Appendix H Biological Evaluation

Appendix H

Biological Evaluation

COMMUNICATIONS HILL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

Prepared by

LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Rick Hopkins, Ph.D., Principal and Senior Conservation Biologist Melissa Denena, M.S. Director of Ecological Services and Plant/Wildlife Ecologist Davinna Ohlson, M.S., Senior Project Manager and Plant/Wildlife Ecologist Nathan Hale, M.S., Staff Ecologist Katrina Krakow, M.S., Wildlife Ecologist

Prepared For

David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Attn: Jodi Starbird 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126

June 25, 2013 File No. 1010-06

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 4 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 9 2.1 BIOTIC HABITATS ...... 11 2.1.1 Annual Grassland ...... 11 2.1.2 Coyote Brush/Diablan Sage Scrub...... 14 2.1.3 Mixed Woodland ...... 15 2.1.4 Aquatic ...... 16 2.1.5 Developed/Ruderal ...... 16 2.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ...... 17 2.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES MERITING FURTHER DISCUSSION ...... 31 2.3.1 Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: None...... 31 2.3.2 California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Threatened...... 35 2.3.3 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern...... 37 2.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ...... 38 2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ...... 39 3.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 41 3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 41 3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS...... 42 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 42 3.2.2 Migratory Birds ...... 43 3.2.3 Birds of Prey ...... 43 3.2.4 Bats ...... 44 3.2.5 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters ...... 44 3.2.6 Ordinance Trees ...... 46 3.2.7 City of San José Riparian Corridor Policy ...... 47 3.2.8 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 49 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...... 50 3.3.1 Potential Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander ...... 50 3.3.2 Potential Impacts to the Burrowing Owl ...... 51 3.3.3 Potential Impacts to Migratory Birds and Birds of Prey...... 52 3.3.4 Potential Impacts to Aquatic Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities, Including Federally Protected Wetlands ...... 54 3.3.5 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 59 3.3.6 Potential Impact to Special Status Plant Species ...... 60 3.3.7 Potential Impacts to Special Status Animal Species ...... 61 ii

3.3.8 Potential Impacts to Serpentine Habitat ...... 62 3.3.9 Interference with the Movement of Native Wildlife ...... 63 3.3.10 Impact to Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species ...... 63 3.3.11 Degradation of Water Quality in Seasonal Creeks, Reservoirs and Downstream Waters 64 3.3.12 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances ...... 65 LITERATURE CITED ...... 68 APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN (HMH; MARCH 2, 2013) ...... 70 APPENDIX B: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE ...... 72 APPENDIX C: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE SITE ...... 82

iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The technical report that follows describes the biotic resources of the 312.1-acre Communications Hill project site in unincorporated Santa Clara County, California, and evaluates likely impacts to these resources resulting from build-out of a residential and commercial community. The site is approximately four miles south of the City of San Jose downtown and is generally bounded by the Caltrain/Union Pacific railroad tracks on the north, Old Hillsdale Avenue to the east, the Tuscany Hills development to the south, and the Millpond and Dairy Hill neighborhoods to the west (Figure 1). The site is located on the San Jose East U.S.G.S. 7.5’ quadrangle in sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 of township 7 south, range 1 east (Figure 2).

The primary objectives of this report are as follows:  Summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources;  Make reasonable inferences about the biological resources that could occur onsite based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the site to a species’ known range;  Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to possible future site development;  Identify and discuss natural resource issues specific to the site that could affect future development;  Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that could significantly reduce the magnitude of likely biological resource issues associated with site development.

Natural resource issues related to these state and federal laws have been identified in past planning studies conducted in the general site vicinity for other projects, and it is reasonable to presume that such issues could be relevant to the site. For example, a number of state and federally listed animals, as well as other special status animal species (i.e., candidate species for listing and California species of special concern), have been documented within twenty miles of the project site. These include the federally- and state-listed California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a California species of special concern. This report evaluates the site’s suitability for these and other species.

1 Site Location

280 101

Project Site 17 87

Almaden Expressway

2 miles 0 2 miles approximate scale

Vicinity Map Regional Map Antioch Stockton

Oakland San Francisco See Modesto Vicinity Map (left)

P Project location

a San Jose See Site Location c Map (above) i f i c

O c e Live Oak Associates, Inc. a n Santa Gilroy Cruz Communications Hill Site / Vicinity Map

Date Project # Figure # Not to scale 6/12/2013 1010-06 1 Project Boundary

Live Oak Associates, Inc.

Communications Hill U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 1/2 1/2 mile From USGS 0 Date Project # Figure # San Jose East 7.5' Quadrangle 1980 approximate scale 6/06/2013 1010-06 2

CEQA is also concerned with project impacts on riparian habitat, wildlife movement corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, and jurisdictional wetlands, as well as project compliance with special ordinances and state laws protecting regionally sensitive biotic resources (such as the City of San Jose’s ordinances and policies), and approved habitat conservation plans (such as the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan). This report addresses the relevance of each of these issues to project build-out.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The entire Communications Hill Specific Plan Area comprises approximately 900 acres of hilly land located approximately four miles south of downtown San Jose. The Plan Area is bounded by Curtner Avenue to the north, Monterey Road to the east, Capitol Expressway, Snell Avenue, and Hillsdale Avenue to the south, and Guadalupe Freeway (SR 87) to the west. The Oak Hill Cemetery is located adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Plan area.

The proposed Communications Hill project site is within the Specific Plan Area near the top of the hill adjacent to the existing KB Home Tuscany Hills development. The site is generally bounded by the Caltrain/Union Pacific railroad tracks on the north, Old Hillsdale Avenue to the east, the Tuscany Hills development to the south, and the Millpond and Dairy Hill neighborhoods to the west. The gross acreage of the project site is approximately 312 acres, with a net acreage of approximately 250 acres, not including public parks dedication and public right-of-way. The proposed residential/commercial portion of the site is approximately 79 gross acres, while the proposed industrial property is approximately 55 gross acres.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is the build-out of the remaining approximately 2,200 residential units allowed within the Specific Plan Area, which is anticipated to occur over a 12-15 year timeframe. It also includes construction of up to 67,500 square feet of commercial/retail uses, parks, open space, trails, streets, stormwater facilities, and other associated supporting infrastructure (Table 1). An elementary school is proposed to be centrally located on approximately 4.2 acres. The project’s land use plan is included in Appendix A.

The proposed project also includes the future development of approximately 55 acres of industrial park uses in the eastern portion of the site near the base of Communications Hill adjacent to Old Hillsdale Avenue. Details for this development have not yet been determined.

Table 1. Proposed land uses on the Communications Hill site. Land Use Area (acres) Residential 79.1 Mixed use commercial/village center* 3.1 Public right‐of‐way dedication 43 Public park 16 School 4.2 Future industrial park 55 Public/private open space/water quality facilities 111.5 Existing right‐of‐way 3.3 Total 312.1 *The 3.1 acres in the Village Center are included in the 79.1 acres of residential lands.

The project proposes the development of up to 2,200 residential units consisting of townhomes/flats, detached alley townhomes, detached row townhomes, podium condominiums, and apartments in the Village Center. Four podium condominium buildings are proposed as part of the project.

Uses within the commercial/retail area would include restaurants, shops, entertainment, and small office consistent with the Specific Plan. Approximately 16 acres of parks and 112 acres of open space will be constructed as part of the proposed project.

An existing abandoned mercury mine and a former rock quarry are present within the boundary of the proposed project site. The project proposes to close these existing uses according to all local, state, and federal laws. An aggregate recycling center is currently using the quarry property, which has been identified for future industrial park uses. It is anticipated that the recycling center will continue to operate until its Use Permit expires in approximately ten years.

Infrastructure constructed as part of previous development on Communications Hill (primarily the Tuscany Hills project) was sized to accommodate the proposed project, although the facilities would need to be extended onto the site. This infrastructure includes streets, water and sewer lines, and utilities (i.e., gas, electricity, cable, and telephone). An existing PG&E distribution/transmission line runs east/west through the Specific Plan Area. Major infrastructure elements are described below: 1. The Specific Plan includes the extension of Pullman Way from Communications Hill Boulevard to Monterey Road. The extension of Pullman Way was realigned as part of the Specific Plan amendments approved in 2002. The environmental analysis will include scenarios that analyze the conditions with and without the Pullman Way extension and possible alignments/designs for this roadway. 2. A vehicle bridge over the Caltrain/UPRR tracks will be constructed as part of Communications Hill Boulevard, consistent with the Specific Plan. 3. The proposed project will require stormwater filtration/detention basins to be located on the site. One basin will be located in the northern portion, while the other would be constructed in the southwestern portion of the site near the existing basin. The existing basin may require modifications/expansion to accommodate run-off from the site. These basins would provide water quality benefits as well as detain water on-site during rain events prior to outfall to the City’s stormwater system, consistent with the Specific Plan. 4. The site will be re-graded to repair the grading alterations that were done as part of the former quarry operations. The grading will be designed to more closely follow the previous pre-quarry and natural topography. This will generally result in streets and blocks with slopes similar to development on the south/southwestern facing slopes of the hill.

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY

The analysis of impacts, as discussed in section 3.0 of this report, was based on the known and potential biotic resources of the study area, discussed in section 2.0. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included: (1) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2013); (2) the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013); (3) a list of the state and federally listed special status species (CDFW 2013, USFWS 2013); (4) manuals and references related to plants and animals of Santa Clara Valley; (5) the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (ICF International 2012); (6) reports for the site and general Plan Area written between 1992 and 1999 by current Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) staff when employed by H.T. Harvey & Associates; (7) notes and memos compiled by LOA during 6

more recent studies; and (8) the Initial Study for the MTA Properties-Communications Hill General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Project (City of San Jose 2002).

Field surveys for special-status species have been conducted on the site and within the Specific Plan Area since the spring of 1992 and have continued to the present by staff ecologists from LOA. These surveys include:

H.T. Harvey and Associate Surveys (primarily conducted by current LOA staff)  Special status species surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1992).  Bay checkerspot butterfly and Hom's micro-blind harvestman surveys and habitat assessment (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1994).  Burrowing owl and California tiger salamander surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996).  California tiger salamander surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997).

LOA Surveys  Special status plant species and protocol-level burrowing owl surveys in 2001 (Pamela Peterson and Bernie Wone).  California tiger salamander surveys on May 23 and June 2, 2006 (Dr. Mark Jennings).  Bay checkerspot butterfly adult surveys on March 14, 20, 27, and 31 and April 9, 15, and 24, 2001 (Dr. Raymond White).  Bay checkerspot butterfly larval and adult surveys on February 23, March 2, 18, 23, and 30, April 3, 6, and 13, 2007 (Dr. Raymond White).  Protocol-level burrowing owl surveys on March 20-22, April 16-17, May 11 and 14, and June 13, 2007 (Melissa Denena, Neal Kramer, Davinna Ohlson, and Brian Williams).  Special status plant species surveys on March 20-22, April 16-17, May 11 and 14, and September 6-7, 2007 (Melissa Denena and Neal Kramer).  Waters of the United States investigation on April 16-17, 2007; on February 12, 19, 20, and 24, 2009; and on December 10, 2012, and March 12 and April 22, 2013 (Melissa Denena, Neal Kramer, Davinna Ohlson, and Katrina Krakow).  Roosting bat survey of mines on January 26, 2009 (Dr. Rick Hopkins and Melissa Denena).  Emergent bat surveys of main mine entrance on February 10, 12, and 19, 2009 (Melissa Denena, Davinna Ohlson, and Nathan Hale).  Follow-up Phase I burrowing owl survey on February 12, 19, 20, and 24, 2009 (Davinna Ohlson and Nathan Hale).  Follow-up reconnaissance survey to determine any site changes on May 9, 2012 (Nathan Hale and Katrina Krakow).

Information gathered during the background review and in the field was used to identify and map plant communities and characterize the botanical and wildlife resources occurring on the site.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The site is located in Santa Clara Valley in an unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County within the City of San Jose. The site is surrounded by existing urban development and is generally bounded by the Caltrain/Union Pacific railroad tracks on the north, Old Hillsdale Avenue to the east, the Tuscany Hills development to the south, and the Millpond and Dairy Hill neighborhoods to the west. The site comprises the undeveloped northern and eastern slopes of Communications Hill and the inactive Azevedo Quarry. Elevations range from approximately 150 feet (45 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to 430 feet (130 meters) NGVD.

Seven soil types from six soil series—Clear Lake, Cropley, Hangerone, Montara, Newpark, and Santerhill—were identified on the project site (Figure 3; Table 2; NRCS 2010). Of the six soil series, Clear Lake, Cropley, and Hangerone soils are considered hydric. Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Under sufficiently wet conditions, they support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. The other soil types are not considered hydric, although hydric inclusions may occur. Hangerone and Montara soils are moderately alkaline, and Montara and Santerhill soils are serpentine. As such, these soils may support species adapted to such conditions. Montara and Santerhill soils underlie most of the site.

Santa Clara Valley has a Mediterranean climate with warm to hot dry summers and cool winters. Annual precipitation in the general vicinity of the site is highly variable from year to year. Average annual rainfall is approximately 15 inches, most of which falls between November and April. Stormwater runoff readily infiltrates the site’s soils; when field capacity has been reached, gravitational water either drains into the aquatic features onsite as shallow groundwater or as surface sheet flow or may sheet flow off of the site. No seasonal drainage channels convey water off of the site. Thus, the site is isolated from nearby waterways (e.g., Canoas Creek and Guadalupe River).

9 LEGEND 115 Pits, Mine 123 Urban Land-Xerorthents, anthropogenic fill complex, 0 to 2 145 Urbanland-Hangerone complex, 0 to 2% slopes 146 Hangerone clay loam, drained, 0 to 2% slopes 160 Urbanland-Clear Lake complex, 0 to 2% slopes 180 Urbanland-Newpark complex, 0 to 2% slopes 301 Montara sandy loam, 15 to 50% slopes Project Boundary 303 Montara-Santerhill complex, 15 to 30% slopes 318 Urban land-Cropley complex, 2 to 9% slopes Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Aerial photograph courtesy of Digital Globe Boundary courtesy of HMH Engineering

Live Oak Associates, Inc.

Communications Hill Soils

1/2 mile 0 1/2 mile Date Project # Figure #

approximate scale 6/11/2013 1010-06 3

Table 2. Soils occurring on the Communications Hill site (NRCS 2010). Map Surface Hardpan/ Soil Series/Soil Symbol Parent Material Permeability Duripan Hydric CLEAR LAKE SERIES Fine textured alluvium Slow to very Urbanland‐Clear Lake complex, 0 160 derived from sandstone and No Yes slow to 2% slopes shale CROPLEY SERIES Alluvium from mixed rock Urbanland‐Cropley complex, 2 to 318 Slow No Yes sources 9% slopes HANGERONE SERIES Urbanland‐Hangerone complex, 0 145 Alluvium from mixed rock to 2% slopes, drained Slow No Yes sources Hangerone clay loam, drained, 0 146 to 2% slopes MONTARA SERIES Montara sandy loam, 15 to 50% 301 Material weathered from Moderately slopes No No serpentinitic rocks slow Montara‐Santerhill complex, 15 303 to 30% slopes NEWPARK SERIES Alluvium from mixed rock Moderately Urbanland‐Newpark complex, 0 180 No No sources slow to 2% slopes SANTERHILL SERIES Colluvium and residuum Montara‐Santerhill complex, 15 303 from ultramafic and Slow No No to 30% slopes serpentine materials

2.1 BIOTIC HABITATS

Five biotic habitats have been identified on the site, including annual grassland, coyote brush/Diablan sage scrub, mixed woodland, aquatic, and developed/ruderal (i.e., disturbed areas) (Figure 4). A list of the vascular plant species observed on the project site and the terrestrial vertebrates using, or potentially using, the site are provided in Appendices B and C, respectively.

2.1.1 Annual Grassland The majority of the site supports annual grassland habitat (Figure 4). This habitat is present in two forms: annual grassland that has not been significantly disturbed in the past and reclaimed annual grassland, which includes previously quarried areas that have reestablished as grassland habitat since. Grasses and forbs of European origin dominate the vegetation of annual grassland 11 151.4 150.5 126.7 127.5 129.2

134.5 126.8 E 1603600 125.8 126.3 134.6 152.9 126.9 136.4 151.7 125.8 133.6

MH 125.8 129.9 126.2 MH 128.9 132.6 127.6 126.1 153.3

125.6 133.7 134.7 133.4 134.2 129.2 136.2 BRUSH DENSE MH 127.3 134.2

126.1 131.4 152.1 140 126.2 126.1 153.4 150 127.1

151.8 129.1 125.8 131.5 134.5 135.2 151.4 132.4 133.7 125.4 152 126.2 135 136.5 Z 126.04 135.2 125.4 125.7 132.6

MH 151.7 153.6 153.9 127.1 126.4 134.9 134.7 CB 125.4 125.5 126.4 140 131.9 125.8 152.1 CB 129.2

153.8

127.1 132.8 125.4 CALTRAIN CB 132.2 135.3 147.1 140 126.6 151.6 130.5 134.8 CB 127.3 125.5 136.8 126.3 135.3 127.3 130.6 CB

131.3 135.6 152.5 130 125.5 132.4

150 125.3 128.4 127.5 126.3 126.1 135.1 137.0 N 292200 127.7 131.7 125.4 133.4 126.9 135.3 125.4 126.5 152.4 151.8 129.2 130 126.3 125.2 125.7 135.6

145 135.4 133.5 126.7

149.9 153.9

140 126.9

126.2 153.8 127.7 135 150 125.1

Z 127.16 135.8 137.3 E 1603400 135

125.9

130 130

150.9 135 126.5 HWY. 87 HWY. 0 135.9 127.2 1,000 feet 135.7 1,000' 135.4 126.1

130 126.5

136.1 140 136.1 137.6 126.2 128.7

CB 126.0 128.3 135.7 126.5 127.5 127.3 CB 126.5

123.0 127.7 HWY. 87 HWY.

