre Project Site located on the south side of North First Street, between Highway 237 and Gold Street, in the Alv iso area of San Jose (Figure 2, Attachment A). The Study Area includes several land cover types, including urban-suburban, golf course/urban park, California annual gras sland, coastal and v alley freshwater marsh, diked brackish marsh, and a pond (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2016). At some point between the 2015 survey and the 2018 survey, the golf course was closed. The absence of land management due to closure of the golf course has allowed for ruderal plants to dominant portions of the urban-s uburban land cover ty pe, and ruderal spec ies encroachment into the golf course/urban park portions of the Study Area. Dominant ruderal species obs erved encroaching into this area included stinkwork (Dittrichia graveolens), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis).

California annual grass lands were dominated by wild oats (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). The diked brackish marsh land cover types were dominated by pic kleweed (Salicornia pacifica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), a nd alkali heath (Frankenia salina).

The Study Area experiences a coastal -influenced, Mediterranean climate with fog common throughout the summer months. Precipitation in the region falls predominantly as rainfall during the winter and spring, with an annual average of 14.31 inches recorded at the Nati onal Climate Trang Tu-Nguyen
November 2, 2018

Page 2 ends

D
ata Center weather station in Newark (#046144), located approximately 9 miles northeast of the Study Area (WRCC 2018).

Harvey’s 2015 assessment.

Trang Tu-Nguyen
November 2, 2018

Page 3 ends

S
hould you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

S
incerely,
B
ianca Clarke
Associate Regulatory Permitting Specialist
A
ttachment A: Figures
Attachment B: Plant Species Observed within the Project Area

Trang Tu-Nguyen
November 2, 2018

Page 4 ends

Literature Cited

Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Accessed: October 2018.

H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2016. TopGolf Biological Resources Report. July 19.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2018. Jepson eFlora. Online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.

Accessed: October 2018.
[NRCS] National Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov. Accessed:

Accessed October 2018.

2-4

Exhibit 2. Permanent Impact Fee Calculator

Project Applicant:

Project Name:

APN (s):

Project Number: to be provided by local jurisdiction
Date: November 20, 2018 Jurisdiction/Agency:

1. Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips 6691 x $4.96 = $33,187.36 and/or

B. Serpentine Fee Total
Exhibit 2: SCVHP PERMANENT FEE CALCULATOR WORKSHEET
PROJECT APPLICANT INFO:

F. Nitrogen Depositon Fee Total (1 and/or 2)
2-5

Attachment 3 Qualified Biologist Resumes

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Representative Projects

Tejon Ranchcorp - Grapevine Specific Plan Project Permitting and Biological Consultation, Kern County, California 2017 - Present

BIANCA CLARKE, MS
Associate
Regulatory Permitting
Specialist
[email protected]
o: 415.454.8868 x1470
c: 415.342.9907

Years of Experience: 9

Education
MS Ecology & Systematic Biology
San Francisco State University, 2013

BS Biology (Emphasis Ecology)
San Francisco State University, 2007

Specialized Training
Project Management Bootcamp,
PSMJ Resources, 2014

California Rapid Assessment Method
(CRAM): Riverine and Estuarine
Module, Moss Landing Marine Labs,
May 2012

Clean Water Act Section 404:

Nationwide and Other Specialized
Permits Workshop, UC Davis
Extension, 2012

CRAM specific for the Sunrise
Powerlink Project, 2010, SCCWRP

Wetland Plant Indicator Workshop,
Romberg Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2009

Basic Wetland Delineation, Romberg

Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2007

Restoration Ecology, Romberg
Tiburon Center, SFSU, 2007

BIANCA CLARKE

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Representative Projects

PATRICIA VALCARCEL, MS
Associate Wildlife Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.524.7542

Years of Experience: 10
Education
MS, Wildlife Sciences, Oregon State
University, 2011

BA, Environmental Sciences,
Northwestern University, 2003

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications
USFWS Recovery Permit for giant
gartersnake and San Francisco
gartersnake (TE-64146A-1)

California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Scientific Collecting Permit

The Wildlife Society

PATRICIA VALCARCEL

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Major construction was completed during 2014, and boardwalk and trail construction is continu ed through 2016.

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Representative Projects

Molly has performed surveys for special-status species including Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl and assisted with annual reporting as part of the ongoing annual monitoring requirement.

Molly Brewer
Wildlife Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.454.8868 x 2100
c: 916.591.3053

Years of Experience: 5

Education
BS Biology, University of California
Santa Cruz, 2012

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications
CPR, AED, and First Aid for Adults,
2016

Specialized Training
Marbled murrelet surveyor
certification, Hamer
Environmental/Pacific Seabird
Group, 2017

MOLLY BREWER

Page 2 ends

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

NVIDIA Campus Expansion Nesting Bird Avoidance, Santa Clara, California (2018) WRA provided NVIDIA with biological support during their campus expansion at the San Tomas Business Park.

Bird-safe Design Evaluation for Lighted Signs, San Jose, California (2018) A number of parcels in San Jose proposed installation of lighted signs in the vicinity of riparian and wetland habitat.

Molly wrote a discussion of the efficacy of the proposed parcels’ bird-safe and bird-friendly design elements based on the current subject literature.

San Rafael | Emeryville | San Diego | Fort Bragg | Denver (415) 454-8868 [email protected] www.wra-ca.com

Representative Projects

DAVID ZWICK, BS
Plant Biologist
[email protected]
o: 415.524.7582

Years of Experience: 5

Education

BS, Ecological Restoration, Humboldt
State University, 2013

Professional Affiliations/
Certifications

Qualified SWPPP Developer and
Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
#25679

Certified Erosion, Sediment and
Storm Water Inspector
#00003720

Certified Professional in Erosion and
Sediment Control.
#00008497

DAVID ZWICK

Page 2 ends

:jtlhifi it,iliA liAtr,1 Y
{\&WU1#ql htit: Ydd'V
I tlv ol \lllvy
1 ily rl lvlltit,rii lliil
I il'l t)l1r'l1l i{,!t:
( 0ilttl ! ill'r,rtt1;r I l,rt;|
rrlit/ { l,rf,i ?,rll|,y l\iih, l,ll',!lir I
',,llrl,r ( l,l,t V,lllry
ll llr',1'rrt i,rlirrtt il,it{llrllilv
WW
Version 3, Revised: 4/1,O/2OI8
(408) 857 (408) 857-4731
Santa Clara Va ey Habitat Plan

APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE PROJECTS
planning or building ffice 'the Iocal jurisdiction (Couny City of Morgan Hill, or City ofof Santa Clara, City of G San Josd) at the time of
and/or building permit
this form are minimum
for grading, drainage,
The requirements in
The HabitatAgency
or local jurisdiction may more information to
clarify or complete an
Hahitat plan Application File Numbet
( As s ignt:d hy j uri sdit:tion )
Project Name:

J u risdiction:

Item 1-Project A,
Property Owner
Property Owner Name:

Mailing Address:

Phone: (904) 813-
Emait: MLH@michae,l
Project Applicant
Applicant Compa nylOrgar
Representative's Name:

Mailing Address:
package.

