Attachment 11September 12, 2017
TO: Town of Los Gatos, CA
FROM: Krista Gieselman, 38 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos CA
SUBJECT: 26 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos CA
Please add the following LEITER OF REQUESTS to the Desk Item Report for
November 7, 2017 and File for 26 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos Caltfomia 95030.
A. Request for additional Documents (4 items)
B. Tie-Back
C. Existing Structure
D. Pilings
ATIACHMENT I l
A. DOCUMENTS
I request copies or access to the following four (4) documents. I am unable to locate the files
on the Town of Los Gatos Website.
1. Latest Structural Drawings
2 . Grading Plans
3. Civil Plans
4. 2005 Site Plan
The 2005 Site Plan is referenced in The Peer Review Response dated 23 January 2017
from Robert Pollak. Mr. Pollak states that he does not have the report available for
reference, see below. Please make available the report and legend public review before the
November 7 hearing.
,....,..,.,..li'~1"""'-~G."l\tot(,,\vffl( ... 1ltt..1 0 ---~~I'\ "'WWIO~~O)t:l fJ'h(OOCQfNJ'lll~~,.....,...
ooserveo .
3. Site Cross Section: please see Figure 1, attached.
4. It is anticipated that all loose materials in the area of the driveway and driveway retaining
wall will be removed.
S. The tcnm colluvial and alluvial appear on the referenced 2016 Update Report Figure 2,
from the referenced 2005 Update Report by Hallenbaclr/Allweit Asst>Ciate.s. The term
daise native material is \lled based on the soil materials ~tcrcd and the blow-co1mts
taken during 1he field investigation. All grading operations, includil!g excavations will be
conducted undet the obServatlon .of Pollak Engineering, Inc.
6. .Buttress fills are described and defmed on page 7 of the refm:nced 2016 Update Report.
7. It is recomn1Clldcd that if a buttress fill is required bCDChing. be a minimum of l feet m
vertical hoight.
8. Sub-drain dl.Scllarge pipes provide pressure relief and typically are simply day.lighted on
the slope face.
9, ,Proof testing oftie>-baclc anchors may include 2S% of the allcliors.
( l 0. figure 2 was taken from a site plan from the 2005 Update Report by Hallenback/Allwest
. .,, An.ociates. =t\!~~~~~end~tbe-~ oft~~ 1s available ~.
11. Figure 2 was ta1cen~plan ~ 20<rs -ui!(fu1e""iepon 'f>Y'fiQ}f~A.llwesl
Associates and reflects the previously proposed sttucllJre #Dd location. Figure 3 is the
-··· ._currently proposed structure and location.
( 12.J..igure 2 was taken from a site plan from the 2005 Update Rq>ort by Hallenback/Allwest
~=~~~sociates. ·~!.~iUim.~Sh..S:A~..!l!e.Q1fil,~!eJ>ort is •¥-a.i\aJ>~
( 13. Y,igure 2 was taken from a site plan from the 200S Update Report by Hallenback/Allwest
... _.·'Associata. 1!_ this~~ neither the ~~nor ~~!'.!>f ~e ~ii _!Vailabl~_.
14. As indicated in recommendation 6) in the rcfere:r¥:Cd 2016 geotcclmical update, Pollak
Engineering, Inc. must observe and approve -all foundation excavations prior to the
placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Sub-grade soils will be evaluated at that time
to ensure competence, non expansivity, and com>sion potential.
15. Any soil imported for us.e as fill soil musJ be tested and approved by Pollalc Engineering,
Inc. prior to being transported to the project site.
16. The refen:nced 2016 Update Report contains a formatting error indicating that the report
8 . TIE-BACK ANCHORS
1. Per recommendation from our hired Geo-Consultant (GeoForensics, Inc), We DO NOT grant
permission for Tie Backs Anchors to go into/on/under our property Gieselman Family I 38
Alpine Avenue.