152.2 145 136.2 127.7 136.3

152.3 126.4 125 127.1 127.2 127.3 125.8 136.3

126.3 150 127.2 137.6 126.7 POOL 126.5 130 125.5 127.6 136.7 130.5 127.3 127.2 DENSE TREES 151.8 125 CB 124.3 135

127.4 STEPS 152.1 124.4 127.2 125.6 127.1 CB 138.1 124.5 136.4 126.5 127.4 136.5 approximate scale 129.0

128.0 124.5 124.7 127.8 153.4 153.3 124.8 126.1 136.4 136.8 N 292000 127.9 152.0 128.6 151.7 CC 152.3 124.9 320 138.2 154.1 128.7 124.6 128.7 125.5 126.3 124.9 125.0 124.7 125.2 136.6

128.1 129.3 CB 151.6 135

124.4

151.8 127.4 153.0 125.2 125 130 137.1 125.9 138.8 129.3 125.5

E 1603200 126.2 CALTRAIN 126.7 150.9 128.1 128.3 128.0 129.3 152.9 130.5 136.8 153.9 CB 125.4 137.4 125.6 127.3 125.9 125.2 125.1 151.3 125.1 127.9 125.9 129.2 CB MH 129.8 125.8 139.1 126.5 127.7 125.2 128.4 128.9 125.4 152.7 126.3 126.4 125.9 137.6 CB 125 127.3 125.5 131.2

150 138.1 126.4 128.9 124.7 310 126.3 129.7 137.4

125.4 139.7 145

128.9 128.9 151.1 127.9 127.7 140 125.0 130 128.6 137.7 125.4 138.3 128.3 124.4 125.5 135

130.9 125.9 MH 131.2 138.2

124.7 129.2 127.7 135 CB 132.6 140.3 128.1 128.1 126.4 138.6 140 CB CB 127.6 129.9 130.5 131.6 127.3 129.6 125.5 CB 125.4 CB 124.8 127.5 132.5 300

127.5 138.8 133.4 140

CB 125.5 142.7 128.1 133.9 127.9 132.9 N 291800 138.2 128.5 132.1 140.7 130.5 128.5 128.1 CB 131.8 124.8 127.3 126.9 137.5 127.9 130.0 128.5 129.8 134.6 127.5 131.5 290 126.2 126.3

128.9 132.1 130 CB 128.7 128.1 131.8 128.9 130.6 127.4 130.9 128.4 124.7 130 130 CB 129.8 126.1 130.8 131.4 131.5 280 130.7 135.3 128.2 130.9 128.7 131.4 126.2 131.5 129.1 130.4 130.2 130.2

130 135.2 130.8 E 1603000 130.4 140 131.3 130 270 129.4 135 129.4 126.2 130.2 131.2 129.8 129.5

CURTNER AVE. 129.7

130.3 140 135.4 129.9 129.8 131.0 130.0 130 130.4 260 131.1 150 130.1 129.3 260 130.1 129.9 140 130.1 150 153 Z 125.00 129.9

129.9 250 129.8 130.6 HV-4 129.8 199.42 129.8 150 250 130.5

129.8 129.7 129.6

130.3

129.9 MH 129.0 130.1 160

130 129.4 N 291600 130.2 130.1 130 240 CB 130.5

128.2 128.8 128.8 129.3

170 130.5 240 MH 230 129.8 129.2

129.4 129.0 128.8

CB 128.6 180 220 130.4 129.2 150 129.4 230 128.8 ESCALATOR

STEPS 130.4

E 1602800 210 129.2 130 190 129.3 160 128.1 220 CB 128.9 127.3 200 195 148 190 Z 129.15 128.2 210 130 180 200

STAIRS 170 160 128.5 160 200

150 150

N 291400 130 N 291400

140 130 190 210 150 150 160 170 180

170

E 1600600 220

180 E 1602600 160 130 173 190 125.01Z 125.08 5

200

150

220 210

130 140 130 N 291200 N 291200

130

230 140

130 140 E 1600800 150 250

150 240

160 E 1602400 160

260 170 170

180 180

N 291000 N 291000

190 190 270

200 170 150 200 170 160 150

180 E 1601000 210

210 150 190 180 280 220

200 220 210 230 190 150 150 E 1602200 240 Project Boundary 150 230 220

200 230 140

290 240 240

210 220 200

N 290800 190 250 N 290800 210 180 260

170

160

250 220

150 E 1601200 230 260 270 150

150 140 280 130 130 240

290 250

E 1602000 300 140 260

270 280

N 290600 N 290600 270

310

260 E 1601400 250 320 150

330

250 240 270 260

230

280 220

290 160 150 160

210 170 180

190

310 E 1601800 320 300

200

150 N 290400 N 290400 330

150 160 150 E 1601600 320 150 340 320 Z 344.56 7

160

160 330

300 350 330 290 280 170

340

190 270

190 150 200

180

170 160

260 210 150 210 200 220

350 160

394.8 230 160

170

240 180

360 250 418.3

DECK 417.8 260

419.6

418.7 370 418.4

414.7 420.5 417.2 150

240 260 419.1 418.4

230 160 220 270 418.8 280 150 380 419.3 420 270 170 414.5

418.3

250 280 416.9 419.3 418.9

420.2 ANTENNA 419.5 390 ANTENNA 418.2

419.3 290 LEGEND 290 419.8

418.2 180 300 418.6 300 400 400 420.2 418.4 160 310

310

419.2 420.3 320

190 320 419.4 420.5 420.6 419.8 419.8 417.1 390 410 330 390 419.1 420.9 420.4 330 410 150 420.7 FP 418.3 400 420.2 380 420 421.3 170 420.9 340 340

MH 416.9 Non-native Grassland 200 421.3 420.4 416.3 420.8 419.5

210 350 418.7

380 423.0 360 370 180 420.8 170 409.3 421.9 170 410 421.2 421.6 370 420.6

419.2 409.5 421.7 220 190 150 416.9 423.1 409.9 409.1 422.2

425.4 422.5 422.5

424.3 417.8 421.2 350 409.4 420 400 150 409.7 422.9 422.6 417.2 410 428.7 425.2 421.2 200

410.5 430 423.7 427.1 430.2

410.1 417.0 180 423.9 419.0 424.5 210 410.7 410.8 190

410.6 433.5 423.3 430.8 432.2 190 421.2 416.9 190 433.4 419.2

429.5 420 419.6 200 411.4 428.6 180 190 417.7 Mixed Woodland 410 434.4 421.1 200 410.5 220 400 423.7 419.6 150 419.1 210 210 160 434.6 320 CONCRETE DITCH 220 434.8 418.9 416.8 230 230 435.1 426.9 TANK 230 220 240 390 330 434.5 422.9 240 250 415.1 180 170 410.7 435.0 429.0 260 250 420.8 240 415.4 270 436.2 416.9 435.5 430.7 280 418.9 190 415.5 433.3 421.6 250

382.3 383.3 431.4 290 150 6 383.4 426.7 417.0 435.1 436.1 Z 420.24 200 300 210 260 310

429.1 419.2 400400 430.8 417.8 426.3 436.1 433.4 6 Z 420.24 320 434.8 210 380 435.0 433.0 240 383.3 370 419.3

431.2

434.9 435.0 425.0 429.2 250 360

434.8 430 433.6 350 334.5 330 Coyote Brush / Diablan Sage scrub 260 340 431.0 CONCRETE DITCH

335.7 429.4 330 386.4 433.2 220

432.9 270 425.4 280 431.2 428.9 430 280 5 290 5 Z 383.11Z 383.11 430.8 300 426.8 388.3 310 150 290 420 300 428.4 310 160 388.4 220 150 320 425.2 170 310 422.6 290

388.8 300 410 180 290

280 280

388.2

370 Reclaimed non-native grassland 360

260 230 350 410.8 380

410.6 390 250 400

240 388.2 230

230 220 220 409.2

210 200 387.7 390 190 400

404.8 180

240 250 390 380 387.5 220 220

380 403.3 260 386.9 370 4 Z 178.41

370 360

400.7

396.8 387.0 350

228.9 386.5 393.3 340 270 360 395.0 396.1 395.2 389.3 392.9 395.0

Reclaimed Coyote Brush / Diablan Sage scrub 227.4 397.1

350 394.7 280 228.2 150

19 340 Z 352.35

225.8 320 391.0 227.2 190 150 330

330 150 320 226.6 290 340

224.7 310 385.0

225.2 200

300 350 223.5

290 360 370 300 380 Developed 224.2 381.0 380 280

222.5 390 210

270

223.0 18 Z 325.70

360 310 377.3

260 350 340 330

220

17 Z 376.01

220.7

375.3 220 370

210 320 250

372.8

230 200

Ruderal 368.6 240

190 174.6 180 250 170 170 180

CB 174.1 180

362.8 270 260 160 168.7 CB 360

174.3

174.1

169.1 330

310 357.6 430 350 340 300 330 340 290 330 360 320 280 420 168.5 350 173.2 350

340

350

340 172.7 360 360

172.3 410 370 188.9 400 167.6 Aquatic Habitats 330

390

320 360

171.9

420

310

410

171.5

166.9 178.9 392.9

400 300

170.8 178.8 390 290

CB 10

Z 405.93 380

166.2 370 CB 3 Z 171.02 280

177.1 393.0

175.1 Seasonal Wetland 177.0

170.4

166.3 270

183.0 174.9 350

360 169.9 170.5 186.9 260

165.7 182.6 CB 250 200

169.2

240

190 180 CB 230 178.1

164.7

165.8 178.9 220 178.4 167.0 175.3

162.5 210

177.4

165.1 165.4 200

13 Z 221.80 190 Wetland Seep 175.5

190 160.1 158.7 175.4 174.7 163.2 198.4 173.4

161.3CB 180 200 165.1 180.5 172.2

173.4 190

180

161.3 POOL

156.7

164.1 163.2 172.4 173.1 171.1 360 170 168.5

155.2

165.0 163.0 170

157.5 169.2

154.9 169.7 380 370 154.2 220 360

220

155.1

167.5 Detention Basin 158.8 201.0 290 153.3 165.2 155.1 160 165.1 210 330 320 167.2 340 153.4 310 310 166.4 350 152.7 156.5 165.5 280 200 350

156.7 153.0 300 340 270 154.9 163.1 170.8 165.7

152.1 190

156.4 365 260 165.3

154.7 163.6 330

152.6 180 250

154.9 163.9 320

180 170 170 161.7 CB 161.6 240 152.8 176.4 175.1 176.8 174.8 300 151.8CB 172.9

154.6 161.5 CB 20 310 160 151.3 170.5 20Z 162.09 CB 158.9 Z 162.09 230 170

165.3 159.5 162.7 162.2 171.1 170 180 160

290 182.9 170158.6 160.8 161.2 Wetland Channel 163.6

220 151.1 190 182.5 151.4 175.5 150.9 158.2 159.3 162.7 159.8 181.0 159.0 310 152.6 162.8 150.5 161.2 170 163.9 162.8

178.3 271.1 158.3 210 158.9 159.4 159.9 161.2 150.3 150.6 300

158.9 200 159.1

174.9 163.1 157.2 176.7 CB 158.0 160.5 177.2 156.7 165.9 265.0 265.3 200 150.9 160 210 265.5 150.1 267.3 180

150 158.5 159.6 290 CB 160.9 157.7 149.4 157.7 150.5 156.3 190 166.2 280 157.1 157.8 264.2 CB 163.4 264.7 157.2 CB 149.9 157.5

162.2 149.4 220 165.7 157.9 159.1 270 157.5 260 263.3 180 149.1 150.6 230 155.1 260 157.9

240 250 150.3 162.7 163.6 154.2

149.7 150.7 151.3 170 149.7 155.0 155.7 156.7 250 148.9 158.2

CB 151.3 149.5 157.0

154.7 151.0 159.2 161.3 160 Non-wetland Channel 149.3

149.8 152.9 153.0 148.9 149.4 149.6 149.5 151.9 157.4 150.4 154.1 155.4 150 153.4 240 154.7 149.4 210

148.4

CB 149.7 163.5 166.3 200 2 158.8 Z 149.85 149.9 156.4 159.0

149.7 149.8 149.9 154.6 149.6 150.3

156.4 190 150 151.7 149.9 151.3 149.8

149.7 149.6 156.9 160.1 180 150 CB 153.3 260 140 149.5 148.8 149.8 155.5 157.1 149.4 150.4

149.7 149.8

133.6 WL 149.0 170 166.5 149.2 156.1 158.8 250 149.8 134.4 140 140 158.9 149.5 149.2 149.7 148.9 151.0 155.7 SHADOW MH 150.3 240 149.1 149.9 150.2 157.6 149.4 140

167.1

149.1 Non-wetland Man-made Drainage Ditch 149.0

149.5 151.0 154.6 E 1605000 E 1605200 E 1605400 E 1605600 E 1605800 E 1606000 E 1606200 E 1606400 E 1606600 E 1606800 E 1607000 E 1607200 149.7 213.3 156.1 156.7 215.0 220 149.2 149.1 214.5 214.8 215.7 150.3 149.6 MH 214.4 149.0 CB MH 148.7 181.5 214.2 153.0 CB 214.0 149.6 149.0 148.8 140 184.7 217.4 150 CB 154.9 213.8 UNDER CONSTRUCTION

153.2 213.1 155.1 160

167.1 209.7 212.7 Z 220.79 212.9 213.0 149.0 152.7 148.7 N 287600 148.5 PILES UNDER CONSTRUCTION 213.4 147.6 214.7 149.3 151.2 11 11 Z 220.79 212.6 149.4 148.9 208.5 216.4 210.7 PILES CB 171.5 211.2 148.9 DENSE TREES 214.1 205.6 208.6 210.0 300

149.3 214.1 208.8 148.7

12 CB Z 150.24 213.7 166.5

149.4 206.7 PILES 213.9 208.5 280 149.0 214.1 MH 206.5 290 166.4 167.7 213.7 148.9 204.4 215.7 217.5 206.5 206.6 203.7 149.0 149.0 149.4 198.7 202.6 217.3 149.6 195.9 206.2 217.5 229.6 206.1 149.9

270 Quarry Pond 149.9 195.8 200.7 149.3 148.8 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 205.6 150 149.1 196.1 CB CB

195.9 260 CB 198.6 199.6 195.8 195.7 148.9 MH 196.1 198.7 195.9 195.3 229.2 147.2 196.3 PILES 195.7 149.7 196.0 148.8 189.6 CB 196.5 196.2 CB 195.7 MH 193.2 WL 196.1 168.0 197.1 204.0 134.3 149.9 196.7 196.5 MH 197.0 196.9 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 196.3 MH 149.9 196.2 220 196.8 196.3 140 196.1 149.0 196.8 250 196.7 CB 196.9 210 149.0 140 196.2 MH 196.2 194.8 196.7 150.7 196.9 MH 196.0 150 196.9 196.9 200 N 287400

150.1 149.5 192.7 196.7 CB 147.6 195.7 196.5 196.4 171

168.5 196.6 Z 281.11 149.9 151.1 190.6 MH 148.8 196.5 196.6 196.6 230 240 196.6 150.2 188.9 220 CB 196.5 196.2

149.4 147.7 186.7 196.4 188.9

REGENCY AVE 188.8 197.1 230 194.9 184.7 150.5 188.8 CB 195.2 149.9 CB 194.7 CB 182.9 188.6 210 150 181.7 CB 178.5 169.0 182.1 189.0 MH 178.7

SHADOW 180.7 179.0 200 CB 150.4 178.9 190 220 150.8 179.2 MH Live Oak Associates, Inc. 150.3 179.4 CB 178.6 178.4 179.1 SHADOW MH 149.6 179.0 179.2 178.8 MH 179.0 179.2 MH CB 179.1 150.5 179.0 178.6 177.3 179.2 210 179.1 CB 178.7 176.8 150.3 179.1 170.2 177.1 179.5 CB 152.6 179.0 149.7 CB 179.1 179.2 178.2 175.0 200 150.6 179.0 MH 179.1 179.0 N 287200 179.1 CB MH 178.8 172.9 178.6 172.9 166 153.3 178.8 Z 214.38 220 170.9

150.5 179.1 220 150.4 168.9 170.6 210 168.4 171.7 149.9 171.7 166.8 171.7 176.8 210 CB 171.6 200 150.6 164.9 163.9 171.5 CB MH 150.5 171.8 163.9 174.5 174.1 161.9 163.0 200 162.5 FP 190 172.5 CB Communications Hill MH 161.0 162.1 150.7 170.4 161.1 190 150.5 MH MH CB 161.3 161.3 160.7 170.8 161.3 160.6 168.5 150.2 SHADOW 161.1 180 180 161.3 161.6 FP 166.4 CB 166.8 161.4 MH 151.0 159.1 161.0 161.4 161.4 161.3 MH 170 161.2 158.9 164.7 MH CB 170 150.6 161.4 164.9 161.3 CB 163.0 161.2 161.1 160.6 150.4 Biotic Habitats 162.7 157.2 161.1 163.4 160 MH 161.3 161.6 161.1 151.0 156.7 155.9 162.4 161.1 CB FP 160 150.6 160.7 161.2 171.8 152.6 N 287000 160 150.2 161.2 MH 155.2 154.7 160.4 160.4 150.9 157.8 154.7 161.2 158.8 150.7 154.2 160 CB FP 158.8 150.5 153.2 158.3 159.2 157.0 Base Map courtesy of HMH Engineering, CB 156.2 MH 153.5 FP 153.5 152.8 CB FP 152.6 157.3 150.9 152.4 153.4 152.4 153.3 153.0 155.6 153.5 152.8 153.3 152.8 150.6 153.7 152.7 153.8 153.5 154.1 FP FP FP 172.1 MH FP FP FP 153.3 FP 150.6 152.1 FP FP 153.3 CB 157.1 156.4 153.1 157.7 152.4 CB 154.5 152.3 155.1 Date Figure # 153.5 157.9 Project # 151.2 153.2 152.8 153.4 152.4 153.7 MH 153.8 157.9 152.4 biotic habitats courtesy of Live Oak Associates, 153.5 152.4 153.8 153.5 158.1 165 73 153.3 153.8 Z 153.33 MH Z 158.63 153.3 157.4 151.5 158.6 HILLSDALE AVE 158.8 158.2 151.5 158.6 151.5 152.5 152.6 151.7 153.3 153.4 153.3 158.5 158.4 150.6 153.5 153.7 153.4 MH 153.2 153.2 153.1 153.0 153.4 153.0 153.5 153.6 158.4 152.9 153.7 153.7 154.1 154.6 154.9 156.1 CB MH 154.7 155.2 155.7 156.5 172.7 151.6 CB 156.9 152.6 MH 154.1 157.3 158.2 158.8 HILLSDALEMH AVE 151.6 159.3 159.7 160.2 MH 160.4 158.4 158.2 152.5 153.3 CB 152.6 HILLSDALE AVE 160.1 159.8 159.7 159.0 152.6 MH HILLSDALE AVE 158.8 159.5 159.4 159.3 151.8 157.3 159.6 159.5 159.3 151.0 152.2 153.2 153.3 154.5 MH 160.4 160.4 159.8 159.7 151.7 152.7 152.6 153.7 158.2 151.5 and reclaimed habitats courtesy of H.T. Harvey & Assoc. 153.4 153.0 153.4 153.4 153.2 153.5 153.6 153.9 HILLSDALE AVE 152.7 153.6 153.8 153.7 159.7 MH 160 1010-06 154.4 158.1 160 158.8 4 152.8 156.2 156.6 159.4 6/06/2013 153.5 153.5 156.9 152.1 153.0 154.6 154.8 159.3 159.8 159.9 159.8 158.8 159.6 150 157.4 CB 155.6 156.1 157.5 157.2 152.9 158.2 CB MH 158.8 159.7 160.3 153.2 159.8 159.1 159.1 158.1 CB 159.1 160.2 160.7 161.1 161.0 160.1 160.2 MH 160 161.8 MH 160 152.3 N 286800 153.5 159.4 160.8 N 286800 151.6 160.1 160.4 160.6 164.1 164.3 164.3 160.5 161.4 160 158.5 164.2 160.1 153.2 160.1 158.5 162.4 164.4 164.4 160.3 160.4 CB 161.6 162.6 157.5 164.4 164.9 165.1 164.7 164.8 159.3 159.0 161.8 161.8 162.2 162.2 165.2 160.1 162.5 164.2 CB 165.3 160.1 160.7 164.9 162.5 164.2 163.7 165.2 CB 158.1 164.4 1 152.7 162.4 160.9 Z 152.45 160.9 158.8 160.7 152.2 163.9 162.2 CB 164.5 161.4 157.3 CB 164.4 158.8 157.4 151.9 MH 161.2 162.1 172.7 MH 157.6 162.1 164.3 163.7 158.1 152.2 157.6

158.1

158.3 163.9 159.1 153.1 151.6 158.4

158.2 152.1 158.2

162.1

172.9 159.4 158.3 160 158.3 158.1 158.3

habitat. Grasses common to this habitat include wild oats (Avena sp.), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Common forbs include yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), vinegar weed (Trichostemma lanceolatum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and clover (Trifolium sp.).