Shops @ Terra
of San Jose submittat Date:
ication Information
The Shops @ Terra
461 S. Milpitas Blvd, Suite 1
Milpitas, CA 95035
(e04) 813-6340
ization: TNT Land Development Services
Trang Tu-Nguyen
1566 Davis Street
San Jose, CA 95162
this Application: Answering many of the questions in this accessing the Sqnta Clara Valley Habitat Agenc! Geobrowser Geobrowser mqps ore available qt each of the City and County online at the Santq Clara Valley Habitat Agency website ), The Habitat Agency Geobrowser Provides maps to identify , Private DevelopmentAreas, Land Cover, Fee Zones, Survey Setbacks, Woodland Areas, Urban Reserve System Inteffice reas. Additionally, the Fees and Conditions Worksheet is a guidance for land cover mapping requirements, fees, and Resources for
applicationform will
maps, The Hqbitat
planning departments art
(www. s cv - h a b ita ta g e n cy,
the Habitat PIan Permit
Areas, Stream Buffers
Zones, and Urban Servicet
planning tool that pro
conditions that may ap
SJ-2018-016
PDC16-013/PD16-034 (3-06800)
Biologist Information (if applicable)
Biological/EnvironmentalFirm: WRA, InC. (wRA)
Lead contact Name: Bianca Clarke
MailingAddress: 2169 G EaSt FfanC; sco Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94
(415) 524-7255
[email protected]
Item 2-Project Description
Project Type (residential, commercial, industrial,
Phone:

Email:

I Residential
! Transportation
Project Location:

E
E ott',un R
(Former
ional, transportation, other) :

I Recreational
Golf Driving Ranch) North First Street and Liberty, 4701 N. First Street, San Jose Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APNs): 01 5- 9-020, 015-39-026 Total Acreage rcf Parcels: 34.5
ls the Parcel(s) within an urban service area?1 E ves I trto Existing Use of Property: vaca t land, previous golf driving range Project Summary: (Brief summary of project only)
i Most, if not all, projectij tri the exi;ting city lurisdictions of G roy, Mor"gan ilili, and San.losri arr.: in thr: urban sr:rvice area. lf fiecessary, verify.please corrtact the appropriate planning or building office t Version 3, Revised: 4/tO/2O1,8
ion of an approximately 72,000 square foot
and commercial/retail space. A total of 27.57
would be permanently disturbed and developed.
, No wetlands, ponds, or riparian habitat will be
The proposed project includes the
indoor/outdoor entertainment facility, h
acres within the two parcels in the Plan
The remaining 6.94 acres will have no im
temporarily or permanently disturbed.

Check which of the following Habitat Plan Private D
below. These areas can be viewed on the Habitat Ag
"Fee Zones-Larrd Cover Fee Zones."
Private Development Area2:
f Rrea 1: Private Development Covered
! Rrea 2: Rural > 2 Acres
Land Cover Fee ilone(s)3:
fl zone A (Ranchlands and Natural Lands)
I Zone B (Agricultural and Valley Floor Lands)
I Opt-ln. lf the project is not a covered project under coverage. Opt-in coverage is not guaranteed, and ar
jurisdiction in consultation with the Habitat Agency
2 Refer to Habitat Agency €eobi:-Owsef at www.hcpmaps.c 3 Refer to Habitat AgencV GAiih.ro$JgCr at r,vww.hcpmaps Version 3, Revised: 4/7O/2OL8
Area and Land Cover Fee Zones the project is located in, Geobrowser maps by checking "Private Development Areas" and Area 3: Rural
Area 4: Urban
Development N ot Covered
> 2 Acres
Urban Areas
Zone C (Small Vacant Sites < 10 Acres)
e Habitat Plan, check here to "opt-in" to the Habitat Plan for lications must be reviewed and authorized by the local
for Private De.ve lopment Areas map (Habitat Plan Figure 2-5.1) tar LO-nd_Qg)lsLLesZsteg map (Habitat Plan Figure 9-2).

REQUIRED ATI'ACHMENTS
Projects locatecl inside the urbon service area and 70 acr)Es or larger or outside the urbqn service orea (in rural areas) a. E C|S/CAO f il".: Provide a Geographic lnformation $ystem (GlS) or Computer-Aided Design (CAD) compatible file (shapefile or CAD file) of Figures l and 2 (see ltems b and c, above). File must meet Spatial Data Submittal Requirements 4 All projects
b. I Proiect Description: Provide a written descripti that completely describes the project and location. Include all proposed clevelopment that occurs on-site and off-si . lmprovements should include all proposed hardscape, including buildings (e.g., residences, barns, detached bui etc.), associated improvements (e.g., septic systems, new or improvements to existing roads, driveways, bridges, ls, vehicle parking areas, etc.), and recreation facilities (e.g., tennis courts, swimming pools, decl<s, patios, etc.).
(ii) any construction activity that results in tempora
systems, or installation of subsurface utilities, etc.). describing the project, include both (i) permanent improvements and impacts on the project site (e.g., construction staging areas, septic as Attachment 1.