2. Per recommendation from our hired Consulting Arborist (Nigel Betton) special care and
consideration needs to be taken around shared Tree #9 (shared historical oak) when
constructing retaining walls/tie backs. Reports have been filed concerning Tree #9 for the July
28, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.
-· ..... M ·-
49. Piping with adequate gradient shall be provided to dilcharge water that collects behind
the walls to an adequately controlled approved location away fi'om the stru~ foundation.
,..-.--:...~ :_-;.: ~!!...:.,:·.:._:·-
~J!~~dt Ancho~. ~ ~. Due to the height of the inboard :;~l~ tie-back anchors may be incorporated 'f J the retaining wall dcaign.
""' %)! Tie-back anchors, if used must be a minimum of 6 mches in diameter and must have a
inimum bonded length of JS feet. Tic-back anchors placed within 5 feet of the ground surfllCe
should be a minimum of 20 feet in length. Conventional tie-backs may be designed based on an
Palla ~--..1-. ~tloU7
ProjKt No. 113' 5AUIUll2016
allowable skin friction value of 650 psf. beyond an extension of 6 feet into dense native material.
Any he-back operations must be observed by the Project Engineer.
~;.: A minimun1of15% of the tieback anchors must be proof tested to a minimum of 130%
of the design load and held for a minimum duration of 15 minutes. It will be the contractor's
responsibility to provide the proof testing. The Project Engineer must observe the proof testing
operations.
Slab-on-Grade Construs:tion
53. Slab on grade construction is anticipated for the mat foundation and for exterior flatworlc.
To reduce the notentiaJ crackin11 of the concrete slabs. the followiJU? recommendations are made:
(--
C. EXISTING STRUCTURE
Please note existing structures (gate and pillars) at 26 Alpine Ave. Los Gatos June 2017 report
states there are no structures.
Please confirm the pillars and gate are not historic, as I am hearing other opin ions from
longtime residents living on Alpine Avenue.
Mr. Toby Corey verbally stated on July 26 2017 the structures are to be removed .
b. __ lmdttf_ ..... ,...,.,., ___ .. ,,,. _,,,,,. __ ,,,.,,...,,,,,,, _
c. Ett/Otllclll/y ____ ,, __ b<p/-... ti.llllsl•obowrn. ,,,..,,.. ... -.
d. AJ/londtc....,g thoUll< dane with pl-tllalanr""' """'"tow..-. •· ,,...,.,,._ ,.,,..,, ro-·-plontJ ---~-00111 ... /Dund .,,,,._Our __
llO-f: --De•h _...._
-.. ,,,.-. • ...,.btMJlfl~ «pgiSaJ ,,.,_ d>t~--.. .,,.
llOlbf«lilJll of Ill< ~-•I Communll)l Dr .. ,._nt • ..;o.nco 1"'11 Ill< folaMtlg m.....,.1 --~_,,,_.,,,,__.___. __ _
Pd.t,.,.,,_.~tlf---Jy .. <ffflrff., amort!M IP<<les.-..it•""
........ lll'•4uollfi<dtubotfst __ .., ·-""Y ............. ,,,.,_. .. ...._of
SOP$. , • ,.,._ ---tJw .,.,.,_ sbolJ JIMo•cfattl)o -wido "" (loll'
-'1 nKt -· ond follttw.,., ..,,,,.._ -1"' /wl!Wt .,... """"""'
~ dspordof--"""'°'-don o/oqUipm<nt.
1_, ... = ~ ,_, ... ... _ --...
l!tiQi!!S~!I .,._... 1'!e!