Native spring-flowering forbs are also common to this habitat. California poppies (Eschscholzia californica), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), red maids (Calandrinia ciliata), and blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum) are typical components of this flora. The spring wildflower display in any given year depends greatly on the timing and amount of winter rains, the site’s fire history, and other factors. Cattle grazing has generally been absent from Communications Hill for more than a decade. However, grazing of a few head of cattle occurs annually on a limited portion of the southeastern side of the site during the spring and summer months. In addition, fires have been relatively infrequent over the last several decades, with the last fire occurring in 2007 and burning approximately 20% of the site. Vegetation in the burned areas has since recovered.

Annual grasslands provide important habitat to many terrestrial vertebrates. As many as 25 species of reptiles and amphibians, 100 species of birds, and 50 species of mammals are known to use grassland habitats of central California (Mayer et al. 1988). While the study area provides suitable habitat for many of these species, the active management of the site has reduced its wildlife value on portions of the site. For example, the flat area south of the quarry pond appeared to be graded recently. Nonetheless, some of the species that use the site are grassland residents. A number of others use a variety of other habitats as well. Some are migrants that use the grasslands of the site for only a portion of each year.

The grasslands of the study area are used by several species of reptiles and amphibians. The

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is known to breed in the quarry pond and aestivate in the annual grassland habitat surrounding the pond. Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) were observed in this habitat during site surveys. Logs and rocky outcroppings provide microhabitats suitable for western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) and 13

gopher snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus), which forage in grasslands and other adjacent habitats for small mammals.

Resident and migratory birds occur here, including the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and the mourning dove (Zeniada macroura). Winter migrants include American pipits (Anthus rubescens) and savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis) are commonly seen in this part of Santa Clara County foraging from fences and utility lines during the spring and summer. A variety of raptors are attracted to this habitat by the presence of invertebrates and small reptiles, birds, and mammals. Raptors observed in or adjacent to the study area include white-tailed kites (Elanus caeruleus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura).

Botta's pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in the annual grassland habitat of the site. Less than two dozen California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows and one ground squirrel were observed in this habitat. Ground squirrel and Botta's pocket gopher burrows were absent in the developed area of the site. The California vole (Microtus californicus), the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), and the ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus) are also likely residents, and numerous California vole holes were observed in ruderal habitat along the railroad tracks. Most mammalian predators, except for the non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes), house cat (Felis catus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and raccoon (Procyon lotor), are absent from the site due to its isolation from other suitable grassland habitats in the region. Red foxes have been observed on the site and den in burrows and abandoned mines on the property.

2.1.2 Coyote Brush/Diablan Sage Scrub Patches of coyote brush/Diablan sage scrub are present within the scattered portions of the site. This habitat is present in two forms: coyote brush/Diablan sage scrub that has not been significantly disturbed and reclaimed coyote brush/Diablan sage scrub, which includes previously quarried areas that have reestablished as scrub habitat. The dominant shrubs of the 14

habitat included coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), although poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) were commonly observed. The overstory layer primarily consists of California buckeye (Aesculus californica), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and willow (Salix sp.), but trees are generally absent from this habitat. The same grasses and forbs observed in the annual grassland comprise the herbaceous understory.

Shrubs and low vegetation provide cover and nesting habitat for Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna), black phoebes (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebes (Sayornis saya), and California towhees (Pipilo crissalis), which were observed on the site, as well as for other bird species such as Nashville warblers (Vermivora ruficapilla) and black-headed grosbeaks (Pheucticus melanocephalus). California quail (Callipepla californica) can often be found foraging on seeds and plants under the cover of dense undergrowth. They are readily observed when startled into explosive flight. Wrentits (Chamaea fasciata), California thrashers (Toxostoma redivivum), and canyon wrens (Catherpes mexicanus) are also common resident birds of sage scrub in Santa Clara County.

Diablan sage scrub of the study area provides important habitat for a variety of mammals. Some species, such as the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus), forage within the protection of the dense brush, feeding largely on grasses and forbs or insects. Red foxes were also observed seeking cover in this habitat.

2.1.3 Mixed Woodland There are two small areas classified as mixed woodland within the site. One occurs near the northwestern corner and is contiguous with offsite mixed woodland. Species observed include California buckeyes, valley oaks (Quercus lobata), and coast live oaks. The second area of mixed woodland occurs around the boundaries of one of the wetland seeps in the central portion of the site. Species observed include Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii), buckeyes, a pepper tree (Schinus sp.), a willow, and poison oak.

Many of the terrestrial vertebrates occurring in the annual grassland and coyote brush/Diablan sage scrub habitats are likely to occur in the mixed woodland habitat as well.

2.1.4 Aquatic Aquatic habitats were identified within the site in the form of a manmade quarry pond, four freshwater seeps, a defined natural drainage channel between one of the seeps and the quarry pond, seasonal manmade drainage ditches associated with the quarry, UPRR, and ranching practices, and two detention basins constructed as part of the KB Home Tuscany Hills development. Hydrophytic vegetation was generally absent from the manmade drainage ditches and the temporary detention basin located at the terminus of Adeline Avenue. Hydrophytic vegetation observed in the remaining aquatic features included, but is not limited to, rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), fiddle dock (Rumex pulchre), common monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus), cattails (Typha sp.), and Italian rye grass (Lolium sp.).

Aquatic sources on the site provide drinking water for resident and migratory wildlife through most or all of the year and often support invertebrate populations upon which wildlife may forage. They provide breeding habitat for the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla) and western toad (Bufo boreas), which were observed in these areas. California tiger salamanders are known to breed in the quarry pond. Many of the terrestrial vertebrates occurring in the annual grassland are likely to occur here as well. Raccoons, feral cats, and striped skunks drink water from this habitat when passing through the site.

2.1.5 Developed/Ruderal The developed/ruderal portion of the site includes the portions of the inactive Azevedo Quarry that are actively disturbed, as well as the UPRR, and areas disturbed as part of the KB Home Tuscany Hills development (i.e., water tank and pump station). While a few species, such as Russian thistle, occur in the disturbed areas, most of these areas support no plants at all; thus, use of these areas by wildlife is minimal.

2.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS

Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.2, state and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) have developed their own set of lists (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranks, or CRPR) of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”

A number of special status plants and animals occur in the vicinity of the site. These species, and their potential to occur in the site, are listed in Table 3 on the following pages. Sources of information for this table included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988 and 1990), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2013), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2012), Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (CDFW 2012), and The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013). This information was used to evaluate the potential for special status plant and animal species to occur on the site. Figures 5 and 6 depict the location of special status species reported in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and special status species observed on the site by LOA ecologists. It is important to note that the CNDDB is a volunteer database; therefore, it may not contain all known or gray literature records.

A search of published accounts for all of the relevant special status plant and animal species was conducted for the San Jose East Quadrangle in which the project area occurs, and for the eight

17 2 miles 0 2 miles

approximate scale er (3.1 mil lomet e) radi e Ki us Fiv

Story Rd

Tully Rd

280

Senter Rd

17 Monterey Hwy

Pine Ave Capitol Expy

87 Project Curtner Ave Site LEGEND Special status species Bay checkerspot butterfly Hillsdale Ave California tiger salamander Capitol Expy Congdon's tarplant Hall's bush mallow

Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower Snell Ave

Mt. Hamilton thistle Branham Ln San Francisco collinsia

85 Cottle Rd Santa Clara valley dudleya Blossom Hill Rd big-scale balsamroot burrowing owl fragrant fritillary Live Oak Associates, Inc. round-leaved filaree Communications Hill western pond turtle Special Status Species hoary bat Date Project # Figure # Sources: California Dep. of Fish & Wildlife Natural Diversity Database 6/06/2013 1010-06 5 LEGEND Malacothamnus shrub

Burrowing Owl

Sources: Aerial Photograph courtesy of GlobExplorer GPS Malacothamnus data from Live Oak Associates Boundary courtesy of HMH Engineering

Project Boundary

Live Oak Associates, Inc.

Communications Hill Observed Special Status Species

1/2 mile 0 1/2 mile Date Project # Figure # 1010-06 approximate scale 6/06/2013 6

surrounding quadrangles (Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Mt. Day, Lick Observatory, Morgan Hill, Santa Teresa Hills, Los Gatos, and San Jose West) using the CNDDB.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and CNPS 2013) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Tiburon paintbrush FE, CT, Habitat: Valley and foothill Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta CRPR 1B grasslands on serpentinite. present in the portions of the site Elevation: 60‐400 meters. underlain by serpentine soils. Blooms: April‐June. However, this species was not observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Coyote ceanothus FE, CRPR Habitat: Chaparral, coastal Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Ceanothus ferrisiae 1B scrub, and valley and foothill present in the portions of the site grasslands on serpentinite. underlain by serpentine soils. Elevation: 120‐460 meters. However, this species was not Blooms: January‐May. observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Robust spineflower FE, CRPR Habitat: Maritime chaparral, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta 1B openings of cismontane the site. This species was not observed woodlands, coastal dunes, during focused surveys conducted by and coastal scrub in sandy or H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s gravelly soils. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Elevation: 3‐300 meters. Blooms: April–September. Santa Clara Valley dudleya FE, CRPR Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Dudleya setchellii 1B woodland and valley and present in the portions of the site foothill grassland on rocky or supporting serpentine outcrops. A serpentine soils. population was observed in the early Elevation: 60‐455 meters. 1990s on the south side of Blooms: April‐October. Communications Hill outside of the site boundaries. However, this species was not observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Contra Costa goldfields FE, CRPR Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Lasthenia conjugens 1B woodlands, alkaline playas, the site. This species was not observed valley and foothill during focused surveys conducted by grasslands, and vernal pools. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Occurs in mesic soils. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Elevation: 0‐470 meters. Blooms: March–June.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Bent‐flowered fiddleneck CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal bluff scrub, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Amsinckia lunaris cismontane woodland, and present in the annual grasslands of the valley and foothill site. However, this species was not grasslands. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 3‐500 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: March–June. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Alkali milk‐vetch CRPR 1B Habitat: Playas, valley and Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Astragalus tener var. tener foothill grasslands on adobe the site. This species was not observed clay, and vernal pools. during focused surveys conducted by Occurs in alkaline soils. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Elevation: 1‐60 meters. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Blooms: March‐June. Brittlescale CRPR 1B Habitat: Chenopod scrub, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Atriplex depressa meadows and seeps, playas, the site. This species was not observed valley and foothill during focused surveys conducted by grasslands, and vernal pools. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Occurs on alkaline or clay or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. soils. Elevation: 1‐320 meters. Blooms: April‐October.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area San Joaquin spearscale CRPR 1B Habitat: Chenopod scrub, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Atriplex joaquiniana meadows and seeps, playas, the site. This species was not observed and valley and foothill during focused surveys conducted by grasslands on alkaline soils. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Elevation: 1‐835 meters. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Blooms: April‐October. Lesser saltscale CRPR 1B Habitat: Chenopod scrub, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Atriplex minuscula playas, and valley and the site. This species was not observed foothill grasslands on during focused surveys conducted by alkaline and sandy soils. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Elevation: 15‐200 meters. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Blooms: May‐October. Big‐scale balsamroot CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. cismontane woodland, and present in the annual grasslands and macrolepis valley and foothill grassland, sage scrub of the site. However, this sometimes on serpentine. species was not observed during Elevation: 90‐1555 meters. focused surveys conducted by H.T. Blooms: April–October. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Mount Day rockcress CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral on rocky Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Boechera rubicundula slopes. the site. This species was not observed Elevation: n/a during focused surveys conducted by Blooms: April–May. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Round‐leaved filaree CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is California macrophylla woodlands and valley and present in the annual grasslands of the foothill grasslands on clay site. However, this species was not soils. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 15‐1200 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: March–May. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Calyptridium parryi ssp. hesseae cismontane woodland in the site. This species was not observed sandy or gravelly openings. during focused surveys conducted by Elevation: 305‐1530 meters. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Blooms: May‐August. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Chaparral harebell CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral on rocky Absent. The site occurs at an elevation Campanula exigua soils or serpentinite. below the known range for this species. Elevation: 275‐1250 meters. This species was not observed during Blooms: May‐June. focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Pink creamsacs CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Castilleja rubicundula ssp. cismontane woodland, present in the portions of the site rubicundula meadows and seeps, and underlain by serpentine soils. valley and foothill grasslands However, this species was not on serpentinite. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 20‐910 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: April‐June. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. 22

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Congdon’s tarplant CRPR 1B Habitat: Valley and foothill Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii grassland on alkaline soils. the site. One occurrence of this species Elevation: 1‐230 meters. is within three miles of the site; Blooms: May‐October. however, the sighting was from 1908. This species was not observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Point Reyes bird’s‐beak CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal salt marshes Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Chloropyron maritimum ssp. and swamps. the site. This species was not observed palustre Elevation: 0‐10 meters. during focused surveys conducted by Blooms: June‐October. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Cirsium fontinale var. campylon cismontane woodland, and present in the portions of the site valley and foothill grassland underlain by serpentine soils. on serpentine seeps. However, this species was not Elevation: 100‐890 meters. observed during focused surveys Blooms: April‐October. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Santa Clara red ribbons CRPR 4 Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa cismontane woodland. present in the sage scrub habitats of Elevation: 90‐1500 meters. the site. However, this species was not Blooms: April–July. observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. San Francisco collinsia CRPR 1B Habitat: Closed‐cone Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Collinsia multicolor coniferous forest and coastal the site. This species was not observed scrub, sometimes on during focused surveys conducted by serpentinite. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Elevation: 30‐250 meters. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Blooms: March‐May. Mt. Hamilton coreopsis CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Coreopsis hamiltonii woodlands on rocky soils. the site. This species was not observed Elevation: 550‐1300 meters. during focused surveys conducted by Blooms: March‐May. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Hoover’s button‐celery CRPR 1B Habitat: Vernal pools. Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Elevation: 3‐45 meters. the site. This species was not observed Blooms: July. during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Fragrant fritillary CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Fritillaria liliacea woodland, coastal prairie, present in the portions of the site coastal scrub, and valley and underlain by serpentine soils. foothill grasslands. Often However, this species was not occurs on serpentinite. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 3‐410 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: February–April. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Loma Prieta hoita CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Hoita strobilina cismontane woodland, and present in the portions of the site riparian woodland. Usually underlain by serpentine soils. occurs on serpentinitic or However, this species was not mesic soils. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 30‐860 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: May–October. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Smooth lessingia CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata cismontane woodland on present in the portions of the site serpentinite. underlain by serpentine soils. Elevation: 120‐420 meters. However, this species was not Blooms: July‐November. observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Mt. Hamilton lomatium CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Lomatium observatorium woodlands. the site. This species was not observed Elevation: 1219‐1330 during focused surveys conducted by meters. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s Blooms: March‐May. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Showy golden madia CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Madia radiata woodland and valley and present in the annual grasslands of the foothill grassland. site. However, this species was not Elevation: 25‐900 meters. observed during focused surveys Blooms: March–May. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Indian Valley bush‐mallow CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Malacothamnus aboriginum cismontane woodland in present in the sage scrub of the site. rocky, granitic, and often However, this species was not burned areas. observed during focused surveys Elevation: 150‐1700 meters. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates Blooms: April‐October. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Arcuate bush‐mallow CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Malacothamnus arcuatus cismontane woodland. present in the sage scrub of the site. Elevation: 15‐355 meters. However, this species was not Blooms: April‐September. observed during focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. 24

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Hall’s bush‐mallow CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Present. Two shrubs were Malacothamnus hallii coastal scrub. documented in the southern portion of Elevation: 10‐760 meters. the site in 2007 and 2009 (Figure 6). Blooms: May‐September. Neither of these shrubs were present in 2001; however, following ground disturbance as part of the KB Home development, they have established on the project site. During the 2012 survey, both shrubs were dead, but a few young mallows were sprouting at the base of one. Woodland woollythreads CRPR 1B Habitat: Broadleafed upland Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Monolopia gracilens forest, chaparral, present in the portions of the site cismontane woodland, underlain by serpentine soils. North Coast coniferous However, this species was not forest, and valley and observed during focused surveys foothill grasslands on conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates serpentinite. in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and Elevation: 100‐1200 meters. 2007. Blooms: February‐July. Prostrate vernal pool navarretia CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal scrub, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Navarretia prostrata meadows and seeps, valley the site. This species was not observed and foothill grasslands on during focused surveys conducted by alkaline soils, and vernal H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s pools. Occurs in mesic or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. areas. Elevation: 15‐700 meters. Blooms: April‐July. Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and lower Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Penstemon rattanii var. kleei montane coniferous forest present in the sage scrub of the site. on sandy shale slopes. However, this species was not Elevation: 400‐1100 meters. observed during focused surveys Blooms: May‐June. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Mt. Diablo phacelia CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and Absent. The site occurs at an elevation Phacelia phacelioides cismontane woodlands on well below the known range for this rocky soils. species. This species was not observed Elevation: 500‐1370 meters. during focused surveys conducted by Blooms: April‐May. H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Hairless popcorn‐flower CRPR 1A Habitat: Meadows and seeps Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Plagiobothrys glaber on alkaline soils and coastal the site. This species has not been salt marshes and swamps. documented in the region since 1955. Elevation: 15‐180 meters. This species was not observed during Blooms: March‐May. focused surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity. (Cont’d.)