I Vicinitv Map: Provide a legible vicinity map of th
streams or water bodies. Label as Figure 1.
project site and surrounding area that identifies any adjacent d. I Site plan: Provide a site plan that shows the pr d development areas; land cover type(s)6 in the development area; and any relevant landforms-lncluding but not limi to: roads,water bodies, the creek top-of- bank and center line, rock outcrops, the edge of pavement, road shoulders and
proposed project. Label as Figure 2. Permanent and
sting and proposed structures that will be impacted by the ary land cover impact areas shown on the site plan must match the calculated areas in Table 1in this apolica . Definitions of temporary and permanent impacts are described e method of showing and calculating the size of the proposedunder Land Cover Types and lmpacts (ltem 3 below). develoomelnt area is as follows:

L
il.
lf the subject property is located inside the service sreo and is smoller thon 70 ocres,lhe development area is defined as the full area within the boundarV of
proposed on- and off-site improvements).
property where the project is proposed (entire parcel and all lf the subject property is located inside the service oreo and is 70 acres or lorger, the development area is foot buffer and temporary improvements plus a 10-foot buffer. Seedefinerd as all permanent improvements plus a Exhibit 1 for an examole.
lf the r;ubject property is located outside the service qreo (in rural areas), the development area is defined as all perma nent improvements plus a 5O-foot buffer temporary improvements plus a 1O-foot buffer. e.
f.
f Condition Compliance Documentation: Provide itten documentation to describe how the proiect complies with conditions indicated in Part lV. Conditions or as by ltems 4,5,6, or 7. Label as Attachment 2. [Il Exhibit 2-3. Fee Calculator: Complete the Perma
Calculator (Exhibit 3).
lmpact Fee Calculator (Exhibit 2) and/or Temporary lmpact Fee Projects with termporary impacts
g. n Site Photographs of TemporarV lmpact Areas: Atta[h photographs of areas where temporary impacts are proposed to occur. Temporary impacts include the areas for equiprrlrent staging, staking, trenching, etc. Label as Figure 3, h. n Mep-pfrrye Pon ds Attach a map of any/all wetlands, ponds, streams, and/or riparian woodlandsthatwill be directly or indirectly impacted bythe project. Label as Figure4.

Projects that require a qualified biologist
E Qualified Biolosist Resume(s): Include a brief me summarizing biologist qualifications for application components requiring a qualified biologist. Label as Attachment
Avuilible on the l.luhitat Agency website: htt
Refer trr txhibit 1 clf this applic;atianfar reqtired develr:6r Version 3, Revised: 4/IO/?OLq
5 rll arir;r {Habii::it Plarr liBurt' 6
Item 3-Land Cover Types and lmpacts;
Verification of Land Cover
The mapped land cover shown on the project site plan
lmpacts in the Development Area (below), will be veri
land cover type impacted by development, verification
re 2) and listed in Table 1, Natural Communities and Land Cover at the time of project application submittal.T Depending on the ll be conducted by either a qualified biologists, arborist/forester, or planning or building office staff member.e Table 1 what type of land cover verification is required for the project. lf therer is evidence that a natural land cover rr exist on the project site (but is not shown on the Habitat Plan land require mapping by a qualified biologist or arborist/forester.cover rnaps), the planning or building office m Additions to existing development encompa g an area of 10,000 square feet or less on any land cover type do not requirer land cover mapping by a qualified biol
aerial photos by planners or applicants.
ist or other professional, These projects may be mapped based on . Any development on stream, riparian, serpen
qualified biologist.
pond, or wetland land cover types will require verification by a Will the project affect any land cover types? Yes I ruo lf yes, submit a verified land cover map. This map
plan (Figure 2) and match areas calculated in Tablt-.
lf no, a verified land cover map is not required.
d be integrated into the land cover map included with the site Natural Communities and Land Cover I
Check the land cover types listed in Table 1, Natural munities and Land Cover lmpacts in the Development Area, below, identified in the proposed development area that will
The land cover l;ypes must be verified at the time of ap affected by the project, and as shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2) ication, as described under Verification of Land Cover, above.

The Habitat Plan defines land cover impacts as " impacts" and "temporary impacts".10 Permanent impacts are direct impacts that permanently remove or alter a lancl described under temporary impacts. These also includt:
, or that affect a land cover for longer than the period wetland functions. lf the subject property is located
irect impacts on wetlands that result in a permanent change to the urbdn service area and is smaller thon 70 acres, permanent impacts are calculated for the entire parcel, unless co iance with Condition 1L-Stream and Riparian Setbacks is r land cover for less than 1 vear and allow the impacted area torequired. Temporary impacts are direct impacts that al recover to pre-project or ecologically improved conditi within 1 year. This may include construction staging areas or the that affect the land cover longer than this time period areinstallation of underground utilities. Construction ac classified as permanent impacts.

Refer to Hahitat Agency Geobr"OWser at www.hcpmaps for Land*f,"r:V(:r rra;:

The mapping of land cover for all properties witlrin the H accounted for rhe speci{ic characteristic and habitat types A "qualified biologist" is a biologist trained to perfornr the For land cover verificatian, the qualified hioiogist rnust ber jurisdiction wilh a brief resume of the biologist to verify hi Plan Area was conducted at J"0-acre trrapping units and may not have rrd on each property per Section 3.3.7- af the l-labitat Plan. ven tasl<; such a person ir, rnore specifically, a wildlife biologist or Lrotanist petent in land r:r.:vr:r d*lint.:atiarr, Applicants will provide the local or her qualifications. lf the task has the potential to result in take of covered species {e.g., discr:i,traging r"rse of a den by a 5au Wildlife Agencies prior to conductin5l sucir tasl<s.
e Santa Clara Valley Habit;rt Plan, Section 6.8.3.
10 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Pian Appendix A: Glossary Version 3, Revised: 4/1,0/201,8
n kil f ox), the biolugist mr;rt be apprnved i:V rhe Habitat Agency and Provide calculations in Table 1 using the following met a. For all land covers, except Riparian, Wetland, d Stream, provide calculations to cover types, provide calculations
nearest tenth (0,1) of an acre,
to the nearest hundredth (0.01) ofb. For Riparian forest and scrub, and Wetland an acr€}.
c. For Streams, provide calculations in linear feet
The sum of columns showing acreages of land cover anently impacted" by the project and "temporarlly impacted" by the project should equal the total impact acreage
project description.
on the site plan (Figure 2) and match the narrative in the submitted Table 1. Natural Communities and Land lmpacts in the Development Area Natural Comnnunity and Land Cover
Ifthe Proiect is Located in
Multiple Fee Zones,
Indicate the Acreage
acres, except where noted ct of Each
Fee Paying
Grasslands
(see Habitat Plan pages 3-33 through 3-48)
E California Annual Grassland
I Non-serpentine Native Grassland
f Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
[--l Serpentine Rock Outcrop/Barren
f, Serpentinc Seep
n Rock Outcrop
Chaparral and Coast Scrub
(see llabitat Flan pages 3-48 through 3-57)
! Northern )\4ixed Chaparral/Chamise
Chaparral
n ltixed Serpentine Chaparral
n Northern lSoast Scrub/Diablan sage
Scrub
ll Coyote Brush Scrub
Oa,l<Woodland
(see Habitat Fktn pages 3-57 through 3-55)
I Valley Oak Woodland
l-ll Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest
l-l Blue Oak Woodland
l..l Coast Live Oak Forest and Woodland
n Foothill Pine-0ak Woodland
L_..1 Mixed Evergreen I.orest
Riparion Forest and Scrub
(see Habitat Plan pages 3-65 through 3-76)
n Willow Riparian Forest and Scrub
n Central California Sycamore Alluvial
Woodlancl
Ll Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest
B
B
PO
B
B
B
B
B
B
B/A/F
B
B/A/F
B
B/A/F
B
B
B
Land Cover
Verification^
Version 3, Revised: 4/tO/2078
Natural Community and Land Cover
Tvpes fin acres, except where noted
Acreage
Land Cor
"Perman
Impacter
Proiect
f
rr
ntly
'by
Acreage of
Land Cover
"Temporarily
Impacted" by
Proiect
Land Cover
Verification"
B/A/F
B
B
If the Proiect is Located in
Multiple Fee Zones,
Indicate the Acreage
Impact of Each
ConiferWoodland
(see llahitat PIan pages,S-76 through 3.80)
I Redwood I;orest
[1 P9nder9s3 Pine Woodland
n Knobcone Pine Woodland
Wetlands
(see Habitat PIan pages 3'80 through 3-86)
fl Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
n Seasonal Wetland
OpenWater
(see Hobitat PIan pages,3-86 through 3-93)
f-| Pond
Agricultural
(see HabitatPlan pages 3-93 through 3-98)
n orchard
n Vineyard
n Grain, Row Crop, Hay and Pasture,
Disked/Short-Term Fallowed
Developed
(see HabitatPlan pages 3-98 through 3-102)
n Barren
n Rural-Residential
f-l ornamental Woodland
E Golf Courses/Urban Parks
Fee Paying lubtotyl
Non-FeePoylng
(s99 Habltm Plan page 9-24 )
E Urban-suburban
n Landfill
n Reservoir
n Agrjcultule Devglopgd
Non-Fee Paying Subtotal

17. 18.
e
r

8. 8.9)
0 0
B
p
B
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
Total 27.r 0 0
Riverine/Streams (in linear feet) B
a g = qualified biologist; A/F = arborist/forester; P0 = Version 3, Revised: 4/70/2018
or building office
Item 4-Wetlands, Ponds, Streams, a Riparian Woodlands
L. Check the appropriate box ifthe project developm area includes impacts on any of the following land cover types, as shown in Table 1.

I trtone
I Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
f, SeasonalWetland
E Vixea Fiiparian Woodland and Forest

2. lf the project development area includes impacts
below.
a. Name of affected stream (if available):
b. Name of watershed where impacts occur:

3. lf occurrence of any Contra Costa goldfields (losth conjugens Greene) is identified in any of the above land covers, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) for written concurrence of avoidance is required per Condition :l of the Habitat Plan (see Part lV, C
labeled as rlttachment 2.
below). lnclude with condition comoliance documentation Attach a map of any/all wetlands, ponds, streams,
by the project. label as Figure 4.

Provide any additional information regarding im
covers:
nd/or riparian woodlands that will be directly or indirectly impacted cts on Wetlands, Ponds, Streams, and Riparian Woodland land Item 5-Species-Specific Survey Requ ments
Wildlife Habitat Survey Requirements
Based on the Habitot Agency 5edhfowser and land cover types found on-site, species-specific surveys ond if the development areo is located within the Hobitot Agencyreporting notification may be required. Check and Geobfswser Wildlife Survev Areos mop.
ls the project dr-'velopment area located within the Ha tat Plan Wildlife Survey Area? [ Yes I t'to lf yes, indicate wildlife species in Table 2, below. F species indicated, check ifthe appropriate land covertype is present. lf the projerct is located within a wildlife species su reporting requirements must be completed, as indi
in Table 2) for further information regarding theser
lf no, wildlife surveys are not required.
area and the appropriate land cover type is present, survey and ted in Table 2. See the referenced Habitat Plan section (as provided requirements.

Willow Riparian Forest and Scrub
Central California Syca more Al luvial Woodland
Pond
Stream
aquatic land cover type listed above, complete Statements a and b,

4. 5.

Version 3, Revised: 4/tO/2OtB
Table 2. Species-Specific Wildlife Habitat Su
I None
Required
Requirements"'o
Evesnruo
n yes E tlo
nyesEuo
n Yes E t'to
IvesENo
E san
Joaquin
kit fox
E Western
burrowing
owl
E Tricolored
blackbird.
n suy
checkerspot
hr r fterflrr
X least gell's
vlreo
o Any Grassland
. OakWoodland
. Agricultural
. Any Grassland
. Oak Woodland
r Agricultural
r Ponds
o Coastal & Valley Freshwater Ma
o Willow Riparian Forest & Scrub
o Central California Sycamore
Alluvial Woodland
. Mixed R Woodland &
nyesnuo
n Yes n I',to
nvesnuo
E yes E trto
n Yes E ilto
n Yes E t'to
Identify and map potential den
site habitat.

Identify and map burrows and
potential burrows within 250 feet
of project activity footprint,
Document evidence of
presence/absence (owls, pellets,
whitewash, prey remainsJ.

Species surveys in occupied
habitat are required in both
breeding and non-breeding
seasons.
r Identify and map nesting
substrate, and marsh habitat.