... _
!!el """'' S.Cllll111'11 .... •..rtt•-""M\lw projttt·
•JC-.•..._. .. ttM:~·--·......_.,. ~ ...... ~ .. ""°"""' 1 .... ,..~ 0 0 0 1'
.Jt'\aH•M~lllM~·dlll'~tela 0 Ill 0 0 wdlMffiP,.l JPMlftC pmhlll IO tSOM.r.
c)m..1'1•~..-,.,~~~
.,., ....• ki-t-P'-''-'lic ... rt'" 0 0 Ill 0
d•Dinwb_,._ ....... ~ .......... -b •• 0 18 0 0 ~~~ .. -So.--TN ~eu site l'VIUM wtth no stNCtUftls on1he ,,.ny. Thlrwfore, "° ln$KU on Nstori<
:, ~~--d-lnntlw pnojlcl ~
_,.u
D.PIUNGS
On July 11, 2017 I requested that the Los Gatos Planning Commission give me information on
how 26 Alpine Ave plans to set the pilings near our property line (Blasting, Pounding, etc). To
date (September 21 on, I have not received any information.
Joce!yn Puga
To: Lynda Seastrom
Subject RE: Cory house construction at 26 Alpi.ne
From: Leonard Viale [maitto:leonardviale(Q)msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 3:21 PM
To: Council
SUbject: Cory house construction at26 Alpine
To all Council Members:
from: Leonard and Patricia Viale
50 Alpine Ave.
Los Gatos Calif. 95030
Phone408-395-5481
We appose the construction of the Cory House at 26 Alpine for the following reasons:
1. excessive excavation of dirt on an unstable hillside.
2. Removal of oaks to make room for a large house on a small building site
3. The design of the house does not fit the neighborhood architecture.
4. Removal of historic gate and rockwork.
5. When the subdivision of the property the lot was approved with a max house size of 2500 sq , ft.
6. The driveway exit onto Alpine is very dangerous.
7. My wife and I plan to attend the council meeting when this is put on the agenda . Please notify us.
1
Jocelyn Puga
From: Planning
Sent
To:
Monday, August 07, 2017 7:03 AM
Jocelyn Puga
Subject: FW: 26 Alpine Ave Corey Residence
-·-Original Message----
From: Dirk Franklin [mailto:dirk.franklln@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 8:08 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Gwen Dawkins <g.dawkins@comcast.net>
Subject: 26 Alpine Ave Corey Residence
As a long time resident of Alpine Ave, I want to ensure that the Historic stone columns and steel gates are not destroyed
and kept as part of the project.
The stone work and steel gates are a key part of the character of Alpine Ave .
We are strongly opposed to their removal from the project.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Dirk Franklin
79 Alpine Ave
4086449312
1
GE0FoRENs1cs INc. Consulting Soil Engineering
561-D Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 Phone: (650) 349-3369 Fax: (650) 571-1878
File:217257
October 17, 2017
Mr. and Mrs. Gieselman
38 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Gieselman Property
38 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, California
GEOTECBNICAL COMMENTARY
Mr. and Mrs. Gieselman:
This letter has been prepared to document the opinions expressed to you during our site visit last month.
Background
We understand that your current concerns relate to the proposed development of the adjacent property
located on the right side (as viewed from the street) of your developed residential lot. That adjacent
property is currently undeveloped, but there is a new single family residence proposed to be constructed
on that property. ·
That adjacent property is a moderately to steeply sloping hillside lot which extends down to an active
creek channel which runs along the base of the slope. A small landslide is present on the slope above
the creek.
The proposed development of the site proposes some relatively deep excavations into the hillside which
will be supported by retaining walls up to 13 feet tall. One of the walls is to be located directly along
the common property line, which will place it very close to the large oak tree on your property. In
addition, the current plans call for that wall to be supported by tie-backs (steel rods which are grouted
into holes) which arc to extend past the property line and under your house. Finally, significant quantities
of fill are proposed along the margins of the creek channel to provide access to the garage.
Soils Reports
The site was originally investigated by the geotechnical firm of Hallenbeck/Allwest Associates, with
their most recent letter dated December 2005. In their report, Hallenbeck identifies the slide on the
subject property along with a much larger area which is potentially subject to sliding and creep. Of
concern to Hallenbeck was the deep cuts required for the proposed construction, which suggested that
temporary shoring may be necessary to protect against cut bank failure.