PLANTS (adapted from CDFG 2013 and CNPS 2013) Other special status plants listed by CNPS Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Rock sanicle CR, CRPR Habitat: Broadleaved upland Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Sanicula saxatilis 1B forest, chaparral, and valley present in the annual grasslands and and foothill grasslands on sage scrub of the site. However, this rocky soils. species was not observed during Elevation: 45‐800 meters. focused surveys conducted by H.T. Blooms: April‐May. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Maple‐leaved checkerbloom CRPR 4 Habitat: Broadleafed upland Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Sidalcea malachroides forest, coastal prairie, the site. This species was not observed coastal scrub, North Coast during focused surveys conducted by coniferous forest, and H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s riparian woodland, often in or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. disturbed areas. Elevation: 0‐730 meters. Blooms: March‐August. Most beautiful jewel‐flower CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Streptanthus albidus ssp. cismontane woodland, and present in the portions of the site peramoenus valley and foothill grassland underlain by serpentine soils. on serpentinite. However, this species was not Elevation: 94‐1000 meters. observed during focused surveys Blooms: April‐September. conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Saline clover CRPR 1B Habitat: Marshes and Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Trifolium depauperatum var. swamps, valley and foothill the site. This species was not observed hydrophilum grasslands on mesic or during focused surveys conducted by alkaline soils, and vernal H.T. Harvey & Associates in the 1990s pools. or by LOA in 2001 and 2007. Elevation: 0‐300 meters. Blooms: April–June.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and USFWS 2013) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Callippe silverspot butterfly FE Native grasslands. Host Absent. The host plant required for Speyeria callippe callippe plant is Viola pedunculata. survival of this butterfly has never been observed on the site. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE Inhabits deep vernal pools of Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Lepidurus packardi unplowed grasslands in the the site. Central Valley containing clear to highly turbid water. Steelhead – Central California coast FT Migrate up freshwater rivers Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from ESU or streams and spend the the site. Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus remainder of their time in the ocean. California tiger salamander FT, CT Breeds in vernal pools and Present. A breeding population of CTS Ambystoma californiense stock ponds of central is present in the quarry pond, and California. Adults aestivate aestivation habitat exists on the site. in grassland habitats The remaining onsite aquatic features adjacent to breeding sites. do not provide suitable breeding habitat due to their hydrologic regimes. California red‐legged frog FT, CSC Rivers, creeks and stock Absent. Marginally suitable habitat for Rana draytonii ponds of the Sierra foothills this species is present in the aquatic and coast range, preferring habitat associated with the quarry pools with overhanging pond (i.e., the pond, drainage channel, vegetation. and seep). However, CRLF have never been observed anywhere on Communications Hill, and the site lacks connectivity to the creeks or rivers in the region that are known to support CRLF populations. Willow flycatcher CE Breeds in the Central Valley Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Empidonax traillii and Sierra Nevada. the site. Bald eagle CE Nests in the upper canopy of Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Haliaeetus leucocephalus large trees, especially the site. The closest known conifers, near lakes, occurrences are wintering birds at reservoirs, and rivers. Calero Reservoir several miles south of Communications Hill.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and USFWS 2013) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Foothill yellow‐legged frog CSC Frequents partly shaded, Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Rana boylii shallow, swiftly‐flowing the site. streams and riffles with rocky substrate in a variety of habitats.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and USFWS 2013) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area Western pond turtle CSC An aquatic turtle of ponds, Absent. Although suitable habitat Emys marmorata marshes, slow‐moving exists on the site for this species, rivers, streams and irrigation western pond turtles have never been ditches with aquatic observed anywhere on vegetation. Needs basking Communications Hill, and the site lacks sites and sandy banks or connectivity to aquatic habitat in the grassy open fields for egg region that is known to support pond laying. turtle populations. Coast horned lizard CSC Found primarily in lowlands Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Phrynosoma blainvillii along sandy washes where the site. scattered low shrubs provide cover. White‐tailed kite CP Open grasslands and Possible. The site provides foraging Elanus leucurus agricultural areas habitat, as well as nesting habitat in the throughout central few onsite trees. California. Northern harrier CSC Frequents meadows, Possible. The site provides foraging Circus cyaneus grasslands, open rangelands, habitat but unlikely nesting habitat. freshwater emergent wetlands; uncommon in wooded habitats. Golden eagle CP Typically frequents rolling Possible. The site provides foraging Aquila chrysaetos foothills, mountain areas, habitat, but unlikely nesting habitat in woodland areas, sage‐ the few large trees and adjacent AT&T juniper flats, and desert structures. habitats. Peregrine falcon CP Individuals breed on cliffs in Unlikely. The site provides marginal Falco peregrinus anatum the Sierra or in coastal foraging habitat for transients and habitats; occurs in many migrating birds. Breeding habitat is habitats of the state during absent. migration and winter. Burrowing owl CSC Open, dry grasslands, Present. Historic sightings of Athene cunicularia deserts and ruderal areas. overwintering burrowing owls or their Requires suitable burrows. evidence (i.e., white wash and pellets) This species is often have been observed a total of four associated with California times on or immediately adjacent to ground squirrels. the site since 1992. All four sightings were of non‐breeding owls utilizing the site as overwintering habitat or as a stopover for transient individuals on their way to another location. While the site has never been utilized for breeding in the past, suitable foraging habitat is present for owls moving through the area. Loggerhead shrike CSC Nests in tall shrubs and Possible. The site provides foraging Lanius ludovicianus dense trees, forages in habitat, and nesting habitat is present grasslands, marshes, and in the onsite trees and larger shrubs. ruderal habitats.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and USFWS 2013) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area California yellow warbler CSC Migrants move through Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Dendroica petechia brewsteri many habitats of Sierra and the site. its foothills. This species breeds in riparian thickets of alder, willow and cottonwoods. Black swift CSC Migrants and transients Possible. Migrants and transients may Cypseloides niger found throughout many forage on the site during migration. habitats of state. Breeds on Breeding habitat is absent. steep cliffs or ocean bluffs, or in cracks and crevasses of inland deep canyons. Vaux’s swift CSC Migrants and transients Possible. Migrants and transients may Chaetura vauxi move through the foothills forage on the site during migration. of the western Sierra in Breeding habitat is absent. spring and late summer. Breeds in coniferous forests. Tricolored blackbird CSC Breeds near fresh water, Possible. The site provides foraging Agelaius tricolor primarily emergent habitat, but unlikely nesting habitat. wetlands, with tall thickets. Forages in nearby grassland and cropland habitats. Pallid bat CSC Grasslands, chaparral, Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is Antrozous pallidus woodlands, and forests of present on the site, but roosting California; most common in habitat is currently absent. The mines dry rocky open areas that that were re‐opened for less than a provide roosting year in 2008/2009 provided suitable opportunities. roosting habitat; however, surveys of the mines themselves as well as emergent surveys outside the mouth the mines at dusk immediately prior to their re‐closing did not detect any evidence of bat usage. Townsend’s big‐eared bat CSC Primarily a cave‐dwelling bat Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is Corynorhinus townsendii that may also roost in present on the site, but roosting buildings. Occurs in a variety habitat is currently absent. The mines of habitats of the state. that were re‐opened for less than a year in 2008/2009 provided suitable roosting habitat; however, surveys of the mines themselves as well as emergent surveys outside the mouth the mines at dusk immediately prior to their re‐closing did not detect any evidence of bat usage.

Table 3. Special status species that could occur in the project vicinity.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2013 and USFWS 2013) California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area California mastiff bat CSC Frequents open, semi‐arid to Possible. Suitable foraging habitat is Eumops perotis californicus arid habitats, including present on the site, but roosting conifer, and deciduous habitat is currently absent. The mines woodlands, coastal scrub, that were re‐opened for less than a grasslands, palm oasis, year in 2008/2009 provided suitable chaparral and urban. Roosts roosting habitat; however, surveys of in cliff faces, high buildings, the mines themselves as well as trees and tunnels. emergent surveys outside the mouth the mines at dusk immediately prior to their re‐closing did not detect any evidence of bat usage. San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat CSC Chaparral and woodlands Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Neotoma fuscipes annectens with a moderate canopy and present on the site. However, no a moderate to dense woodrat nests have been observed understory. onsite during the various surveys conducted over the years, and the site is isolated from more suitable habitat in the region, precluding the movement of individuals onto Communications Hill. American badger CSC Drier open stages of most Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is Taxidea taxus shrub, forest and present on the site. However, no herbaceous habitats with badgers have been observed onsite friable soils. during the various surveys conducted over the years, and the site is isolated from more suitable habitat in the region, precluding the movement of individuals onto Communications Hill. Ringtail CP Riparian and heavily wooded Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from Bassariscus astutus habitats near water. the site. *Explanation of Occurrence Designations and Status Codes

Present: Species observed on the sites at time of field surveys or during recent past. Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis. Possible: Species not observed on the sites, but it could occur there from time to time. Unlikely: Species not observed on the sites, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient. Absent: Species not observed on the sites, and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES

FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CR California Rare FC Federal Candidate CP California Protected CC California Candidate CSC California Species of Special Concern

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 3 Plants about which we need more 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in information – a review list California and elsewhere 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 30

2.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES MERITING FURTHER DISCUSSION

Most of the special status plant and animal species that have been documented in the region may occur rarely or occasionally on the site (Table 3). For these species, sufficient information exists to evaluate the potential impacts that the proposed project may have on them. A few of the state- or federally-listed species require additional in-depth analysis. Special status animal species that are known to occur on the site include the California tiger salamander and burrowing owl. While absent from the site, there have been years of discussions on the status of the bay checkerspot butterfly on Communications Hill. Below are detailed discussions addressing the suitability of the site to support these three species.

2.3.1 Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: None. The bay checkerspot butterfly (BCB) was listed as federally threatened by the USFWS on September 18, 1987. Critical habitat for the BCB was designated on April 30, 2001 (66 FR 21449 21489). The USFWS proposed a change in the critical habitat ruling for the BCB on August 22, 2007 (72 FR 48178 48218) and made a final ruling on the extent of critical habitat on August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50405 50452). The 443-acre Communications Hill Critical Habitat Unit #6 that was originally designated in 2001 was excluded as critical habitat in 2008.

The BCB is dependent upon a variety of topographic and biotic factors. These include:  A density of Plantago erecta of at least several hundred plants per square meter is required. Such densities are rarely seen except on serpentine soils because non-native grass species outcompete foothill plantain on non-serpentine soils unless controlled by grazing or other means.  The aspect, or direction that a slope faces, and its steepness determine whether slopes are warmer or cooler. Cooler slopes act as refugia during droughts.  The diversity of the local topography improves the viability of a population. Butterfly populations tend to persist longer on sites with diverse microtopography.  The patch size is directly related to the potential size of the butterfly population. Sites less than four acres tend to be unoccupied, or their populations go extinct after only a few years of occupancy.

 The presence of owl's clover increases the likelihood of persistence of a butterfly population since they senesce slightly later than Plantago erecta and thus increase the time food is available to prediapause larvae.  The size of Plantago erecta plants is important. Generally, larger plants senesce later, promoting larval survival into diapause.  The amount of sunlight available to the Plantago erecta is also important. Unshaded stands of Plantago erecta are preferred. Shaded plants prevent larval basking and thus inhibit thermoregulation by the larvae.  The average density of native nectar sources (such as Lomatium spp., Muilla maritima, Allium spp., Lasthenia chrysostoma, and Layia platyglossa) available to adult butterflies influences reproductive success.  Butterflies tend to occupy site elevations between 500 and 1300 feet NGVD.  In Santa Clara County, habitats generally must be grazed by cattle at appropriate intensities to remain suitable for occupancy by the Bay checkerspot butterfly.

In general, a viable and persistent population of the BCB is dependent upon a variety of abiotic (e.g., topographic) and biotic factors (e.g., larval host plants and adult nectar sources). Therefore, moderate to high quality habitat for the BCB consists primarily of relatively large (several square meter and no less than one square meter) patches of dense, unshaded Plantago erecta, with a good density of adult nectar sources (e.g., Lomatium spp., Muilla maritima, Allium spp., Lasthenia chrysostoma, and Layia platglossa) on a diversity of aspects (direction of slope; cooler slopes are usually preferred). In addition, no extant (surviving) population of BCB exists on an ungrazed site. Apparently, the grazing of cattle reduces competition between the annual grasses and Plantago erecta and allows for dense patches of Plantago erecta to form.

The presence of serpentine soil on Communications Hill and of patches of the BCB’s larval host plant, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), have caused suspicion that the site might be potential butterfly habitat. Figure 7 shows the location of Plantago erecta populations present on the site during surveys conducted during 2007. There have been twelve separate surveys of Communications Hill since the mid-1980s for the BCB, totaling over 80 days of effort (Table 4).

LEGEND

Plantago Population

Sources: Aerial Photograph courtesy of GlobExplorer GPS Malacothamnus data from Live Oak Associates Boundary courtesy of HMH Engineering

Monterey Hwy

Project Boundary

Live Oak Associates, Inc.

Communications Hill Plantago Population Locations

1/2 mile 0 1/2 mile Date Project # Figure # 6/11/2013 1010-06 approximate scale 7

Table 4. History of Bay checkerspot butterfly surveys on Communications Hill. Year Number of Visits Scientist Reference Mid‐1980s 1 White HTH 1992a 1989 & 1990 6 Launer, Murphy Launer & Murphy 1991 Launer & Murphy 1991 1991 6 Launer Murphy & Launer 199 1992 7 Launer Launer 1992 1992 12 White HTA 1992b 1992 10 White HTA 1992c 1993 14 White HTA 1993 1997 1 White Field notes 1998 1 White HTA 1998 2000 9 Arnold Arnold 2000 2001 7 White LOA 2001 2007 6 White LOA 2007 Total 80

All of these surveys have been negative with a possible lone exception of a transient individual observed by Dr. White in 1992 on a parcel that has already been developed. While he is an expert on the species, he is cautious as to its identification as he observed the individual for only a few seconds and was unable to obtain confirmation (e.g., photograph, capture or handle, etc.). Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for individuals of a species to traverse marginal to unsuitable habitats. This is particularly true of volant (flying) species.

In addition to this extensive survey effort over the last 25 years, from the late 1960s to the early 1990s, several biologists from Stanford University i.e., (from which the majority of research on the butterfly has come) reviewed most private and nearly all public collections of the butterfly. One of the primary goals of this effort was to discover potentially unreported locations of the butterfly and map the historical distribution of the BCB. None of these collections possessed butterflies collected from Communications Hill.

Thus, since the 1950s, when records have become available on the species, only a single transient individual (assuming it was a BCB) has ever been recorded on Communications Hill and no evidence exists that BCB has ever reproduced (let alone successfully) on 34

Communications Hill. This is quite notable, as the species has frequently been detected (breeding) from all its known localities with rather low survey efforts.

The overwhelming conclusion is that Communications Hill has never functioned in any known way to further the continued existence of the species. The site lacks various characteristics (e.g., suitable north slopes with Plantago erecta and nectar sources) that are critical to the survival of the species. Therefore, it has been concluded that the BCB is absent from the site.

2.3.2 California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Threatened. The USFWS listed the California tiger salamander (CTS) as threatened on August 4, 2004. In February 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to list the California tiger salamander as an endangered species under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service subsequently announced a 12-month petition finding on April 18, 1994 that stated the petition was "warranted but precluded by pending listing actions on higher priority species" (Sorensen 1994). In November 2000, the USFWS emergency listed CTS within Santa Barbara County as endangered, and also emergency listed the Sonoma County population as Endangered in March 2003. On May 16, 2003, the CTS was again petitioned for listing as a threatened species. On August 4, 2004, the USFWS ruled on the listing, and on September 3, 2004, the ruling took effect to list the CTS as threatened throughout California and, at the same time, re-listed the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations as threatened. On February 9, 2009, the CDFW announced that the CTS was formally designated a candidate for threatened or endangered listing status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). On March 3, 2010, the CDFG declared that listing the CTS as threatened was warranted under CESA.

CTS spend most of the year aestivating in underground burrows provided by California ground squirrels or Botta’s pocket gophers, in undisturbed grasslands of the central San Joaquin Valley and lower Sierra Nevada foothills. There, they feed on earthworms, snails, insects, and even small mammals. On rainy nights from November to February, adult CTS migrate from subterranean refugia to breeding pools (e.g., vernal pools) to mate and lay eggs. Human made

ponds are only occasionally used for reproduction if predatory fish and bullfrogs are absent, and habitats with flowing water are rarely used. After breeding and laying eggs, adult CTS usually linger at breeding pools for several days, and some individuals may stay a few weeks. During a rainy night, they migrate back to underground refugia. After larvae mature, sometime in late spring or early summer, they disperse from shrinking breeding pools and migrate up to 1.24 miles to find their own aestivation sites (Trenham 2005).