See
Habitat
Plan
Pages 6-71
through
6-73
Pages 6-62
through
6-67
Pages 6-69
through
6-7t
Pages 6-58
through
6-59
Pages 6-68
through
6-69
o Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland n ves n llo
. Willow Riparian Forest & Scrub
r Central California Sycamore
Alluvial Woodland
o Identify and map extent of larval
host plants.
o Report results ofreconnaissance
level surveys for adult butterflies.
. Identify and map early
successional riparian forest or
scrub.
n ves nuo
nyesnruo
I yes n i',to. Mixed Riparian Woodland & F
The species-specific wildlife survey requirements lisl: above are described in more detail in Section 6.6.1 lSelected Covered Wildlife Species) and Table 6-8 of the Habit Plan Surveys for all covered species mustbe conducted by
the Habitat Plan. For further information, contact the
qualified biologist, as defined in Section 6.8.5 [Qualified BiologistJ of icable local jurisdiction or the Habitat Agency.

Results of Required Wildlife Habitat Surveys
lnclude the following with condition compliance doc tation labeled as Attachment 2 a. Providr: a written description of the results of species-specific wildlife habitat surveys conducted, as required in Table 21. Survevs will assess the location, quant , and quality of suitable habitat for specified covered wildlife species on the project site. Covered species
is based on assumption of take.
assumed to occupy suitable habitat in impact areas, and mitigation b. Reference and attach the species-specific Wild fe Survey Area maps as required in Table 2. c. Attach a description of the anticipated impact that the proposed activity will have on the species-specific wildlife occurrence and/or how the project will avoid i pacts on all covered wildlife species.

Plant Survey Requirements
Based on the Hirbitat Agency Geohfowser mapli and Land Cover map, species-specific plant surveys may be required. Check and identifv if the development arer is located within the Plant Survev Areas map. '1 The Habitat Plan Ge6brct^tser 9'o*l-Sa:ySy'Afe.ag nrap wa5 Version 3, Revised: 417o/2oI8
Are these Land Cover
If Yes, Implementthe Following
Survey/Reporting Req uirements
r:ated based gn Sectiorr et.6.2 and Table 6-9 of the Habitat Plan s the project development area located within the Hat:
lf yes, identify if the land cover type listed in Table plant surveys are required.
lf no, plant surveys are not required.

Surveys must be conducted according to current applic;
USFWS guidelines and during the appropriate season lir
6-77 of the Habitat Plan) that may occur on the site. Flr:
acceptable). A required written summary of the survey
the project area, Conditions 19 and 20 of the Habitat Pl Table 3. Covered Plant Species, Typical Habitat
tr None
at Plan Plant Survey Area? f Ves I No
, below, will be affected by the project (per Table 1) to determine if ble California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or ed below to identify any covered plant species (see pages 6-76 and istic surveys are not required (i.e., a focused rare plant survey is esults is discussed below. lf any covered plant species are found in n must be followed (see Part lV, Conditions, below),
ons, and TypicalSurvey Periods
Is this Land Cover Type On-site? Plant Species I equiring Surveys Typical Survey
Period
n Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Smooth lessingi
Fragrant fritilla
Metcalf Canyon
Most beautiful j
Tiburon Indian
Coyote ceanotlr
t (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata)
y (Fritillaria liliace a)
ewelfl ower {Streptanthus albidus ssp. Albidus)
welflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp, Peramoenus)
raintbrtrsh (Castilleja ffinis ssp. Neglecta)
s (Ceanothus fetisiae)
Jul-Nov
Feb-Apr
Apr-Jul
Mar-Jun
Apr-Jul
Ian-May
I Serpentine Rock Outcrop
Sprncnfinr' Scen
Mixed Serpentine Chaparral
Mixed 0akWoodland and Forest
with Serpentine Soils
Coast Live Oak Forest and
Woodland with Serpentine Soils
Northern Coastal Scrub and
Diablan Sage Scub with
Serpentine Soils
n
n
T
n
n
Santa Clara Vall
Smooth lessingi
Metcalf Canyon
Most beautiful )
Tiburon Indian
Mount Hamiltor
Coyote ceanotlr
Most beautiful j
Loma Prieta hoi
Loma Prieta hoi
Coyote ceanotlr
Metcalf Canyon
Most beautiful j
Smooth lessinpll
y dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. Setchellii)
t (Lessingia micradenia var, glabrata)
ewelfl ower (S tre p tan thus alb idus ssp,,4lbidusl
welflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp, Peramoenus)
raintbrush (Castilleja ffinis ssp, Neglecta)
thistle [Cirsiu m fontinale var. campylon)
s (C e ano thu s ferrisiae)
welfl ower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. Peramoenus)
.a (Hoita strobilina)
.a (Hoita strobilina)
s (Ceanothus ferrisiae)
ewelfl ower {Str ep tanthu s albidu s ssp.,4lbidus]
rwelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. Peramoenus)
t (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata)
Apr-Jnn
Jul-Nov
Apr-Jul
Mar-fun
Apr-Jul
Feb-0ct
Jan-May
Mar-Jun
May-0ct
uru-o;,
lu;-M"y
Apr-Jul
Mar-Jun
Jul-Nov
Results of Required Plant Surveys
Provide s written summory describing the results ond
times of all surveys conducted, as required in Table 3.'T be reodily identified by qualified botanists outside oJ documentotion labeled as Attachment 2,
1,. lf any covered plants are found, include the followi o Description and number of occurrences and th
2 see Condition No, 20, page 6-76, of the Habitat Pian fclr s Version 3, Revised: 4/70/20L8
urvey methods used for all cavered plonts, including the dates qnd rc survey periods should be used as a guide only, os some plants con the species' blooming period.r2 lnclude with condition complionce rg information in the results summary:
:ir rough population size.
cific survr:v requirements.
a
a
a
Descriotion of the "health" of each occurr
Habitat Plan for comprehensive description):
o Age structure
o Reproductive success
o Availability of suitable habitat
o Diversity of suitable habitat
o Threats
A map showing the location of all occurrences.

Justification of surveying time window, if
The California Natural Diversity Database (C

2. Attach a description ofthe anticipated
occurrence and/or how the project will
impacts tha
avoid
Describe whether the proposed project aff
Quantify the number of individual plants rem
Quantify the number if individual plants rema
a
a
a
Version 3, Revised: 4/1,O/2O78
as defined by the following criteria (see pages 5-46 and 5-47 of the e of the plant's blooming period.
) form(s) submitted to CDFW (if this is a new occurrence). the proposed project activity will have on the species-specific plant s on all covered plant species.
partial or full occurrence.
ing outside the impact area.