We understand that the geotechnical engineers as Hallenbeck have now been replaced by a civil engineer
at Pollak Engineering. One update report was prepared by Pollack in 2008, with a more recent report
finally issued on August 5, 2016. Pollack also indicated a concern over cut bank failure, requiring that
vertical cuts be less than 5 feet deep, or if greater, the ground above would need to be shaved back or
shoring would be necessary. Due to the great height of the wall, he indicated that tie-backs may be
File:217257
October 17 , 2017
required. The tie backs were to extend a minimum of 20 feet back beyond the retaining wall. The
boring logs provided with the report indicate that there are layers of very granular soils within the zone
proposed to be excavated.
Geotechnical Opinions
The presence of the granular soils at the site (and likely extending under your property) would suggest
to us that there is a significant threat of slope failure during constructil)Il of any tall retaining wall cuts
which expose these soils. A slope failure would be expected to cause significant harm or even loss of
the oak tree, and could threaten the foundation system. of your residence . Hence it will be crucial for
the excavation and retaining wa ll construction to be perfonned with extreme care. We would strongly
recommend that any cuts deeper than 5 feet proximate to your property be shored so as to prevent caving
during construction. It is anticipated that the shoring will need to consist of pre-drilled pier holes into
which I beams arc. installed so that horizontal lagging boards can be placed between the piers to hold the
soils as the cuts are extended down to the required final depths. However, thel'e is a risk that the vertical
holes for the I-beams may not be able to remain open (due to caving of the granular soils) long enough
for the I-beams to be set. ·
Similarly. the granular nature of the site soils indicates that there is a high ri sk of caving inside the tie-
back excavations during the drilling process. The caving would create a void which would then
preclude tie-back installation and grouting. leaving holes in the ground which would slowly work up to
the ground surface in the future . For these reasons , we do not recomme nd that you pem1it tic-backs to
be extended onto your property.
In summary, the project can likely be constructed without damage to your property, however, it will .
require extreme care and diligence by the designers and contractors to ensure the safety of your property.
Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted;
GeoForensics, Inc.
-==~-=?
Daniel F. Dyckman, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2145
Email cc: 1 to addressee
2
July 24, 2017
Krista Gieselman
38 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Nigel Belton
Consulting Arborist
SUbject -A review of the potential impacts of the proposed residential construction work at 26 Alpine
Avenue, concerning the welfare of the mature Coast Live Oak situated on the shared property
boundary:
Dear Krista,
Thank you for asking me to meet with you last week at your property to discuss the potential impacts of
proposed grading and construction work on the neighbor's property at 26 Alpine Avenue.
The primary Issue of concern Is the welfare of the mature Coast Live Oak Identified as tree #9 In the
preliminary tree preservation report and accompanying Tree Protection Map, prepared for the property
owner by Gareth Jones -Certified Arborist. The trunk of this tree transects the property boundary and
as such It owned by both you and your neighbor.
The other concern we discussed entailed the potential loss of screening and privacy to your res idence
after the removal of the Coast Live Oak Identified as Tree #12 in the project arborlst's report. This tree
must be removed in order to facilitate the construction of the new residence. I downloaded and
reviewed the Civil and Architectural Plans and also reviewed the Project Arborlsts Report In preparation
for this letter.
Please be advised that I am concerned about the close proxim ity of the proposed grading and
excavation work required for this new home. The plans show that the footprint of the residence and
proposed retaining wall will be setback approximately 13-feet downhill from Tree #9 (the 26-inch DBH
Coast Live Oak on the boundary). I anticipate that there will be an over-excavation beyond the
foundation and retaining wall and in my experience, it could extend significantly closer to the trunk of
this tree, contingent on engineering requirements. I did not find any plan details showing the limits of
the required over-excavation but in some cases I have seen such work extend out an additional four or
more feet beyond the edge of foundations and retaining walls .