Communications Hill has been surveyed for CTS since 1992. Most notably, as part of a Caltrain project, Dr. Sam McGinnis from Hayward State University began a CTS study in the fall of 1994. Dr McGinnis captured over 200 adult CTS during this trapping study in the debris piles (which have since been removed) located near the quarry pond (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996). CTS have consistently been found breeding in the quarry pond along the northern boundary of the site.

In 1992, CTS larvae were also found in seasonal depressions on either side of the UPRR. However, these depressions were not surveyed to ascertain if breeding was successful (e.g., juveniles survived and dispersed from the depressions). In May 1998, no seasonal ponding was detected in the UPRR right-of-way despite a 200% normal rainfall year. Grading associated with UPRR right-of-way for maintenance eliminated depressions that had formerly been present and apparently used by CTS. Surveys in 2001 and 2006 failed to detect CTS activity along the UPRR. While some areas along the UPRR pool following heavy rains, these areas are not suitable to support breeding CTS due to the relative short period of time they supported water.

CTS breeding within the quarry pond likely aestivate in much of the undisturbed habitats of the site. Portions of the inactive Azevedo Quarry do not support suitable aestivation habitat due to the level of past disturbance resulting in areas being void of vegetation and burrows. Areas that have been reclaimed as natural are considered suitable for aestivation. Exclusionary silt fencing designed by herpetologist Dr. Mark Jennings was also constructed by Raisch Products (the land leased for the quarry) in 1996 or 1997 to discourage transient CTS from wandering into any portions of the quarry from the pond. However, the area immediately to the east of this fencing is not disturbed regularly and there are a number of debris piles that provide suitable aestivation 36

habitat for CTS. It is believed that while the fencing may have discourage CTS from aestivating within any areas of the quarry, due to the current site conditions, CTS could easily crawl around the southern terminus of the fencing into the portion of the quarry not actively disturbed. CTS would be unlikely to aestivate within the developed/ruderal areas in the southwestern portion of the site.

In summary, while breeding has occurred at times in depressions along the railroad tracks, the quarry pond is the only stable feature within the site that can provide breeding opportunities for CTS every year. CTS breeding within the quarry pond likely aestivate in much of the natural habitats of the site.

2.3.3 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is considered a California species of special concern. This decision was based on the fact that the burrowing owl’s population levels were decreasing due to habitat destruction, roadside nesting (vulnerability to human interference) and indirectly, ground squirrel poisoning.

The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, semi-fossarial bird that averages a height of 9.5 inches, has an average wingspan of 23 inches, and weighs an average of 5.25 ounces. Burrowing owls are unique, as they are the only owl that regularly lives and breeds in underground nests. In California, these birds typically occur in the Central and Imperial Valleys, primarily utilizing ground squirrel burrows (or the burrows of other animals, e.g., badgers, prairie dogs and kangaroo rats) found in grasslands, open shrub lands, deserts, and to a lesser extent, grazing and agricultural lands. Burrowing owls in this region are typically found in lower elevations, and have strong site fidelity. Pairs have been known to return to the same area year after year, and some pairs are known to utilize the same burrow as the previous year. The breeding season for the burrowing owl runs from February to August, with a peak between April and July.

Burrowing owls have been documented as occurring within the site or immediately adjacent on four occasions. In 1992, H.T. Harvey observed a single, non-breeding owl along the UPRR. In

1993, a burrow exhibiting signs of owl usage (i.e. pellets and whitewash) was found on the northeast facing slope of the site; an owl was not directly observed (CDFG 2009). In 2007, a single, non-breeding owl was observed immediately to the northwest of the site (CDFG 2009). This owl was found in a burrow in a grassy hillside between landscaping and the UPRR. Finally, on February 12, 2009, a single, non-breeding owl was observed on the plateau on top of Communications Hill by LOA ecologists. This owl was seeking refuge in an abandoned rubber conveyer belt that had rolled in areas creating artificial, shallow burrows (Figure 6). This location was surveyed again on February 20, 2009, at which time the owl was absent.

Based on the years of survey effort within the site, it is believed that the site provides foraging and refugia habitat for overwintering and transient burrowing owl. The burrows throughout the site, which are increasing in numbers, and rock piles in the quarry area provide suitable habitat for this species.

2.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS

Wildlife movement corridors are areas where regional wildlife populations regularly and predictably move during dispersal or migration. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines. With increasing encroachment of humans on wildlife habitats, it has become important to establish and maintain linkages, or movement corridors, for animals to be able to access locations containing different biotic resources that are essential to maintaining their life cycles.

The importance of an area as a “movement corridor” depends on the species in question and its consistent use patterns. Animal movements generally can be divided into three major behavioral categories:  Movements within a home range or territory;  Movements during migration; and  Movements during dispersal.

While no detailed study of animal movements has been conducted for the study area, knowledge of the site, its habitats, and the ecology of the species potentially occurring onsite permits 38

sufficient predictions about the types of movements occurring in the region and whether or not proposed development would constitute a significant impact to animal movements.

While a number of reptiles, birds, and mammals may use Communications Hill as part of their home range and dispersal movements, these movements would largely be confined to the hill itself, as it is considered an infill site and is surrounded on all sides by dense urban development. Very few animals can access and, thus, move through the property due to its lack of connectivity to more natural habitats. Thus, the site does not serve as a movement corridor and does not facilitate the movement of wildlife at a regional level.

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS

Jurisdictional waters include rivers, creeks, and drainages that have a defined bed and bank and which, at the very least, carry ephemeral flows. Jurisdictional waters also include lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Such waters may be subject to the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Aquatic features are typically only considered to be jurisdictional if they connect to other waters of the United States per the U.S Supreme Court decisions Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC Decision) and Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers (referred together as the Rapanos decision).

A formal wetland delineation and waters of the U.S. analysis was completed for the site (LOA 2013). At the time this report was prepared, the waters of the U.S. report has not been submitted to the USACE for verification. However, potentially jurisdictional waters are presumed to be present on the site in the form of four seeps, an intermittent drainage channel, manmade drainage ditches, a quarry pond, and two detention basins.

Based on the SWANCC decision and Rapanos guidance issued by the USACE and EPA (2007a), it is believed that the seeps, intermittent drainage channel, manmade drainage ditches, and quarry pond do not fall under the USACE’s jurisdiction. All of these features are hydrologically

isolated from known waters of the U.S. and lack a significant chemical, physical, or biological nexus to such waters.

Additionally, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (USACE and EPA 2007b), “ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water generally are not jurisdictional under the CWA, because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to [traditional navigable waters].” All of the onsite drainage ditches are manmade and were constructed in and drain only uplands. Therefore, they should not fall under the USACE’s jurisdiction.

The two detention basins are manmade impoundments constructed as part of the neighboring Tuscany Hills development and connect into the public stormwater system. These features do not impound waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S. and, therefore, should also be disclaimed from the USACE’s jurisdiction.

In 2000, a 1.42-acre wetland was mapped in a swale along Hillsdale Avenue and verified by the USACE (File No. 24975S). This jurisdictional determination expired on March 1, 2005. In 2007, 2009, and 2012, LOA surveyed this area and did not find positive indicators of wetlands. Therefore, it is believed that this area no longer meets the technical criteria for wetlands and should be disclaimed from the USACE’s jurisdiction.

Despite our preliminary analysis of the extent of agency jurisdiction, it is important to note that these agencies are the final arbiters and could claim jurisdiction over some or all of these features. Should the USACE disclaim jurisdiction over all of the features on the site, the RWQCB will likely exert jurisdiction over the natural aquatic features, and the CDFW will likely exert jurisdiction over the natural aquatic features supporting a defined bed and bank. All three agencies would likely disclaim jurisdiction over the manmade drainage ditches and two detention basins.

3.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

As noted in Section 1.0 of this report, wetlands, special status plants and animals (i.e., threatened and endangered species, candidate species for threatened or endangered status, and species of special concern), and animal movement corridors are all biotic resource issues that may be regulated according to provisions of federal and state laws and/or local policies. These issues can affect how a property is used or developed. The discussion below addresses likely impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from the proposed development. This discussion recognizes that not all impacts are significant and, therefore, establishes the criteria by which significance is determined. The discussion also examines state and federal laws that determine how sensitive habitats are developed.

3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment before they are carried out. For example, site development may require the removal of some or all of its existing vegetation. Animals associated with this vegetation could be destroyed or displaced. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, pets, and other conditions could potentially replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals that are state and/or federally listed as threatened or endangered may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed.

Whenever possible, public agencies are required to avoid or minimize environmental impacts by implementing practical alternatives or mitigation measures. According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.”

Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered “significant” if they would:

 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

 Reduce substantially the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, including causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate an animal community;  Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or

 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may trigger the requirement to make a “mandatory findings of significance” if the project has the potential to Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS

3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal endangered species legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or

declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species. “Take” is defined by the state of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFG and the USFWS are responding agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

3.2.2 Migratory Birds State and federal laws also protect most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Migratory birds and their nests are also protected in California under the provisions of sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code makes it “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to “take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.”

3.2.3 Birds of Prey Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order 43

Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.

3.2.4 Bats Section 2000 and 4150 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it unlawful to take or possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit as required by Section 3007. Additionally, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states it is unlawful to harass, herd, or drive a number of species, including bats. To harass is defined as “an intentional act which disrupts an animal's normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.”

3.2.5 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “waters of the United States” (hereafter referred to as “jurisdictional waters”) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts. Jurisdictional waters generally include:  All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;  All interstate waters including interstate wetlands:  All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce;  All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;  Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) (i.e., the bulleted items above);  The territorial seas; and

 Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters which are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section (i.e., the bulleted items above). As recently determined by the United States Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the SWANCC decision), channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. However, the U.S Supreme Court decisions Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (referred together as the Rapanos decision) impose a "significant nexus" test for federal jurisdiction over wetlands. In June 2007, the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established guidelines for applying the significant nexus standard. This standard includes 1) a case-by-case analysis of the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary or wetland to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream navigable waters; and 2) consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors (EPA and USACE 2007).

The USACE has jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S. under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high water marks” on opposing channel banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated, or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as hydrophytes that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils saturated intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008).

All activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of such certification) that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards. The filling of isolated wetlands, over which the USACE 45

has disclaimed jurisdiction under the SWANCC decision, is regulated by the RWQCB. It is unlawful to fill isolated wetlands without filing a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for enforcing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. All projects requiring federal money must also comply with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands).

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (2003). Activities that would disturb these drainages are regulated by the CDFW via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented that protect the habitat values of the drainage in question.

3.2.6 Ordinance Trees The City of San José has a tree ordinance (Chapter 13.32 of the Municipal Code) that regulates the removal of trees. The City’s tree ordinance seeks to: Promote the health, safety, and welfare of the city by controlling the removal of trees in the city, as trees enhance the scenic beauty of the city, significantly reduce the erosion of topsoil, contribute to increased storm water quality, reduce flood hazards and risks of landslides, increase property values, reduce the cost of construction and maintenance of draining systems through the reduction of flow and the need to divert surface waters, contribute to energy efficiency and the reduction of urban temperatures, serve as windbreaks and are prime oxygen producers and air purification systems.

An “ordinance tree” is defined as any native or non-native tree with a circumference of 56 inches (diameter of 18 inches) at 24 inches above the natural grade of slope. For multi-trunk trees, the circumference is measured as the sum of the circumferences of all trunks at 24 inches above the natural grade of slope. A tree removal permit is required from the City prior to the removal of any trees covered under the ordinance. Prior to the issuance of a removal permit, the City requires that a formal tree survey be conducted that indicates the number, species, trunk circumference and location of all trees that would be removed or impacted by the project.

3.2.7 City of San José Riparian Corridor Policy The City of San José has developed a riparian policy that addresses several issues that relate to the identification, management, and protection of riparian resources within the City’s Urban Service Area (USA). The City has assumed that riparian corridors outside the USA are substantially protected by the General Plan Policy’s that govern these areas. This policy has noted that areas “outside the USA and not subject to specific General Plan direction regarding riparian protection, should be subject, at a minimum, to the development guidelines in this document” (City of San José, 1999). There are no riparian corridors located on the project site.

Riparian corridors are defined as: Any defined stream channels including the area up to the bank full-flow line, as well as all riparian (streamside) vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands. Characteristic wood riparian vegetation species could include (but are not limited to): willow, Salix sp.; alder, Alnus sp.; box elder, Acer negundo; Fremont cottonwood, Populus fremontii; bigleaf maple, Acer macrophyllum; western sycamore, Platanus racemosa; and oaks, Quercus sp. Stream channels include all perennial and intermittent streams shown as a solid or dashed blue line on USGS topographic maps, and ephemeral streams or “arroyos” with well-defined channels and some evidence of scour or deposition (City of San Jose 1999, 3).

The City’s riparian policy recommends the following riparian setback dimensions: All buildings, other structures (with the exception of bridges and minor interpretative node structures), impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (except for passive or intermittent activities) and ornamental landscaped areas should be separated a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the riparian corridor (or top of bank, whichever is greater) (City of San Jose, 1999, 31).

During the CEQA process, the City evaluates an applicant’s project design to determine consistency with the riparian policy. It is usually noted at that time whether or not any exceptions noted in the riparian policy apply to the subject parcel and under what circumstances.

Established setbacks or buffers are designed to reduce anthropogenic effects on riparian systems. Usually, the resource agencies have asserted that buffers of 100 feet or more are necessary to reduce adverse affects on riparian systems. While reasonable evidence exists to support the notion that larger buffers provide significant additional benefit to riparian systems, there is a

paucity of empirical data that allows for the establishment of a precise estimate. Therefore, the 100-foot riparian buffer that is often adopted is a historically-accepted value rather than an empirically derived one. While not empirically driven, however, a buffer of 100 feet provides a useful starting point within undeveloped areas to evaluate the potential effects from a proposed project.

The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan lays out several policies to preserve, protect, and restore riparian habitats and supports the goals of the Riparian Corridor Policy Study. These include the following:  ER-2.1. Ensure that new public and private development adjacent to riparian corridors in San Jose are consistent with the provisions of the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study and any adopted Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP).  ER-2.2. Ensure that a 100-ft setback from riparian habitat is the standard to be achieved in all but a limited number of instances, only where no significant environmental impacts would occur.  ER-2.3. Design new development to protect adjacent riparian corridors from encroachment of lighting, exotic landscaping, noise and toxic substances into the riparian zone.  ER-2.4. When disturbances to riparian corridors cannot be avoided, implement appropriate measures to restore, and/or mitigate damage and allow for fish passage during construction.  ER-2.5. Restore riparian habitat through native plant restoration and removal of non- native/invasive plants along riparian corridors and adjacent areas.  ER-2.6. Develop a City Council Policy based on the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study and HCP/NCCP to successfully implement the riparian goals and policies of the Envision General Plan, which recognizes that a 100-ft setback is the standard to be achieved in all but a limited number of instances, where no significant environmental impacts would occur.  ER-2.7. Partner with public, private, and non-profit agencies on public outreach and education on the importance of protecting our riparian corridor resources. 48

 ER-2.8. Develop and require the use of a criteria checklist from the Riparian Corridor Policy Study to evaluate new developments that propose to use riparian setback exceptions.

3.2.8 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan that covers the study area has recently been adopted and is in the process of having the Implementing Entity established. The Habitat Plan is expected to be operating by early 2014. Six local partners (the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the Cities of San Jose, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill) and two wildlife agencies (the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) prepared and adopted the multi-species habitat conservation plan. The study area of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan primarily covers southern Santa Clara County as well as the City of San Jose with the exception of the bayland areas. The Habitat Plan addresses listed species and species that are likely to become listed during the plan's 50-year permit term. The covered species include, but are not limited to, western burrowing owl, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog. The Habitat Plan requires that the agencies comment on reportable interim projects and recommend mitigation measures or project alternatives that would help achieve the preliminary conservation objectives and not preclude important conservation planning options or connectivity between areas of high habitat value.

The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan lays out several policies to supports the goals of the Habitat Plan, including the following:  ER-1.8. Work with Local Partners…on completion of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) project. Once completed and adopted, implement an HCP/NCCP that both mitigates for land and stream development impacts and provides additional conservation, restoration, and enhancement efforts.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

As described in Section 1.2, the proposed project is the development of a residential community. The proposed project will result in permanent impacts to the natural communities currently present on Communications Hill. Below is the analysis of the significance of impacts resulting from project implementation.

Potentially Significant Impacts 3.3.1 Potential Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander Potential Impacts. A breeding population of CTS has been documented in the quarry pond. Due to the presence of a stable breeding population in this pond, CTS are likely aestivating in much of the site’s natural and reclaimed habitats in the hillsides to the west and south of the quarry pond. The quarry pond is approximately 1.53 acres, and the portion of the site providing suitable aestivation habitat is mostly above the quarry pond. This population is isolated from other CTS populations in the region, as Communications Hill is an infill site that is completely surrounded by development.

While the quarry was still in operation, the quarry operator constructed silt fencing to restrict access of CTS into much of the active quarry site. The fence was generally placed to go directly uphill and limited much of the site's upland habitat. Since the quarry operation has largely ceased in the last few years, this fence has fallen into disrepair and does not act as a barrier to CTS as they leave the pond. All 312 acres of the site, including the quarry pond and CTS aestivation habitat, are proposed to be graded. Impacts to CTS and their habitat would be considered significant.

Mitigation. CTS are a covered species in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Development- related fees established by the Habitat Plan will be imposed on the proposed project. These per- acre fees are calculated based on the amount of permanent and temporary impacts occurring on the site. As discussed in section 9.4.1 of the Habitat Plan, these fees will fund mitigation to offset impacts to covered species and their habitat. Prior to gaining clearance for construction activities on the site, the project shall comply with the Habitat Plan to fulfill all requirements

related to avoiding take of CTS, including the submittal of relevant permit applications to the appropriate agencies and payment of required development-related fees.

The applicant must also comply with any conditions as set forth in chapter 6 of the Habitat Plan that would affect CTS. While no conditions apply explicitly to CTS, condition 12 in section 6.5 of the Habitat Plan is designed to minimize direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and ponds and requires projects to avoid and minimize impacts to such features to the maximum extent practicable. Due to constraints posed by the topography and geology of the site, avoidance of the existing quarry pond (i.e., the only CTS breeding habitat on the site) is not feasible (see section 3.3.4 for a more detailed discussion of impacts to aquatic features). Therefore, development- related fees will be required to the fullest extent to offset impacts to CTS breeding and aestivation habitat on the site.

The project sponsor and/or contractors shall submit evidence of compliance with the Habitat Plan to the City of San Jose prior to grading permits.

3.3.2 Potential Impacts to the Burrowing Owl Potential Impacts. Extensive surveys for burrowing owls have been conducted on Communications Hill since 1992. During that time, non-breeding burrowing owls have been observed on or immediately adjacent to the site four times, the most recent sighting of which occurred in 2009. Breeding habitat is absent from the site, as no breeding burrowing owls have ever been documented on Communications Hill. The site does not occur within modeled occupied habitat as shown in Fig. 5-11 of the Habitat Plan and is very infrequently used as overwintering habitat. Impacts to infrequently used grassland habitat would be less than significant.

Although impacts to burrowing owl habitat would be considered less than significant, project build-out could harm, injure, or kill non-breeding burrowing owls occurring on the site. This would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation. Burrowing owls are a covered species in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Development-related fees established by the Habitat Plan will be imposed on the proposed project. These per-acre fees are calculated based on the amount of permanent and temporary impacts occurring on the site. As discussed in section 9.4.1 of the Habitat Plan, these fees will fund mitigation to offset impacts to covered species and their habitat. All Habitat Plan requirements as relates to burrowing owls shall be followed, including the submittal of relevant permit applications to the appropriate agencies and payment of required development-related fees (section 3.3.5). (It should be noted that the burrowing owl fee discussed in section 9.4.1 of the Habitat Plan would not apply to this project, as the site does not occur in modeled occupied burrowing owl nesting habitat as defined in Fig. 5-11 of the Habitat Plan.)

The applicant must also comply with section 6.6.1, condition 15 and with Fig. 6-4 (“Western Burrowing Owl Survey and Monitoring Requirements Flow Chart”) of the Habitat Plan regarding avoidance and minimization measures for burrowing owls to ensure consistency with the Plan. These measures include pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat. If pre-construction surveys locate active nests or occupied burrows within or near construction zones, a 250-ft non-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the nest or burrow and shall remain off-limits to construction until the owl(s) have moved out of the project site. Prior to gaining clearance for construction activities on the site, the project shall comply with the Habitat Plan to fulfill all requirements related to avoiding take of the burrowing owls (i.e., applicable fees, application processes, and other conditions). The project sponsor and/or contractors shall submit evidence of compliance with the Habitat Plan to the City of San Jose prior to obtaining a grading permit.

3.3.3 Potential Impacts to Migratory Birds and Birds of Prey Potential Impacts. Impacts to any migratory bird or bird of prey would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code (sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3). The onsite trees and large shrubs provide suitable habitat for nesting avian species, including the white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike. The loss of habitat for migratory birds and birds of prey would not be considered significant. However, construction related activities that result in harm,

injury or death of individuals, or abandonment of an active nest would constitute a significant impact.

If a raptor or other migratory bird, regardless of its federal or state status, were to nest on or adjacent to the site prior to or during proposed construction activities during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), such activities could result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds or result in mortality of individual birds would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan does not cover any of the species discussed in this section, as they are not considered to be at risk for formal listing in the 50-year permit period of the Habitat Plan. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are warranted.

To the maximum extent practicable, trees and large shrubs planned for removal should be removed during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). If it is not possible to avoid tree removal or other disturbances during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey in all trees, large shrubs, or other areas of potential nesting habitat within the construction footprint and within 250 ft. of the footprint, if such disturbance will occur during the breeding season. This survey should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August).

If nesting raptors or migratory birds are detected on the site during the survey, a suitable construction-free buffer should be established around all active nests. The precise dimension of the buffer (a minimum of 150 ft., up to a maximum of 250 ft.) would be determined at that time and may vary depending on location and species. Buffers should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season or until it has been confirmed by a qualified biologist that all chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents. Pre-construction surveys during the non-breeding 53

season are not necessary, as the birds are expected to abandon their roosts during construction activities. Implementation of the above measures would mitigate impacts to birds of prey and other migratory birds to a less-than-significant level.

3.3.4 Potential Impacts to Aquatic Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities, Including Federally Protected Wetlands Potential Impacts. Sensitive habitat present on the site is limited to aquatic features, including four seeps, an intermittent drainage channel, and a quarry pond. Three of the four seeps and a reach of the channel also meet the USACE’s criteria for wetlands. While the quarry pond supports a breeding population of CTS, it is a manmade feature that was constructed adjacent to the railroad tracks in association with historic quarrying operations on the site. The seeps and intermittent drainage channel all developed in reclaimed parts of the site that had previously been mined. All of the aquatic features on the site are isolated from known waters of the U.S. The project will result in permanent fill of these features, including all four seeps (approximately 0.87 ac), the quarry pond (approximately 1.53 ac), and the intermittent drainage channel (approximately 0.04 ac and 612 linear feet). In total, approximately 2.4 acres of aquatic habitat, including wetlands, would be permanently impacted. While these features, from a purely aquatic standpoint, are of moderate to low quality, their fill constitutes a significant adverse impact.

Several manmade drainage ditches and two detention basins are also present on the site. The two detention basins were constructed as part of the neighboring Tuscany Hills development and connect into the public stormwater system. Impacts to the manmade drainage ditches and detention basins are not considered significant, as they do not function as natural aquatic features, do not replace the functions and values of historic features, and were created in upland habitats to function in developed and agricultural practices.

Mitigation. The project proponent should implement avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation measures to reduce impacts to aquatic habitats, including wetlands, to a less-than- significant level.

Avoidance and minimization. The preferred method of mitigation would be avoidance of all onsite waters by designing the project so that it avoids the placement of fill within potential jurisdictional waters. If avoidance is not possible, actions should be taken to minimize impacts to such features.

Chapter 6 of the Habitat Plan outlines conditions for avoidance and minimization of impacts to natural communities. Specifically, condition 11 in section 6.5 of the Habitat Plan describes stream and riparian setbacks, and condition 12 in section 6.5 of the Plan describes avoidance and minimization of direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and ponds. The intermittent stream channel on the site may be considered a “Category 2” stream under Condition 11 of the Habitat Plan and, as such, may be subject to the setback condition of 35 ft from the top of the stream bank for Category 2 streams. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and ponds as described in condition 12 of the Habitat Plan would apply to the seeps and quarry pond. However, due to constraints posed by the site’s topography and by vehicular connection requirements between the lower and upper parts of the site, the project objective cannot be achieved without extensive grading (i.e., cut and fill) over the site, including all of the aquatic habitats described above. Therefore, both avoidance and minimization of impacts to these features is not feasible.

Compensation. The proposed project will result in approximately 2.4 acres of permanent impacts to aquatic habitats occurring on the site. This includes impacts to four seeps, an intermittent stream, and the quarry pond.

As discussed in section 9.4.1 of the Habitat Plan, the applicant may choose to create, manage, and monitor their own mitigation site in lieu of paying all or part of the wetland mitigation fee (see below). This option would require approval by the Implementing Entity. The goal of this compensation effort would be to replace the lost functions and values of these features at an equal or greater value. Because the impacted features are either manmade or developed in disturbed and reclaimed parts of the site, and due to their moderate to low quality, impacts to these features should be compensated by creating or restoring aquatic and/or wetland habitat at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio. 55

Restored or created aquatic features must be consistent with the conservation strategy and all other requirements of the Habitat Plan. As required by the Habitat Plan, the creation or restoration effort will be consistent with chapter 5 of the Plan, will be protected by a conservation easement, and will be funded for management and monitoring into perpetuity.

These features may also need to be approved by the regulatory agencies (i.e., USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB) in order to satisfy their permitting requirements. If onsite mitigation is not feasible or cannot adequately compensate for all of the impacts, the applicant may also choose to purchase appropriate mitigation credits from a mitigation bank in the permit area that has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW and pre-approved to service the Habitat Plan.

Impacts to the wetlands, ponds, and streams on Communications Hill that are not compensated for via in-lieu mitigation will be mitigated for via payment of a wetland fee in addition to other development fees as mandated by the Habitat Plan. As described in sections 9.4.1 and chapter 5 of the Habitat Plan, the wetland fee will be applied towards acquiring, enhancing, restoring, and creating ponds and wetlands within the Reserve System. This approach not only compensates for the loss of aquatic/wetland functions and values on the site, but it also maximizes conservation for the covered species. The Habitat Plan breaks down these wetland fees by aquatic habitat type; an estimate of these fees is provided (Table 5). All Habitat Plan requirements as relates to sensitive aquatic habitats shall be followed, including the submittal of relevant permit applications to the appropriate agencies and payment of required development- related fees.

Table 5. Estimated wetland fees for the Communications Hill project as established by the Habitat Plan (2012). Compensation Feature Total Fee Per Unit* Ratio Area of Impact Subtotal Wetland and non‐wetland seep $374,842/acre** 2:1 0.87 ac $326,112.54 Quarry pond $153,321/acre 1:1 1.53 ac $234,581.13 Intermittent stream (includes wetland and non‐wetland $588/linear foot 1:1 612 linear ft. $359,856 portions) Total Fees $920,549.67 *Total fee per unit includes the per‐unit cost, restoration fee per unit of impact, endowment component, and plan preparation 56

component. **This cost factors in the 2:1 compensation ratio.

Regulatory issues. In addition to compliance with the Habitat Plan, the applicant will comply with all state and federal regulations related to disturbance to jurisdictional waters that are not covered by the Habitat Plan. Therefore, the applicant may be required to obtain a CWA section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB for impacts to waters of the State (totaling approximately 2.4 ac) and a section 1602 streambed alteration agreement from the CDFW for impacts to natural watercourses supporting a defined bed and bank (i.e., the intermittent drainage channel, which totals approximately 0.04 ac and 612 linear ft). All of the aquatic features on the site are believed to be isolated and, therefore, not requiring a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the USACE. However, should the USACE take jurisdiction over these features, a CWA section 404 individual permit would be necessary. As such, mitigation to satisfy the USACE would fall outside the purview of the Habitat Plan (i.e., wetland mitigation through the payment of wetland fees or in-lieu mitigation could not be completed via the Habitat Plan to satisfy any mitigation requirements by the USACE). At the time this report was prepared, the CDFW and RWQCB also do not have a mechanism to permit projects impacting jurisdictional waters in conjunction with the Habitat Plan. If they are deemed necessary, these permits must be obtained prior to initiating any ground disturbance within jurisdictional waters.

In addition to payment of wetland fees via the Habitat Plan, the applicant shall satisfy agency mitigation requirements by compensating for aquatic impacts at a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio either onsite or offsite. This would increase the total compensation ratio to 3:1 for wetland impacts (i.e., 2:1 compensation ratio as required by the Habitat Plan plus the additional 1:1 compensation ratio) and increase the total compensation ratio to 2:1 for impacts to the quarry pond and intermittent stream (i.e., 1:1 compensation ratio as required by the Habitat Plna plus the additional 1:1 compensation ratio).

Should the applicant choose to complete its own mitigation onsite, several areas within designated open space on the site may have the potential to accommodate such mitigation. Potential opportunities for wetland/aquatic creation or restoration include, but are not limited to,

restoration of the former wetland swale along Hillsdale Avenue, creation of a linear aquatic/wetland feature along the proposed water quality and detention basins, and creation of one or more aquatic/wetland features in the eastern part of the site designated as open space. These areas could offset some of the required wetland fee and/or may also satisfy a portion of the anticipated mitigation requirements by the CDFW and RWQCB.

An onsite mitigation and monitoring plan (MMP) would need to be developed to mitigate for impacts to these features. At a minimum, the MMP should:  Define the location of all restoration/creation activities;  Provide evidence of a suitable water budget to support any created aquatic and riparian habitats;  Identify the species, amount, and location of plants to be installed in the aquatic and riparian habitats;  Identify the time of year for planting and method for supplemental watering during the establishment period;  Identify the monitoring period. This should be not less than 5 years for aquatic restoration.  Define success criteria that will be required for restoration efforts to be deemed a success;  Identify adaptive management procedures that accommodate the uncertainty that comes with restoration projects. These include, but are not limited to, measures to address colonization by invasive species, unexpected lack of water, and excessive foraging of installed plants by native wildlife;  Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasive plants, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and  Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created aquatic and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity.

Any remaining mitigation required by these two agencies to satisfy the additional 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio would need to be obtained offsite (e.g., via the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank).

Less than Significant Impacts 3.3.5 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Potential Impacts. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan has been adopted, but it has not yet been implemented. The Habitat Plan area covers Communications Hill. Within the Habitat Plan, Communications Hill is shown in most maps, some figures, and is mentioned by name in Chapter 3, Existing Conditions and Chapter 4, Impact Assessment and Level of Take. In Chapter 3, Communications Hill is named as one of seven locations within the Habitat Plan area supporting important outcrops of serpentine soils and mentioned as supporting serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat. In Chapter 4, Communications Hill is mentioned as having three occurrences of the California tiger salamander and historically supporting the Bay checkerspot butterfly.

The project location falls within the covered lands of the HCP, so if the proposed project timing is such that a grading permit is obtained after implementation of the HCP, several provisions of the plan would pertain to this project. This includes compliance with conditions on covered activities as described in chapter 6 of the Habitat Plan and discussed in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.4 above. This also includes payment of development-related fees as described in chapter 9 of the Habitat Plan.

Three development fee types would apply to this project: a land cover fee, a nitrogen deposition fee, and a wetland fee. The land cover and nitrogen deposition fees are discussed below. The wetland fee is discussed further in section 3.3.4.

Land cover fees. The Habitat Plan breaks down the land cover fees by zone; an estimate of these fees is provided (Table 6). In Chapter 9 of the Habitat Plan, Communications Hill appears to be classified primarily as Fee Zone A (Mostly natural lands), with smaller areas of Fee Zone B (Mostly agricultural and valley floor rural residential lands) and Fee Zone C (Small vacant sites). The fee amount would be calculated based on the exact acreages of resources impacted, which would be the total area that will be graded. The maximum land cover fee that would be assessed would be if all 312.1 acres of the site were graded and were considered to be within Zone A; this total would be $4,809,972. 59

Table 6. Land cover fees as established by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (2012). Zone Projected Initial Fee Amount Per Unit* Zone A (Mostly natural lands) $15,416/acre Zone B (Mostly agricultural and valley floor rural residential $10,688/acre lands) Zone C (Small vacant sites) $3,905/acre *Total fee per unit includes the per‐unit cost, endowment fee, and plan preparation cost.

Nitrogen deposition fee. A nitrogen deposition fee will be applied to the project as a fee per new daily vehicle trip over the existing condition. As described in chapter 9 of the Habitat Plan, the projected initial fee amount is $3.60 per new vehicle trip generated by the project.

Wetland fee. A wetland fee would also be applied for impacts to aquatic features. The wetland fee is discussed further in section 3.3.7. Mitigation is not warranted for any impacts to the manmade drainage ditches and detention basins.

As described above and in previous sections of this document, the project proponent will complete the project in a manner that is consistent with the Habitat Plan, including compliance with the conditions on covered activities detailed in chapter 6 of the Habitat Plan and via the payment of mandatory development impact fees as described in chapter 9 of the Habitat Plan. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with the Habitat Plan.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.3.6 Potential Impact to Special Status Plant Species Potential Impacts. Of the 42 special status plant species potentially occurring in the region of the site (Table 3), only Halls’ bush-mallow has been observed onsite. All other species are assumed to be absent from or unlikely to occur on the site. Protocol-level special status plant species surveys were conducted on the site in 2001 and 2007. Numerous other surveys have been conducted onsite since 1992, and no other special status plant species have been observed. Therefore, potential impacts to regional populations of the remaining 41 species listed in Table 2

from project implementation would not be significant, as none of these special status plants would be expected to occur on the site.

Two Hall’s bush-mallow shrubs were identified on the site in 2007 and 2009. This species was not observed on the site in 2001. Following ground disturbance associated with the KB Home Tuscany Hills development, these two shrubs became established in ruderal areas of the site. During the 2012 survey, both shrubs had died, but a few young mallows were spouting at the base of one of the dead shrubs, so it is likely this species will reestablish onsite. The locations where the Hall’s bush-mallows were documented occurs within the area of proposed ground disturbance. Therefore, the proposed project would result in the loss of any Hall’s bush-mallows that reestablish on the site.

To date, fifteen occurrences of Hall’s bush-mallow have been reported to the CNDDB within 15 miles of Communications Hill, and it is expected that unreported populations of Hall’s bush- mallow have been found in the region as well. Several of these populations occur on Santa Clara County parklands and on other open space lands owned by the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (CNDDB 2013). The locations of the Hall’s bush-mallows on the site have been disturbed by humans and are subject to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances. Given the ruderal and disturbed character of the Hall’s bush-mallow locations onsite and the existence of populations that are permanently protected on County Park and Open Space Authority lands, impacts to Hall’s bush-mallow on the site would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.3.7 Potential Impacts to Special Status Animal Species

Potential Impacts. Of the 27 special status animal species potentially occurring in the region, 14 are considered absent from the site, one is considered unlikely to occur onsite, eight may occasionally migrate or forage onsite, two may reside onsite, and two are known to occur on the site. The species considered absent or unlikely to utilize the project site would not occur or would be unlikely to occur on the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Most of these species are absent from the site due to the project location (i.e., outside of common range for 61

species, site location) or lack of suitable habitat (i.e., presence of breeding habitat). The five avian species and three bat species that may occasionally migrate or forage over the site would not be impacted as a result of this project. There are no structures located on the project site that could be utilized by roosting bats and bats have not been observed roosting within the onsite mines. Following the completion of the project, these eight species would continue utilizing the project area as they do today or would migrate, as all eight species are volant, to another nearby site providing suitable habitat. Project impacts to the above 23 species would not be considered significant. The four species that may reside or are known to occur on the site are discussed in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.3.8 Potential Impacts to Serpentine Habitat Potential Impacts. The Habitat Plan considers serpentine soils to be of high conservation value. Sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.5 of the Habitat Plan note that Communications Hill supports outcrops of serpentine soils and small patches of serpentine bunchgrass grassland, respectively. As stated in section 4.6.1 of the Habitat Plan, a permanent cap of 550 acres will be applied to the serpentine bunchgrass land cover type, the key habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly (BCB). It further states that the Habitat Plan would allow up to 300 acres of permanent impacts to BCB modeled habitat mapped as “occupied” or “potential,” while impacts to modeled habitat mapped as “historic/unoccupied” would not be subject to this cap because the mapped units are “no longer occupied and have little to no chance of occupancy in the future due to habitat degradation and fragmentation….”

Section 4.6.1 of the Habitat Plan notes that development of Communications Hill 1 and 2 (230 acres and 25 acres) will not count against the BCB cap but that “these impacts will count toward the Plan's 550 acre serpentine bunchgrass grassland cap.” While the project site has historically supported serpentine habitats, much of the site has been disturbed and degraded over the last several decades as a result of quarrying activities and by reclamation efforts that imported a considerable amount of clean fill that was not serpentine in nature. Any remaining areas of the site that have not been disturbed are best characterized as annual grasslands dominated by non- 62

native grasses and supporting a mix of native and non-native spring-flowering forbs. The Habitat Plan explicitly notes that Communication Hill is not slated for conservation for the BCB nor for serpentine bunchgrass grassland. The site does not presently support BCB or other unique species that are restricted to serpentine soils (i.e., serpentine endemics). Because the serpentine habitat of the site has been severely degraded over the years due to the extensive onsite disturbances and surrounding urbanization and because it does not support serpentine endemic species, impacts to serpentine habitat would be considered less than significant.

While the Habitat Plan requires mitigation to reduce impacts to serpentine habitat, including payment of a serpentine fee as described in section 9.4.1 of the Plan, the City of San Jose has concurred with the above analysis (Joe Horwedel, pers. comm., June 2012), and the site would not be subject to the Habitat Plan’s serpentine fee.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted. .

3.3.9 Interference with the Movement of Native Wildlife Potential Impacts. Project implementation will have a small effect on home range and dispersal movements of native wildlife now occurring immediately on the site. However, the site is not considered to be part of a wildlife movement corridor, although some species move within and through it. While small pockets of open space lands occur immediately adjacent to the site (i.e., Dairy Hill to the north and lands southwest of the Tuscany Hills development), when considered as a whole, the site is an urban infill area that is completely surrounded by development. Therefore, the proposed project will result in a less-than-significant effect on the movements of native wildlife.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.3.10 Impact to Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species Potential Impacts. No fish have ever been documented on the site; therefore, impacts to fish habitat would be considered less than significant.

The proposed project would eliminate a breeding population of CTS occurring on the site; impacts to CTS are discussed in detail in section 3.1.1. A small population of red foxes is also present on the site and would be displaced as a result of project build-out. Implementation of the project would have minimal impacts to habitat all other wildlife species potentially occurring on the site. Wildlife occurring on the site are consistent with species known to occur on urban hillsides and infill sites. While they would be displaced from Communications Hill, they will remain regionally abundant due to conservation measures of the Habitat Plan to preserve more robust populations elsewhere. This project will contribute to the preservation of lands within a reserve design via land development fees as outlined by the Habitat Plan. Therefore, impacts to habitat for wildlife would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.3.11 Degradation of Water Quality in Seasonal Creeks, Reservoirs and Downstream Waters Potential Impacts. Proposed construction activities will result in soils left barren in the development footprint. Additionally, extensive grading often leaves the soils of construction zones barren of vegetation and, therefore, vulnerable to sheet, rill, or gully erosion. Furthermore, runoff is often polluted with grease, oil, pesticide and herbicide residues, heavy metals, etc. These pollutants may eventually be carried to sensitive wetland habitats used by a diversity of native wildlife species. Eroded soil is generally carried as sediment in surface runoff. Implementation of the project could result in impacts to watershed health. This would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation. The applicant has built in design elements to the project to maintain hydrologic conditions and protect water quality, including several water quality basins and biocells. The applicant will also comply with condition 3 in section 6.4.1 of the Habitat Plan and must follow the avoidance and minimization measures listed in table 6-2 of the Plan to protect water quality. The applicant is expected to comply with the provisions of a grading permit, including standard erosion control measures that employ best management practices (BMPs). Projects involving the grading of large tracts of land must also be in compliance with provisions of a General

Construction permit (a type of NPDES permit) available from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and would need to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Compliance with the above measures should reduce impacts to water quality to a less- than-significant level.

3.3.12 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Potential Impacts. The City of San José’s tree ordinance applies to the proposed project. A formal tree survey of the site was completed by Hortscience (2009), at which time the species, location, diameter at 24 in. above grade, health and structural condition, and suitability for preservation of all trees on the site were recorded. Of the 52 trees surveyed, 51 were considered native to the San Jose area (the non-native tree was an almond tree), although approximately have of these were planted. Twenty trees met the criterion for an ordinance size tree (i.e., a trunk diameter of at least 18 inches measured at 24 inches above the natural grade of slope). Because the survey was conducted over four years ago, this data may need to be updated prior to project implementation, as some trees may have died or may have grown to ordinance size.

The removal of trees would be considered significant by the City if:  One or more heritage tree is removed;  10 or more native ordinance sized trees are removed;  20 or more non-native ordinance sized trees (does not include orchard trees) are removed; or  100 or more non-ordinance trees (does not include orchard trees). Due to the extent of grading, which is proposed over the entire site, all 52 trees present on the site are proposed for removal. This would constitute a significant adverse impact.

As previously described, the project is not located near any riparian corridor. Therefore, the project will not be affected by the Riparian Corridor Policy.

Mitigation. All trees but the almond removed as a result of the project, regardless of their size, will require mitigation at replacement-to-removal ratios set forth by the City of San Jose (2006). The City requires replacement of removed trees at the following ratios: 65

 The replacement of all native ordinance-size trees at a 6:1 replacement-to-removal ratio and non-native ordinance-size trees at a 4:1 replacement-to-removal ratio with 24-inch box specimens or greater.

 The replacement of all native and non-native trees having a trunk diameter between 12 and 18 inches will occur at a 3:1 replacement-to-removal ratio and 2:1 replacement-to-removal ratio, respectively, with 24-inch box specimens or greater.

 The replacement of all trees having a trunk diameter of 12 inches or less will occur at a 1:1 replacement-to-removal ratio with 15-gallon specimens.

As such, a total of 163 trees will need to be planted to mitigate for the removal of 51 native trees (Table 7). The almond is considered an orchard tree and would not require mitigation (City of San Jose 2006). The species of trees to be utilized for the mitigation will be determined based on consultation with the City Arborist and with the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

Table 7. Tree replacement‐to‐removal ratios (City of San Jose 2006). Diameter of Tree Replacement Minimum Size of Native Onsite Trees Required Replacement Trees to be Removed Ratio Replacement Trees (#) ≥ 18” 5:1 24” box 21 105 ≥ 12” but < 18” 3:1 24” box 14 42 < 12” 1:1 15‐gallon container 16 16 Total 51 163 x:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratio

Note: Trees greater than 18” diameter shall not be removed unless a Tree Removal Permit, or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees.

If it is determined that the site lacks sufficient areas to accommodate all of the replacement plantings, one or more of the following measures will be implemented:

 Replacement tree plantings may be accommodated at an alternative site(s). An alternative site may include local parks or schools, or an adjacent property where such plantings may be utilized for screening purposes. However, any alternatively proposed site will be pursuant to agreement with the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

 A donation of $300 per mitigation tree may be made to the San Jose Beautiful or Our City Forest programs. A receipt for any such donation will be provided to the Planning Project Manager prior to the removal of the trees. 66

Should the project plans change such that any trees on the site can be retained, impacts to any retained trees during the construction and operation phases of the project can be reduced to a less-than-significant level by conforming to the following guidelines:

 The project proponent shall retain a consulting arborist prior to any ground disturbance activities. The consulting arborist will develop a tree-protection plan outlining specific procedures to ensure that retained trees are protected during the construction phase.

 Prior to any ground disturbance activities, fencing will be installed around the drip-line of all retained trees occurring within the development envelopes, and the fencing will remain in place throughout the construction phase of the project. The type of fencing to be utilized will be at the direction of the consulting arborist.

 Any limb or root pruning to be conducted on retained trees shall be approved and supervised by the consulting arborist and shall follow best management practices developed by the International Society of Arboriculture.

 Supplemental irrigation to retained trees shall be applied as determined by the consulting arborist.

 If any of the retained trees should be damaged during the construction phase, they will be evaluated at the earliest possible time by the consulting arborist so that appropriate measures can be taken.

LITERATURE CITED

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. California fish and game code. Gould Publications. Binghamton, N.Y.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual report on the status of California state listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 204 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. California natural diversity database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Draft report on Burrowing owl mitigation. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.

City of San Jose. 2006. Guidelines for inventorying, evaluating, and mitigatin impacts to landscaping trees in the City of San Jose. San Jose, CA.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1992. Communications Hill Special-Status Species Surveys.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1994. Communications Hill Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Hom’s Micro-Blind Harvestman Surveys and Habitat Assessment

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1996. Letter Report re: surveys for burrowing owls and California tiger salamander.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Letter Report re: California tiger salamander surveys.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Letter Report re: Response to comments from the Initial Study (PN 617-07).

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2007. Letter Report re: Vegetation Monitoring Azevedo Quarry, Year 12 Santa Clara County Use Permit File No. 4728-43-60-91P-91A (PN 709-17).

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2007. Letter Report re: Revised Final Vegetation Monitoring Azevedo Quarry, Year 12 Santa Clara County Use Permit File No. 4728-43-60-91P-91A (PN 709-17).

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2008. Azevedo Quarry Year-13 Reclamation Monitoring Santa Clara County Use Permit File No. 4728-43-60-91P-91A (PN 709-18).

ICF International. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. California.

Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2002. MTA Property General Plan Amendment. (PN 266-06).

______. 2013. Investigation of potential waters of the United States, Communications Hill, City of San Jose, California. San Jose, California.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Soil survey of Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part. USDA. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

______. 2012. 2012 National wetland plant list. USDA. http://plants.usda.gov/wetland.html.

Remy M.H, Thomas T.A, Moose J.M, Manley W.F. 1996. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA.

Trenham, P. C., and H. B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications, 15(4), 2005, pp. 1158-1168.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Department of the Army.

USACE and EPA. 2007a. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.

______. 2007b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.

Wetland Training Insitute, Inc. 1990. Federal Wetland Regulation Reference Manual. B.N. Goode and R.J. Pierce (eds.) WTI 90-1. 281pp.

Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 272 pp.

Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume II, birds. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 731 pp.

Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume III, mammals. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.

Personal Communications

Horwedel, Joe. June 2012. Planning Director, City of San Jose.

APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN (HMH; MARCH 2, 2013)

DAIRY HILL PARCEL C APN: 455-75- E V E I COMMON AREA V Y R I A D R

D W

LANDS OF CITY OF SAN JOSE N A A N APN:455-28-023 T H A S LANDS OF KKN SJP LANDS OF MTA-RTB LLC A I M F V PROPS LLC LOT P APN:455-28-020 L

S APN: 455-24-003 L TRACT 9515 E M O U O T N APN: 455-28- I R P T M O E COMMON AREA O C R . N D C E I E IN T A EC T R Y P LANDS OF CHATEAU LA SALLE C T F R I R D R R LANDS OF CHATEAU LA SALLE S O T N 2012 LLC E U O O A O O M O O Y A 2012 LLC O 1 C V C H 4 L D P APN:455-08-029 R -0 IS IG NA 84 N T M Y O APN:455-08-037 N 5- A A H E 5 H T L 4 I T S F : A W O PN F L S A A I W E D S Y AN E T A D L LANDS OF LENNAR HOMES OF CA INC. U Y

5 APN: 455-09-060 E 2 LANDS OF RAISCH 8 T LANDS OF KKN SJP 7 S ' I 0 A PE - P NINSUL S P A CORRID INVESTMENT GROUP LTD PROPS LLC 4 9 OR JOIN P 7 U T POWE F 2 RS BOAR - E 0 D F 5 - B APN: 455-36-004 APN: 455-24-069 R 455-28-006 5 4 O 4 2 L F - ' : O 5 I C 0 N 5 P S 4 5 : LANDS OF EBERT A D LANDS OF DF DJ C Y R N N B E D I P 1 A P APN: 455-24-020 S 2 L I L SUGAR BEAR INC F R 7 E G A 0 L 7 I O O - E 0 2 - F 4 7 H C 4 K L 6 APN: 455-24-021 S 2 4 0 - 2 E - 0 T D S F - - FUTUR 5 B 4 4 E PUB N E O 5 2 - LIC 5 2 STRE L 5 F - - O 4 ET CO A S 4 5 NNECT L A : O 5 ION APN: 4 D : 5 5 F 55-0 S N 4 9-051 N S 4 P N : - D : A P N W A N LANDS OF SUBURBAN L A N P S A P OUT A A H ERN PA L A PROPANE Y CIFIC TRANS APN: 455-24-075 . CO. LA AP N N: 4 DS 55-09 E -055 N OF TE K A R IN P PR G N: IS KL 45 ES EA 5- L N 09 LC -0 AP LANDS OF 36 45 N: 5-0 MTA-RTB LLC 9-0 PRO 37 APN: 455-28-014 POSED 52' PUBLIC R/W (TYPICAL) APN : 462- 17-006

LANDS OF WHEETIE ENTERPRISES LLC APN: 455-09-054

P RO PO S ED 6 6' C PU IT B Y L L O A PROPOSED 52' PUBLIC R/W (TYPICAL) IC F ND SA S R N O I A F G PN & JO H : S S T 45 C E -O 5- VT F 19 A -W -1 A 45 Y /W R IC BL U /W P IC R C ' BL S 6 PU A & J 3 2' P SC D D 5 N V E SE : 4 T S OPO 55 A O PR -1 P T 9- O E C 13 L E OMMU 0 AN R NICATIO N C D LA P R NS HILL BLVD. EXTENSIO A A S N T P ST OF LA D N E A B S S : 4 LL P A OF I 55 O N RB -1 : 4 E IC 9- 55 R 05 -1 A N 0 9- 04 N 8 O D C E LA A A ND R N L CA S A T PROPOSED 52' PUBLIC R/W (TYPICAL) AP S O O L IN N TE F L O : 4 L D N 5 L F 5 B 5 O R E -1 O 6 O 9 0 I L U -0 S H - V L 49 E 9 E E E D 1 V N M - H P J 5 A I R A 5 Y R O L N 4 F 3 D R P : O 0 O * Y LANDS OF N 0 A S N - S P 9 E D U 1 M A - COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA T D N O 5 E 8 A L 6 J 5 L 4 APN: 455-10-020 E ' A A P : R U D R N T B F 0 E T A P S L L O 0 S I G A IN C U 1 U S - E R R 9 A S D T / 1 A H W J 2 N - F 2 * V R 5 8 D C 2 A O E N 5 0 I F 0 L E N N - 4 S - D I K A 9 U R 7 : L 1 A D I 1 E F R - N - O T B N V "MAIN STREET" PROPOSED 88' PUBLIC R/W PROPOSED 58' PUBLIC R/W O A 2 P 5 E E 6 A A H A 5 S 4 L 4 E B N D : : R * N E N N S T A P P S L A A F 0 A A O I 4 W

/ L 0 N S - I G 9 B S R

D A 1 A N - T 5 T S A LANDS OF I T C T 5 S A I L A 4 T E A R L B : CITY OF SAN JOSE E N D G R B 2 P R 2 A WATER COMPANY IV T U 0 E S - P 1 0 APN: 455-64-005 ' - O 2 * 0 N 6 L 6 4 A IA : ND LANDS OF PROPOSED 52' PUBLIC R/W (TYPICAL) N S D A I S C NOT A P P M O A N M F CITY OF SAN JOSE R E : O A 4 N PART S 55 S APN: 455-64-004 L -1 O 9-0 LANDS OF 3 P 9 PROPOSED 52' PUBLICR/W (TYPICAL) JOAQUIN BEAR LLC O

PERMITTED USES R R APN: 455-10-052 APN: 455-09-040 E E P G U 1 A 2

0 LANDS OF RUBINO W N -

H 1 E 0 APN: 462-01-018 HATCH C - V S 2

6 F A 4

PATTERN LAND USE AREA PERCENT O :

ST.FLORIAN WAY N S

P ADELINE AVENUE E D A N L RESIDENTIAL A L A (URBAN / MIXED USE ±76.0 AC 25% A D NEIGHBORHOOD) Z APN: 455-61-006 S O TUSCANY HI LLS L R 0 LANDS OF SANTA 2 L

E 0 I S - CLARA COUNTY BOARD 1

H 0

2 OF EDUCATION MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL S 6 LANDS OF CITY OF SAN JOSE 4 T D APN: 462-01-016 LANDS OF : R L

N (RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL / ±3.1 AC 1% LINA STREET E P O CITY OF SAN JOSE EMPOLI STREET OFFICE) E MANUEL STREET A T CASSELINO DRIVE V D. B L APN: 455-10-051 L APN: 455-61-003 H I L APN: 455-62-036 N S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDS OF I O ±43.0 AC 14% T DEDICATION CITY OF SAN JOSE A I C N U M M PUBLIC PARK ±16.0 AC 5% O C APN: 455-60-025

SCHOOL ±4.2 AC 1%

FUTURE INDUSTRIAL (IP) A(HOLDING ZONE UNTIL IP ±55.0 AC 18% IMPLEMENTED - INTERIM VITTORIA PLACE

RECYCLING OPERATION) SANTA CLARA COUNTY D. FAIRGROUNDS V OAK HILL B L CEMETERY E PUBLIC / PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ±111.5 AC 35% A L W/ WATER QUALITY FEATURE D LEGEND L S DAIRY HILL I L PROJECT BOUNDARY H MILL POND MOBILE HOME PARK CHATEAU LA SALLE MOBILE HOME PARK PROPERTY LINE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ±3.3 AC 1% PROPERTY LINE (EXISTING)

RIGHT-OF-WAY HELZER RANCH GROSS SITE AREA: ±312.1 AC 100% TYPE 3 BUILDING SITE PROJECT SITE

TUSCANY HILLS NOTES: RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATION MODIFICATIONS* MAY BE PROJECT DENSITY PERMITTED AT THE PD PERMIT STAGE. UP TO 2,200 DWELLING UNITS = 28.9 DU/AC ±76.0 ACRES

0 100 200 400 VICINITY MAP 1 INCH = 200 FEET NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT NO: 3636.60 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CAD DWG FILE: 363660LU DESIGNED BY: ML HMHca.com 408.487.2200 Land Use Entitlements EXHIBIT C DRAWN BY: ML Land Planning LAND USE PLAN CHECKED BY: TA 2.0 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering PDC__-___ DATE: MARCH 2, 2013 Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance SCALE: 1" = 200' COMMUNICATIONS HILL NO DATE DESCRIPTION

APPENDIX B: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE

APPENDIX B

VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE SITE

The plant species listed below have been observed on the Communications Hill site during surveys conducted by Live Oak Associates, Inc. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland indicator status of each plant has been shown following its common name. An asterisk indicates that the species is introduced or non-native to the vicinity of the site.

OBL - Obligate FACW - Facultative Wetland FAC - Facultative FACU - Facultative Upland UPL - Upland

ADOXACEAE – Muskroot family Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea blue elderberry FAC AGAVACEAE – Century Plant family Chlorogalum pomeridianum var.pomeridianum soap plant, amole UPL ALLIACEAE – Onion or Garlic family Allium serra serrated onion UPL AMARANTHACEAE - Amaranth family Amaranthus albus* Tumbleweed, white amaranth FACU ANACARDIACEAE - Sumac family Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree UPL Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree FAC Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak UPL APIACEAE - Carrot family Anthriscus caucalis* Bur-chervil UPL Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock FACW Foeniculum vulgare* sweet fennel UPL Lomatium utriculatum common lomatium UPL Sanicula bipinnatifida purple sanicula, shoe buttons UPL Torilis arvensis* field hedge parsley UPL APOCYNACEAE - Dogbane family Asclepias fasicularis narrow-leaf milkweed FAC ASTERACEAE - Sunflower family Achillea millefolium yarrow FACU Anthemis cotula* mayweed, dog-fennel, stinkweed FACU Artemisia californica California sagebrush UPL Baccharis pilularis coyote brush UPL Baccharis salicifolia mule fat FAC Calendula arvensis* field marigold UPL Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle UPL Carduus tenuiflorus* slender-flowered thistle UPL 73

Centaurea solstitialis* yellow star thistle UPL Cichorium intybus* chicory UPL Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle FACU Conyza bonariensis* South American horseweed UPL Conyza canadensis horseweed FACU Cynara scolymus* artichoke UPL Dittrichia graveolens* stinkweed UPL Gazania linearis* gazania UPL Gnaphalium canescens ssp. beneolens fragrant everlasting UPL Gnaphalium palustre lowland cudweed FACW Gnaphalium purpureum purple cudweed UPL Grindelia camporum var. camporum great valley gumplant FACU Helminthotheca echioides* bristly ox-tounge FACU Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulafolia hayfield/woodrush tarweed UPL Hemizonia pungens ssp. pungens common spikeweed FAC Hesperevax sparsiflora erect hesperevax UPL Hypochaeris glabra* smooth cat's ear UPL Lactuca biennis* tall blue/biennial lettuce NI* Lactuca saligna* willow lettuce UPL Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce FACU Lasthenia californica coast goldfields FACU Microseris douglasii ssp. douglasii Douglas' microseris FACU

Senecio vulgaris* common groundsel FACU Silybum marianum* milk thistle UPL Sonchus asper ssp. asper* prickly sow thistle FAC Sonchus oleraceus* common sow thistle UPL Tragopogon porrifolius* salsify, oyster plant UPL Uropappus lindleyi silverpuffs UPL Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur FACU Xanthium strumarium cocklebur FAC BORAGINACEAE - Borage family Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia common fiddleneck UPL Cryptantha flaccida flaccid cryptantha UPL Heliotropium curassavicum seaside heliotrope FACU Phacelia distans wild heliotrope, common phacelia OBL BRASSICACEAE - Mustard family Brassica nigra* black mustard UPL Brassica rapa* field mustard FACU Cardamine oligosperma bitter cress FAC Coronopus didymus* lesser wortcress UPL Hirschfeldia incana* summer mustard UPL Lepidium latifolium* perennial pepperweed, tall white top FAC Lepidium nitidum var. nitidum shining peppergrass FAC Raphanus sativus* wild radish UPL Sisymbrium orientale* oriental mustard UPL 74

CARYOPHYLLACEAE - Pink family Spergularia rubra* purple sand spurry FAC Cerastium glomeratum* mouse-eared chickweed UPL Stellaria media* common chickweed FACU CHENOPODIACEAE - Goosefoot family Atriplex semibaccata* Australian saltbush FAC Beta vulgaris* common beet FACU Chenopodium album* lamb's quarter, white goosefoot FACU Chenopodium berlandieri pitseed goosefoot UPL Chenopodium californicum California goosefoot UPL Chenopodium murale* wall goosefoot FACU Salsola tragus* Russian thistle, tumbleweed FACU CONVOLVULACEAE - Morning-glory or bindweed family Calystegia subacaulis stemless/hill morning-glory UPL Convolvulus arvensis* bindweed, orchard morningglory UPL CRASSULACEAE - Stonecrop family Crassula connata sand pygmyweed FAC CUCURBITACEAE - Gourod family Marah fabaceus California man-root UPL CYPERACEAE - Sedge family Cyperus eragrostis tall cyperus FACW Eleocharis sp. Scirpus robustus rubust/prairie/alkali bulrush OBL EUPHORBIACEAE - Spurge family Chamaesyce prostrata* prostrate spurge UPL Eremocarpus setigerus turkey mullein, dove weed UPL Euphorbia spathulata spatulateleaf/reticulate seed spurge UPL FABACEAE - Legume family Acmispon wrangelianus California lotus UPL Astragalus gambelianus Gambell's dwarf locoweed UPL Genista monspessulana* French broom UPL Lotus corniculatus* bird's foot trefoil FAC Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine UPL Medicago polymorpha* burclover UPL Medicago sativa* alfalfa UPL Melilotus alba* white sweetclover FACU+ Melilotus indicus* sour clover, Indian melilot FACU Spartium junceum* Spanish broom UPL Trifolium bifidum var. bifidum notch-leaved clover UPL Trifolium gracilentum var. gracilentum pinpoint clover ~UPL Trifolium hirtum* rose clover UPL Trifolium microdon Valparaiso clover UPL Trifolium willdenovii tomcat clover UPL Vicia benghalensis* purple vetch UPL Vicia sativa ssp. nigra* narrow leaved/common vetch FACU Vicia villosa var. villosa* hairy/winter vetch UPL FAGACEAE - Oak family 75

Quercus agrifolia coast live oak UPL Quercus lobata valley oak FACU GERANIACEAE - Geranium family Erodium cicutarium* red-stemmed filaree UPL Erodium moschatum* white-stemed filaree UPL Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium UPL Geranium dissectum* cut-leaved geranium UPL HIPPOCASTANACEAE - Buckeye family Aesculus californica California buckeye UPL IRIDACEAE - Iris Family Iris pseudacorus* yellow flag/ sword iris OBL JUGLANDACEAE - Walnut family Juglans californica California black walnut FAC JUNCACEAE - Rush family Juncus patens common rush FACW Juncus xiphioides iris-leaved rush OBL LAMIACEAE - Mint family Marrubium vulgare* horehound FACU Stachys ajugoides var. rigida rigid hedge nettle OBL Trichostema lanceolatum vinegar weed UPL LILIACEAE - Lily family Calochortus argillosus clay mariposa lily UPL LYTHRACEAE - Loosestrife Family Lythrum hyssopifolia* hyssop loosestrife FACW MALVACEAE - Mallow family Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush mallow UPL Malva nicaeensis* bull mallow UPL Malva parviflora* cheeseweed UPL Malvella leprosa alkali mallow FACU MONTIACEAE – Miner’s Lettuce family Claytonia parviflora ssp. parviflora small-leaved claytonia ~UPL Claytonia perfoliata spp. perfoliata miner's lettuce FAC MYOPORACEAE - Myoporum Family Myoporum laetum* myoporum UPL MYRSINACEAE - Myrsine Family Anagallis arvensis* scarlet pimpernel UPL ONAGRACEAE - Evening primrose family Clarkia unguiculata elegant fairyfan, woodland clarkia UPL Epilobium brachycarpum panicled willowherb UPL Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum California willowherb FACW OXALIDACEAE - Oxalis family Oxalis pes-caprae* Bermuda buttercup UPL PAPAVERACEAE - Poppy family Eschscholzia californica California poppy UPL Fumaria parviflora* small-flowered fumitory UPL PHRYMACEAE – Lopseed family Mimulus guttatus common monkey flower OBL

PLANTAGINACEAE - Plantain family Kickxia spuria* round-leaved fluellin UPL Plantago coronopus* cut-leaved plantain FACW Plantago erecta California plantain UPL Plantago lanceolata* English plantain FAC Plantago major* common plantain FAC Veronica anagallis-aquatica* water speedwell OBL POACEAE - Grass family Agrostis viridis* water bent grass OBL Avena barbata* slender wild oat UPL Avena fatua* wild oat UPL Bromus diandrus* ripgut brome UPL Bromus hordeaceus* soft chess FACU Bromus madritensis* foxtail chess UPL Cortaderia selloana* pampas grass UPL Crypsis schoenoides* swamp grass OBL Cynodon dactylon* bermuda grass FACU Distichlis spicata saltgrass FAC Elymus glaucus ssp. glaucus blue wildrye FACU Elymus glaucus ssp. virescens Pacific rye grass FACU Elymus multisetus big squirrel tail UPL Hordeum brachyantherum ssp. brachyantherum meadow barley FACW Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley FAC Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* barnyard foxtail, foxtail barley FACU Hordeum vulgare* common barley UPL Leymus triticoides beardless/ alkali ryegrass FAC Lolium multiflorum* Italian ryegrass UPL Melica torreyana Torrey's melica UPL Nassella pulchra purple needlegrass UPL Phalaris minor* Mediterranean canary-grass UPL Phalaris paradoxa* paradox canary grass UPL Piptatherum miliaceum* smilo grass UPL Poa secunda ssp. secunda one-sided/pine bluegrass UPL Polypogon monspeliensis* ann beardgrass, rabbit's foot grass FACW Sorghum halepense* Johnson grass FACU Vulpia bromoides* six-week fescue FAC Vulpia microstachys var. pauciflora Nuttall's/pacific fescue UPL POLEMONIACEAE - Phlox family Gilia achilleifolia ssp. multicaulis small Calif/many-stemmed gilia UPL POLYGONACEAE - Buckwheat family Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat UPL Eriogonum nudum var. nudum naked buckwheat, tibinagua UPL Eriogonum roseum virgate buckwheat UPL Polygonum aviculare ssp. depressum* common knotweed UPL Rumex crispus* curly dock FAC Rumex obtusifolius* bitter dock FAC

Rumex pulcher* fiddle dock FAC Rumex salicifolius willow dock FACW POLYPODIACEAE - Polypody family Polypodium californicum California polypody UPL PORTULACACEAE - Purslane family Portulaca oleracea* common purslane FAC POTAMOGETONACEAE - Pondweed family Potamogeton pectinatus fennel-leaf pondweed OBL PRIMULACEAE - Primrose family Dodecatheon hendersonii mosquito bills, Henderson's shooting star UPL PTERIDIACEAE - Brake family Pellaea andromedifolia coffee fern UPL Pentagramma triangularis ssp. triangularis gold back fern UPL OROBANCHACEAE – Broomrape family Castilleja exserta purple owl's clover UPL RANUNCULACEAE - Buttercup family Delphinium sp. larkspur Ranunculus californicus California buttercup FACU RHAMNACEAE - Buckthorn family Rhamnus californica ssp. californica California coffeeberry UPL ROSACEAE - Rose family Aphanes occidentalis lady's mantle UPL Prunus armeniaca* apricot UPL Prunus dulcis* almomd UPL Prunus laurocerasus* English laurel ~UPL Pyracantha angustifolia* pyracantha, firethorn UPL Rubus armeniacus* Himalayan blackberry FACU RUBIACEAE - Madder family Galium aparine goose grass, bedstraw FACU SALICACEAE - Willow family Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood FACW Populus nigra var. italica* Lombardy poplar UPL Salix laevigata red willow FACW Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow FACW SCROPHULARIACEAE - Figwort family Scrophularia californica California figwort FAC SIMAROUBACEAE - Quassia or simarouba family Ailanthus altissima* tree of heaven FACU SOLANACEAE - Nightshade family Datura wrightii tolguacha UPL Nicotiana acuminata var. multiflora* many-flowered tobacco UPL Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco FAC Solanum americanum small flowered nightshade FAC Solanum douglasii Douglas' nightshade FAC Solanum umbelliferum blue witch UPL THEMIDACEAE – Brodiaea Family Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum blue dicks UPL

Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's spear UPL TYPHACEAE - Cattail family Typha domingensis southern cattail OBL Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail OBL URTICACEAE - Nettle family Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea hoary nettle FAC VERBENACEAE - Vervain family Verbena lasiostachys var. scabrida western verbena FAC ZANNICHELLIACEAE - Horned-pondweed family Zannichellia palustris horned-pondweed OBL ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - Caltrop Family Tribulus terrestris* punture vine UPL

APPENDIX C: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE SITE

APPENDIX C TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON COMMUNICATIONS HILL

The species listed below are those that may reasonably be expected to use the habitats of the Communications Hill site. The list was not intended to include birds that are vagrants or occasional transients. Its purpose was rather to include those species that may be expected to routinely and predictably use the site during some or all of the year.

CLASS: AMPHIBIA ORDER: CAUDATA (Salamanders) FAMILY: SALAMANDRIDAE (Newts) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) California Newt (Taricha torosa) FAMILY: PLETHODONTIDAE (Lungless Salamanders) Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii) Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris) ORDER: SALIENTIA (Frogs and Toads) FAMILY: BUFONIDAE (True Toads) Western Toad (Bufo boreas) FAMILY: HYLIDAE (Treefrogs and Relatives) Pacific Treefrog (Hylla regilla)

CLASS: REPTILIA ORDER: SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes) SUBORDER: SAURIA (Lizards) FAMILY: IGUANIDAE (Iguanids) Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) FAMILY: SCINCIDAE (Skinks) Gilbert’s Skink (Eumeces gilberti) FAMILY: TEIIDAE (Whiptails and relatives) Western Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) SUBORDER: SERPENTES (Snakes) FAMILY: COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids) Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus) Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis) Racer (Coluber constrictor) Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) Gopher Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus) Long-nosed Snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei) Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Night Snake (Hypsiglena torquata) FAMILY: VIPERIDAE

Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)

CLASS: AVES ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises, and relatives) FAMILY: ARDEIDAE (Herons and Bitterns) Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Great Egret (Casmerodias albus) Snowy Egret (Egretta thule) ORDER: FALCONIFORMES (Vultures, Hawks, and Falcons) FAMILY: CATHARTIDAE (American Vultures) Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) FAMILY: ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) White-tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus) Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) FAMILY: FALCONIDAE (Caracaras and Falcons) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) Merlin (Falco columbarius) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) ORDER: CHARADRIIFORMES (Shorebirds, Gulls, and relatives) FAMILY: CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and relatives) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) ORDER: COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves) FAMILY: COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves) Rock Dove (Columba livia) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) ORDER: STRIGIFORMES (Owls) FAMILY: TYTONIDAE (Barn Owls) Common Barn Owl (Tyto alba) FAMILY: STRIGIDAE (Typical Owls) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) ORDER: CAPRIMULGIFORMES (Goatsuckers and Relatives) FAMILY: CAPRIMULGIDAE (Goatsuckers) Common Poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttalli) ORDER: APODIFORMES (Swifts and Hummingbirds) FAMILY: APODIDAE (Swifts) Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) White-throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis) 82

FAMILY: TROCHILIDAE (Hummingbirds) Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) Rufuos Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Allen’s Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds) FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers) Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus borealis) Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus sordidulus) Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis) Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya) Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) FAMILY: LANIIDAE (Shrikes) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) FAMILY: VIREONIIDAE (Typical Vireos) Hutton's Vireo (Vireo huttonii) Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows) Western Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica) American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Common Raven (Corvus corax) FAMILY: MONARCHIIDAE (Monarch Flycatchers) Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) Hermit Thrush (Caltharus guttatus) American Robin (Turdus migratorius) Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius) FAMILY: ALAUDIDAE (Larks) California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) FAMILY: AEGITHALIDAE (Bushtit) Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum) FAMILY: STURNIDAE (Starlings) European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Emberizines) Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis) 83

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Icterines) Red-winged Blackbird, (Agelaius phoeniceus) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Bullock's Oriole (Icterus bullockii) FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches) Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Weaver Finches) House Sparrow, (Passer domesticus)

CLASS: MAMMALIA ORDER: MARSUPIALIA (Opossums, Kangaroos, and Relatives) FAMILY: DIDELPHIDAE (Opossums) Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) ORDER: INSECTIVORA (Shrews and Moles) FAMILY: SORICIDAE (Shrews) Ornate Shrew (Sorex ornatus) FAMILY: TALPIDAE (Moles) Broad-footed Mole (Scapanus latimanus) ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats) FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (Vespertilionid Bats) Little Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) California Myotis (Myotis californicus) Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus) Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bat) Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis) ORDER: LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas) FAMILY: LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares) 84

Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) Black-tailed Hare (Lepus californicus) ORDER: RODENTIA (Squirrels, Rats, Mice, and Relatives) FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots) California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers) Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae) FAMILY: HETEROMYIDAE (Pocket Mice, Kangaroo Rates and their Relatives) California Pocket Mouse (Perognathus californicus) FAMILY: MURIDAE (Old World Rats and Mice) Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) California Mouse (Peromyscus californicus) Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) California Vole (Microtus californicus) Black Rat (Rattus rattus) House Mouse (Mus musculus) ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores) FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) FAMILY: MUSTELIDAE (Weasels, Badgers, and Relatives) Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)