This section discusses subsequent actions required iJ or plant surveys were required (per ltem 5, above) and the appropriate wildlife or plont species was identified on 't e project site. lf surveys were not required, do not complete Part lll and continue to Part lV. lf the surveys did not identify Table 4 and Tsble 5 and continue to Part lV.
habitat for the wildlife and plant species, check "none" in Required preconstruction surveys, avoidance and construction monitoring, which ensure project compliance Survey requirements and best management practices (BMPs)with the Habitrtt Plan requirernents are described be \*'"'-/ d in Sections 6.5, Serpentine and Associuted Covered Species (pagepertaining to selected covered wildlife species are deta 6-58), and Section 6.6.1", Select Covered Wildlife Specie.

Item 5-Preconst
lf suitable breeding hc
identify the species for
surveys in Table' 2.

Table 4. Applica
on Land Cover T
I None
Species
n San Joaquin
J
fox (see Llabr
PIan poges 5
through ti-73
Western
bnrrowirrg c
(see Habitot
pages 6-(i2
through ti-6
I Tricolorerd
blacl<bird fsr
Habitat I'lan
E
n 6.6.1", Select Covered Wildlife Specie.s
)construction Surveys for S€
ing habitat for select covered wildlife :;,
ies for which preconstruction surveys or
z.
rplicable Preconstruction Survey, ll
,ver Types and Habitat Elements
/beginning on page 6-62), of the Habitqt t''lan.
lected Covered Wildlife
ecies identified in Table 2 is found to be present in the project area, notifications are required, bqsed on the results of the species-specific , and Construction Monitoring Requirements based
Preconstruction Survey
Requirements Avoidance Requirements
Construction Monitoring
Required if Species
Detected
n kit
,bitat
6-71
7s)
;owl
tt Plan
67)
d
Determine status and rnap
dens [>5 inches diameter]
witlrirr 250 fecf of activify
footprint.

Cor-rduct burrowing owl
survey within 2 calendar
days prior to gror"rnd
disturbance (see Condition
15 for details ofrequired
survey rnethods).

Notification to Califorrria
Department of Fish and
Wildlife.

Document presence/absen c
of breeding colony within 1Z
calendar days prior to
disturbance.

Monitor dens,
Destroy unoccupied dens
Discourage use of occupied [non-
natalJ dens.

Avoid occupied nests within a
250-foot buflel during bleeding
season [F-eb 1-Aug 31) or develop
a rnonitoring plan that allows
activity within 250-foot buffer
[see Condition 15 for
requirements].

Avoid occupied bulrows dulirrg
non-breeding season [Sept 1-Jan
3 l) ol rneet requiretnetrts in
Condition 15 if allowing activity
within a 250-foot buffer.

Avoid occupied nesting colonies
during breeding season [Mar 15-
July 311.

Establish exclusion zones
[>50-footJ for potential
dens.

Establish exclnsion zones
(>100-footl for known dens.

Notify USFWS and CDFW
of occupied r-ratal dens.

Construction or
maintenallce personnel
must participate in
training.

Establish buffer zones
[250-foot] around active
-^^F^ if ^^-li^^Ll^rlgJrJ ll dpprrLdurE.

Establisli buffer zones
[250-footJ around
occupied bulrows during
non-breeding season if
applicable.

Implement construction
monitoring consistent with
monitoring plan or
reqnirernents if activities
occur within the buffer.

Construction or
maintenance personnel
must participate in
tlaining.

Establish 250-foot buffer
around outer edge of all
hrrdtir rreoetetinn
4lrol2018 1-2Version 3, Reviserl
Species
Preconstruction Survey
Requirements Avoidance Requirements
Construction Monitoring
Required if Species
Detected
pages 6-69
through 6-71)
o Documentuse of habitar fe,
breeding, foragingl.
o Determine if the site has be
used for nesting in the pasl-
years.
n
Avoid nest sites that were
occupied in the past 5 years.
associated with breedinp
habitat.
o Construction or
maintenance personnel
must participate in
training.
r Notify CDFW and USFWS
of nest locations
immediately.
n Least Bell's vireo
(see Habitat PIan
pages 6-ti9
through 6-69)
n euy checkerspot
butterfly (see
Habitat PIan pages
6-SB through 6-59)
o Documentpresence/absen,
of nesting least Bell's vireo
within 2 calendar days prio
to disturbance.
r Document use of habitat [e
breeding, foragingJ.
o Determine if the site has be
used for nesting in the pasl:
years.
e None,
n
o Avoid occupied nests durinB
breeding season [Mar 15-July 31).
. Avoid nest sites that were
occupied in the past 3 years.
r Locate the project footprint as far
from field-verified occupied Bay
checkerspot habitat or the
highest-quality serpentine habitat
as feasible,
. Establish a 250-ft buffer
around occupied nest site.
o Construction or
maintenance personnel
must participate in
training.
o Notify CDFW and USFWS
of nest locations
immediately.
o l\ one.
rsults of Preconstruction Wildlife Surveys
:vide a detailed description and results of the precc:

All preconstr"uction surveys are to be conducted irt
vered Wildlil'e Speciesl3, and Table 6-8 of the Habil
fore project construction, describe which surveys arr
the project. l-his description will be incorporated intc cumentation labeled as Attachment 2.
esults of Avoidance Measures and Construrr
preconstruction surveys for the specific wildlife spec
roidance measures and construction monitoring will
beled as Attachment 2.
a. Describe the avoidance measure requiremenX
detail in Section 6.6.L of the Habitat Plan. Avr:
in the event the preconstruction surveys desc:
b. Describe the construction monitoring actions
conditions that minimize the impact on speci{
construction monitoring and minimization m(
Conditions on Specific Covered Activities, of tl
c. Beforer implementing a covered activity, the a
the planning or building officela for approval.

Avoidance and minimization measures for Bay checkerspot Associated Covered Species Avoidance and Minimiz-ation,.lhe Santa Clara County l'iabitat Agency and thr: lacal land commencement of all covered activities (i.e. crrnstruclir:n) Version 3, Revised: 4/1"O/2O1,8
struction surveys applicable to any wildlife species checked in Table rccordance with the requirements set forth in Section 6.6.1, Select t Plan. Since the Habitat Plan application package will be prepared required, when they will be performed, and how they will be applied the conditions of project approval. Include with condition compliance :ion Monitoring for Selected Covered Wildlife Species
rs listed in Table 4 establish the presence of any such species, -. necessary. Include with condition compliance documentation taken for each species as provided in Table 4 and described in lance measures and construction monitoring must be implemented bed in Table 4 detect any of the covered species.
pplicable to any species checked in Table 4. A summary of :wildlife species is provided in Sections 6.6 of the Habitat Plan. The sures requirements are described in detail in Section 6.4.1, -. Habitat Plan.
plicant will develop and submit a construction-monitoring plan to tterfly are provided in Section 6.5, Condition 13. Serpentine and e jurisdiction must review and approve the plan prior to the 1,3
Results <
Provide a

4. All prec
Covered V
before prc
to the proj
document
Results <
lf preconsl
avoidance
labeled as
Item 7-Preconstruction Surveys for ected Covered Plant Species Based on Table 3, above, and the written summary of e survev results, identify and check in Table 5, below, any plant soecies found to be present and for which unavoidable:
(Condition 1.9 in the Habitat Plan),
ss will occur as a result of the proposed project development Table 5. Unirvoidable Species-Specific Plant I
Check if
Unavoidabler
Impact
affinis ssp. neglecta)
l
var. campylon)
ssp. setchellii)
var. glabrota)
hus olbidus ssp. albtdu.sl
us albidus ssp. perumoenus)
Construction Monitoring as Required for
Provide a detailed descriotion of the construction
Covered Plant Species
ng actions applicable to any species checked in Table 5. The construction nronitoring and avoidance measure requi nts are described in detail in Section 6.6.2, Covered Plant Species, of the Habitat Plan. lnclude with condition c ance documentation labeled as Attachment 2 Below is a description of the Habitat Plan Conditions of {pprovalwhich will or may applyto a development project. Depending on Vour final site plan, these rnay be the same condition$ of approval estimated when you completed the Fees and Conditions Worl<sheet. All private development projects are req{ired to comply with Conditions l and 3. The remaining conditions referenced below may apply to a project depending updn the type of project and its location. During review of this Application for Private Projects, the reviewing planning or builrling {ffice staff will determine which conditions below apply to the proiect.

Ind icate the conditions that apply to the project a nd pr,c]vide documentation to describe how it complies with each. Conditions 1 and 3 apply t,c all projects, Label documentation as,Alttachment 2.

I Condition 1. Avoid Direct lmpacts on Legally Prot{cted Plant and Wildlife Species. This condition applies to all projects covered under the Habitat Plan and helps to protect species for which environmental permits cannot be granted:C.ontra Costa goldfields, bald eagle, American peregrinefalcon, southern bald eagle, white-tailed kite, California r:ondor, and Ring-tailed cat (= ringtail); also requires compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. For detailed infol]mation, see Habitat Plan pages 6-7 to 6-8. f Condition 2. Incorporate Urban-Reserve System l[rterface Design Requirements. This condition applies to projects that overlerp the Urban Reserve System Interface,Zpnes and helps lessen impacts that can result (e.9., through runoff, noise, introduction of invasive species) when devefopment occurs near reserve areas. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-9 to 6-11.

Version 3, Revised: 4lIOl2OI8 1"4
E
n
n
I
n
n
tr
n
tr
n
n
Plant Species
Tiburon I nclian paintbrush (Casfr11e7
Coyote ceanothus {Ceanoth us ferris i
Mount Hamilton thistle (Cir"sium font
Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya
lrragrant fritillary {Fritillaria liliucea
Loma Prieta hoita fHoira sffobilina)
Smooth Iessingia (Lessingict m
MctcalI Canyon jewelflower fStre
Most bear.rtiful j ewelfl ower (Strep ta n
Corrtra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia
I Condition 3. Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and
by the Hab,itat Plan and helps protect watershed h
pollutant runoff from project sites. Work with the
sufficient for the project or if additional measures
to 6-13.

T
n
Condition 4. Avoidance and Minimization for ln
Condition 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measu
stream work (e.g., flood protection, bridge rehab
discharge into waterways, disturbance of earth a
characteris;tics of water bodies. For detailed info
applies to projects that involve operations and ma
channel (e.g., sediment removal, banl< stabilizati
discharge into waterways and disturbance of ripa
to 6-20.

T Condition 5. Design and Construction Requireme
projects that are transportation-oriented and
barriers (e,g., dirt road construction, interchange
by enhancing wildlife crossings, erecting fencing, i
detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-21
n Condition 7. Rural Development Design and
consist of rrew development either outside the
consistent with rural land uses (e.9., agricultural
that will remain primarily rural by preserving wild
measures. For detailed information, see Habitat P
tr Condition 8. lmplement Avoidance and Minimi
projects that involve operations and maintenancer
road maintenance) on or along rural roads and her
species, arrd the spread of nonnative invasive spe
f Condition 9. Prepare and llmplement a
lands that allow public access; it helps minimize
information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-31 to 6-42.

T Condition 10. Fuel Buffer. This condition applies t
Reserve Sy'stem lands; or in the Diablo Range or
conifer woodland types; or in areas designated b1r
helps provide fire protection by establishing mini
combustible growth near occupied structures. For
E
tr
Condition 11. Stream and Riparian Setbacks. This;
setback-req u i rements d iffer based on project's
minimize impacts on streams by specifying setba
6-44 to 6-5i5.

Condition 12. Wetland and Pond Avoidance and
under the Habitat Plan and helps to minimize imp
wetlands arnd ponds by prescribing vegetated
other requirements. For detailed information, seel
Version 3, Revised: 4/1,0/201,8
abitat Plan pages 6-56 to 6-58.

Water Quality. This condition applies to all projects covered Ith, primarily through reducing stormwater discharge and ilding or planning staff to determine if NPDES compliance is e required. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-1"2 m Projects. This condition applies to projects that involve in- ation, dam repair) and helps to minimize sediment/pollutant riparian vegetation, and alteration of the hydrologic and hydraulic n, see Habitat Plan pages 6-14 to 6-18,
for ln Stream Operations and Maintenance. This condition tenance work within and immediately adjacent to the stream vegetation management) and helps minimize sediment/pollutant vegetation. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-18 ts for Covered Transportation Projects. This condition applies to new ground disturbance or create/augment wildlife movement grades) and helps to lessen the impacts of transportation projects stalling/maintaining drainage structures, and other measures. For 6-28.

Requirements. This condition applies to projects that
service area (e.g., subdivisions) or within urban service area if lities) and helps lessen the impacts of rural development in areas corridors, minimizing degradation of streams, and other pages 6-28 to 6-34.

Measures for Rural Road Maintenance. This condition apolies to ctivities (e.g., utility line maintenance, vegetation management, minimize sediment discharge, disturbance of nesting covered bird . For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-35 to 6-37.

Plan. This condition applies to projects that are in Reserve System eational use impacts on biological resources. For detailed projects that are covered under the Habitat Plan and located within a Cruz Mountains; or in grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, or he County as a very high fire hazard severity zones. This condition standards for removing brush, flammable vegetation, or
ailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-42 to 6-44. ition applies to projects that overlap a stream or stream tion in relation to the urban service area. This condition helps and buffer zones. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages imization. This condition applies to projects that are covered s on wetlands and ponds and avoid impacts on high quality ater filtration features, proper disposal of cleaning materials, and I Condition 13. Serpentine and Associated
projects that are located on sites with serpentine
prescribing surveys, plant salvage, and other req

59. T
E
Condition 14. Valley Oak and Blue Oak Woodla
are covererd under the Habitat Plan and helos to
zones, pruning regulations, and other requiremen
Condition 15. Western Burrowing Owl. This con
woodland, or agricultural land cover type and wi
breeding habitat has been documented by survey
preconstruction surveys, construction buffer zo
informaticrn, see Habitat Plan pages 6-62to6-67.
tr
E Condition 17. Tricolored Blackbird. This conditiorr
Condition 16. Least Bell's Vireo. This condition
land cover type and within Wildlife Survey Area
surveys, construction buffer zones, biological mo
Habitat Plan pages 6-68 to 6-69.
coastal and valley freshwater marsh and helps to
construction buffer zones, biological monitoring,
pages 6-69 to 6-71.
tr
n
T Condition 18. San Joaquin Kit Fox. This condition
Condition 19. Plant Salvage when lmpacts are
€ondition 20, Avoid and Minimize lmpacts to
woodland, or agricultural land cover type and wi
prescribing preconstruction su rveys, construction
6-7L to 6-,/3).
impacts on covered plants and helps protects
not feasible. For detailed information, see Habitat
located in areas where covered plant species are I
helps protect certain plant species by requiring pl
seclusion I'encing), and monitoring. For detailed i
Version 3, Revised: 4/70/2OL8
Species Avoidance and Minimization. This condition applies to s and helps to minimize or avoid impacts on serpentine soils by nts. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-58 to 6- Avoidance and Minimization. This condition applies to projects that nimize and avoid valley and blue oak woodland by specifying buffer s. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan pages 6-60 to 6-61. applies to projects that are located within any grassland, oak the Wildlife Survey Area, or where burrowing owl nesting or This condition helps protect western burrowing owls by prescribing biological monitoring, and other requirements. For detailed s to projects that are located within any riparian forest and scrub helps protect least Bell's vireos by prescribing preconstruction ing, and other requirements. For detailed information, see pplies to projects that are located within 250 feet of any riparian, ct tricolored blackbirds by prescribing preconstruction surveys, d other reouirements. For detailed information, see Habitat Plan ies to projects that are located within any grassland, oak the Wildlife Survey Area and helps protect San Joaquin kit foxes by zones, biological monitoring, and other requirements (pages ble. This condition applies to projects that cannot avoid plants by prescribing salvage whenever avoidance of impacts is lan pages 6-74to 6-76.

Plant Occurrences. This condition applies to projects that are ely to occur and within a covered plant survey area; this condition t surveys, specific avoidance and minimization practices (e.g., using ion, see Habitat Plan pages 6-76 to 6-80.

Complete and attach the Permanent I Fee Calcu or (Exhibit 2) and/or Temporary lmpact Fee Calculator (Exhibit 3). a. Total fees to be p6id: $732,156' 1 1
' \\ --\' --7
b. lf land is to be dedicat'ed in lieu of iees or if resror on or creation in lieu of fees, summarize these actions here ancr ach written these actions in lieu of fees. See Section 9.4.1 of Habitat Plan s completedI/We have read arld\understqnd the information in Property Owner
Property Owner Signature
Applicant
Applicant Sigrrature
Planni Buildi Office Contact Information
of jurisdictionalwetlands or waters is to be performed
documentation that the Habitat Agency has approved
for details.
application package,
,*" tlMlwp
City of Gilroy City of Morgan Hi
7351- Rosanna St. 17575 Peak Ave.

Gilroy, CA 95020 Morgan Hill, CA 95
Tel: (408) 846-0451 Tel: (408) 778-64
Fax: (408) 846-0429 Fax: (4081 779-72
www.ci.gilroy.ca. us/pla nning www. morga n hill.ca
City of San Jose County of Santa Clara
200 E. Santa Clara St., T-3 70 West Hedding St., 7th Floor 7 San Jose, CA 95113 San Jose, CA 95110
Tel: (408) 535-3555 Tel: (408) 299-5770
Fax: (408) 292-6055 Fax: (408) 288-9798
www.sanjoseca.gov/pla nn ing www.sccpla nning.org
Version 3, Revised: 4/tO/2O1"8 L7
:jtlhifi it,iliA liAtr,1 Y
{\&WU1#ql htit: Ydd'V
I tlv ol \lllvy
1 ily rl lvlltit,rii lliil
I il'l t)l1r'l1l i{,!t:
( 0ilttl ! ill'r,rtt1;r I l,rt;|
rrlit/ { l,rf,i ?,rll|,y l\iih, l,ll',!lir I
',,llrl,r ( l,l,t V,lllry
ll llr',1'rrt i,rlirrtt il,it{llrllilv
WW
Version 3, Revised: 4/1,O/2OI8
(408) 857 (408) 857-4731
Santa Clara Va ey Habitat Plan