Page 1
Subject -A review of the potential impacts of the proposed residential construction work at 26 Alpine
Avenue, concerning the welfare of the mature Coast Uve Oak situated on the shared property
boundary:
I am concerned that the required excavation may actually extend as close as 9-feet pr possibly even
closer, to the trunk of this tree. Such an excavation will encroach well within the Critical Root Zone area
as shown on the project arborist's Tree Protection Plan. This work will most likely entail a significant
amount of root loss, which Is a concern regarding future tree health and tree stability in the soil. I noted
that this tree exhibits a trunk lean and canopy weight bias towards the Gieselman's residence which
could contribute towards a tree failure in the event of significant root loss.
I recommend that further investigation is made in order to determine the impacts of such root loss on
Tree #9. I recommend that the amount of over-excavation work required within the critical Root zone
of this tree Is qualified before project approval. This Information is required to guide further
investigation and recommendations regardins the preservation and stability of this oak.
Tree #12 is an 18-lnch DBH Coast live Oak. The required removal of this tree will reduce screening
between the Gieselman residence and the new home below.
I recommend that this concern regarding adequate screening between both residences Is addressed in
a landscape planting plan a requirement of conditions of approval. The planting of appropriate
drought tolerant native trees and shrubs Is recommended for this purpose.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this letter.
Respectfully submitted
/ ~ ,~/f~~-·-
Ni,i Belton
Attachments:
-Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
-Photograph of Tree #9
Page 2
The 26·inch DBH Coast Live Oak located on the boundary of the Gieselman and Corey Properties at 38
and 26 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos.
Prepared by Nigel Belton, Consulting Arborist -July 24, 2017
• July 11 , 2017 Desk Item Notes to Los Gatos
Planning Commission.
• Updated notes to Los Gatos Town Council
December 13, 2017. Not for Public view.
A • From Residents of 38 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos
July 11, 2017
TREE#9
Removal of additional trees
Concern about root system, BOTH of our tree since it is on property line
Need opinion from Consulting Arborist, not Arborist, but a Consulting Arborist
Initial arborist said digging under the tree for pool will kill it (damage to root system)
How will the tree be protected during construction
What is the remedy if the tree dies as a result of construction (old growth Oak Tree)
Why two permits for removal of trees, why the need to remove more?
., ......
I Bmic D. Coate and Coate, Bairlc, Cert. 23535 Summit Road ·-· Associllle& Aiborisl #1897, Los Galos, CA 95033-9307
Coosulting AJborist #237
Cert. in Horticulturc, UC
Saota Cruz, 1991.
i~-~ ~
-------c<...;;;-=-=-,::i..!t=E=l __ ~i:;---f.t-'~~;;:(:;::::lb:;::' II=!;
UPINE AVENUE
December 13, 2017
PROPOSED RESID ENCE
26 ALPINE AVENUE
Please see D•k Item Certified Arborlst Letter
concerning Tree #9 outlining continued concerns
not only for the safety of the tree, but the safety to
our home and family.
The heritage trwe Is owned by both partiea.
How will the wall be constructed?
Will there be a need for a over-excavation behind the
wall (pins) lntolon/under 38 Alpine Ave?
The Corey's Engineer discussed the probable need
for shoring or shaving-back the slope during
excavation work and his concern about the potential
for excessive disturbance and root loss during slope
shaving work. How will this be addressed?
-
llVENUE
I
Office: 408·3S3·10S2
Fax; 408-353-1238
bccoa!H.il""L~!!!!l
PlC)POSED RESII
26 ALPINE AVE
July 11, 2017
B
NOISE AND VIBRATIONS
DRILLING, BLASTING, DIGGING
How are they digging into the hill?
Who is monitoring the noise and vi'bration levels?
If digging impacts our home, what is the remedy?
.....
.,,,
December 13, 2017
FROM LETTER:
Geotechnical Opinions
"The presence of the granular soils at the site
(and likely extending under your property)
would suggest to us that there Is a significant
threat of slope failure during construction of
any tall retaining wall cuts which expose
these soils. A slope failure would be
expected to cause significant harm or even
loss of the oak tree, and could threaten the
foundation system of your residence.
Hence it wlll be crucial for the excavation and
retaining wall construction to be performed
with extrem'e care."
After reviewing the GeoForenslcs Letter, our 11o----------------------lawyer has advised us that we photo documented .. before photos" of outside
·1o•N OJ.' LO I GA.TOI
Jell GllN&aAL PLAN
N'OISi eiuuNT
walls, foundation, footings, Interior walls, etc.
After review, he too Is concerned for the
stability of our home.
Actioo NOl-7.3 Any Environml!ntal Review Jocwnent preporod for the
Town for a project that identifies noise &~"ton shall rolate
thr. noise d•u to the Town's Noise Orditwi.:e to give the
Planning Co.mmhsion and Town Co-.mcil a Slandard for
comparison.
I
July 11, 2017 c
VIEW
The Corey's were the
previous owners of 38
Alpine Ave. --..................... .......-............... r.st...,...1~"""-'--~-.... ,,_ .......... -~laMlll--...-.---..... -................... fllllln ......... -•~Yi'-.................................. ~ .. -.. -_...._~----..................... .,.__,~ ..... ... _______ "........., .... ., ..... .-............. -~ ..... ... ____ .......,_._ ....... _ .... __ ., .. ~.-., ....... .... ............. _ .............. ---. ............................... ...
"'""__..~ ..................... ......._ ................. JllMM~-
-..---~~._ ...... .....,~-.
The house was sold to us with a "view", the Corey's told us repeatedly that we would not see the new home
at all. As you can see from the photos of the story poles, our view is being obstructed and we can see the
home. Once again, we were told by Susan Corey and Micheal Riese that we would NOT see the home once
it was built. They even marketed the view it in brochures, see copies of the marketing material. We asked
to see the drawings of the home and was told by both Mrs. Corey and Mr. Riese that the drawings were
not available, they had not begun the process. Please note, they submitted the drawings for the proposed
home days after closing of 38 Alpine Ave. This is all on record.
Closin& of 38 Alpine Aye July 191 2016. The cirawinp that I see at Los Gatos are from August 29, 2016.
This suaested tbat tbe drawinp were drawn and ammwed within 1 montb according of closin,, clearly
this is not possible. To prove that, my husband was asked to review drawinp at the Architects office in
November 2016, and the drawinp were actually dated Januax:y 2016, seven months before we purclJased
the house! Clearly the Corey's chose to not properly disclose their plans, even when repeate<UY asked.
July 11, 2017
D
ROOF AND CHIMNEY HEIGHT
My husband met with the .Architect in November 2016. He expressed his concern about the roof and
chimney height. Neither the Corey's nor the Architect have contacted my husband since he expressed his
concern. :;:-( We have not received
July 11, 2017
E
WORK SCHEDULE
FW: 28 Alllln• Aw ll9rlllllrlna•
;.~"). .:V.i,. ~"'1:l "1,,: ~ ~ ...... _,
~t.,..ILl la l'A "Wl•M>~'f'Miotil&r-
,.. ... _....,~_.,.,.....r • ..,.• ................ )Oll.,.,.,. • .,. ................................ ,,,._Mit.,. .. llliQ' ...... ,__,.,.. • .._.
1J:.W_.. .... ......_.,._ •• ._,.,. .... t.J,. ....... .._.rw11m.._. .. .......... Jt,..._. .. ,.. ......... ,.... ..... )'R .... ...
,_.._AlA
any additional vlawa
since Mr. Sloan wrote
on July 24, 2017.
Dropping off of equipment and materials. My husband was already blocked in the street by work trucks,
returning home from work, and this was only for the poles were being installed. This is just the
beginning. How is the work schedule being regulated and controlled? Please note all the justifiable
concerns that the neighborhood expressed during the parking discussions with the town. If trucks are
parked on both sides of the street. how are emergency vehicles going to pass. Please refer to notes at the
recent town hall meeting approving the .Alpine Ave. 90 Minute Parking Restrictions. Construction trucks
should abide by all the rules approved and upheld in recent sessions.
July 11, 2017
F
90 MINUTE PARKING
Who is enforcing this? Who do we call?
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank