26 Alpine Ave - Desk Item and Exhibits 16-18PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/26/2017
ITEM NO: 4
DESK ITEM
DATE: JULY 26, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-052 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ND-17-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 26 ALPINE AVENUE.
APPLICANT: TOM SLOAN. PROPERTY OWNER: TOBY AND SUSAN COREY.
REQUESTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND REMOVE A LARGE PROTECTED TREE ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED R-
1:20. APN 529-37-042.
DEEMED COMPLETE: JUNE 27, 2017
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: DECEMBER 27, 2017
REMARKS:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project by the
Town’s Environmental Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates (available online at
www.losgatosca.gov/26Alpine). The 30-day public review period began on June 23, 2017 and
ended on July 24, 2017. Exhibit 16 includes a response to comments received on the MND.
Exhibit 17 includes neighborhood letters of support for the project and Exhibit 18 includes public
comments received after distribution of the July 26, 2017 Staff Report.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1.Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previously received with July 26, 2017 Staff Report:
2.Location Map
3.Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
4.Recommended Conditions of Approval (14 pages)
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
JULY 26, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Alpine 26 DESK.docx 7/26/2017 11:23 AM
5. Project Description, received July 20, 2017 (two pages)
6. Letter of Justification, received July 20, 2017 (six pages)
7. Consulting Architect’s Report, received August 29, 2016 (five pages)
8. Applicant’s Arborist Report, dated June 26, 2016 (21 pages)
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report, dated November 8, 2016 (two pages)
10. Applicant’s Addendum to Arborist Report, dated January 17, 2017 (one page)
11. Color and Material Sheet, received August 3, 2016 (one page)
12. Errata Sheet (two pages)
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (seven pages)
14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2017
15. Development Plans, received July 3, 2017 (29 sheets)
Received with this Desk Item:
16. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ten
pages)
17. Neighborhood Letters of Support, received July 25, 2017 (five pages)
18. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, July 20, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAi CHECKLIST
26 A lpine Avenue
Arch itecture and Site Application S-16-052
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Dec laration ND 17-001
July 2017
Prepared for:
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95113
Kimley»> Horn
EXHIBIT 16
Response to Comments -26 Alpi ne Avenue
Errata Sheet
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 Alpine Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-16-052
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-17-001
Changes and clarifications to the Initial Study (IS) text and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), as
outlined below, were initiated by staff subsequent to publication of the IS t o add additional information
received after the release of the IS. None of the text changes result in new significa~t environmental
Impacts not previously disclosed in the IS.
The following changes should be made in the IS and MND dated June 2017 (added text Is underlined and
deleted text is shown as stFikeewt):
CUL-1: Archaeological Resources and Human Remains.
MND, page 6, and IS, pages 43 and 44, Mitigation Measure CUL-1:
Prior to the issuance of any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, evidence that the following measures have been
completed or have been incorporated into the construction documents.
In order to avoid impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources and human remains <luring
project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. With the incorporation of the
following measures, significant impacts on these species would be avoided.
a. In the event that archaeological traces or tribal cultural resources are encountered, all
construction within a SO-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community
Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine
the find and make appropriate recommendations.
b. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notifi ed. The
Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
Americans.
July 2017
Response to Comments -26 Alpine Avenue
c. if the Community Development Director finds that the urchaeolog icu/ fir1d or iribal cultural
resource is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a
preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing
monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native
American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064..5( e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program
will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration
and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2.
A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site,
and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will include
background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the
disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and
conclusions.
Tribal Cultural Resources
IS, page 64, paragraphs 1 and 2:
Tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.l(k) have not been previously
identified within the project site and are considered unlikely to be present given the sloped topography
of the site. The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any existing structures or extant
historical tribal cultural resources with the potential for inclusion on the California Register of Historical
Resources or a local register. Furthermore, the Town has not been contacted by any tribes who are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Town pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21080.3 subd. (b).
M itigatlon Measure CUL-1 has been included with the project to ensure construction activities are halted
if archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains are discovered. As such, potential
impacts on historic tribal cultural resources are considered less than significant.
July 2017 ii
Response to Comments -26 Alpine Avenue
Written Comments and Responses
Index to Response to Comments
All letters received during the public review period for the Notice of Intent to adopt the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are listed in the table, Index of Comments Received,
below. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the issues of concern numbered
in the left margin. Correspondingly numbered responses to the comments follow each letter.
Index of Comments Received
Letter Commenter
A Native American Heritage Commission
July 2017 iii
A-1
A-2
SJAJF OE CALIFORNIA
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Envlronrnen1111 and Cllllunl Depa11mant
Ui60 Harbor Blvd., 8&lltl 100
WNt Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone(918)373-3710
Fax {916) 373-5471
Jocelyn Puga
Town of Los Gatos
11 0 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95113
Sent via e-mail : jpuga@losgatosca.gov
July 11, 2017
Edmundl,l Bmwo Jr. Goyeroor
Re: SCH# 2017062059, Proposed 26 Alpine Avenue; S16-052, ND-17-001 Project, Town of Los Gatos; santa Clara County,
California
Dear Ms. Puga :
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project
referenced above. The review Included the Project DeSCJ1>ti<>n, the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Culti.al Resources
and Tribal Cultural Resources sections. and Mitigation Measures prepared by Klmley-Hom & Associates for the Town of Los
Gatos. We have the following concems:
[
1. There Is no documentation of government~to-govemment con•ultatlon by the lead agency under AB-52 with Native
American trlbes tradltlonally and culturally affiliated to the project area as required by statute, or that mitigation
measures were developed In consultation with the tribes. Discussions under AB-52 may Include the type of document
prepared; avoidance, minimization of damage to resources; and proposed mitigation. Contact by consultants during the
Cultural Resources Assessments is not formal consultation.
2. There are no mitigation measures speclflcally addressing inadvertent finds of Tribal Cultural Resources separately.
Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB-52, with or without
con1ullatlon occurring. Mltlgadon language for archaeologlcal resources is not always approprtate for or similar to
measures speclflcally for handUng Tribal Cultural Resources. Sample mitigation measures can be found In the
California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for trlbal cultural resources update to Appendix G:
Environmental Checklist Form," http:/lresources.caqov/ceqa/docs/ab521Clean-flnal-AB-52-Aoo-G-text-Subm~
3. Tribal CufttM"al Resources assessments are not documented. These shot.*j adequately assess the existence and
significance of tribal cultural resources and plan tor avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mltlgatlon of
project-related Impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tbe lack of documenlltd reaourcea doea not preclude
Inadvertent finds, which should be addressed In the mitigation measures.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1. specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project
that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource Is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment. 2 If there is substantial evidence, In light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR} shall be prepared .3 In order to determine
whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of a hlstorical resource , a lead agency will need to
determine whether there are historical resources with the area ot project effect (APE).
CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly 811152. (AB 52).4 AB 52 appllea to any project for which• notice of preparation
or• notice of negative declaration or mltl!ated negative declaration Is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a
separate category for "tribal culural resources" , that now Includes •a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal culural resource Is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. e Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any trl>al cultural resource .7 Your project may also be subject to
Senate 811118(SB18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352 .3, if it also involves the adoption of or
amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and
AB 52 have trlbllt coneultatlon requirement•. Additionally, If your project Is also subject to the federal National Environmental
' Pub. Resourc11& Code§ 21000 et seq.
1 Pub . Resources Code§ 21084.1 ; Gal. Code Regs .• tit 14, § 15064.5 (b); CEOA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)
•Pub. Resources Code§ 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tiL 14, § 15064 slbl.(a)(t); CECA Guidefines § 15064 (a)(1)
• Government Code 65352.3
•Pub. Resources Code§ 21074
6 Pub. Resources COdll § 21084.2
1 Pub. Rsaources Code I 21084.3 (1)
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 19668 may also apply.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compllance with any other applicable
laws.
Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are
traditionaUy and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you
to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request
forms can be found onllne at: htto://nahc.ca.goy/resoyrcesttorrns/. AdditiOnal information regarding AB 52 can be found onllne
at http:/Jnahc.ca .govlwp-contenttuploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsuttatton CalEPAPPF.pdf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under
AB 52 : Requirements and Best Practices".
The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are tradltlonally and culturally
afflllated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of
Native American human remam and be8t protect tribal cultural resouroes .
A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources
assessments ls also attached.
Please contact me at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-371 o if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
a otton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D
1'ssociate Governmental Project Analyst
Attachment
cc: State Clearinghouse
1 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.A . § 800 et seq.
2
eert:lnent 81111uto[y lnrarmatlon:
UnderAB52:
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements llsted below, along with many other raquirements:
Wlhln foi.teen (14) days of detenninlng ttlat an application tor a project Is coqJle18 or of a decision by a public agency 1Q
undertake a project, ·a lead agency ehaU provide formal noltftc:atlon to a deslgnaled contact of, or trl>al representative Of,
1radltlonally and culturally affiliated Callfomia Native Am8rk:an tribes that have requested notice.
A IHd agency 8hd begin the conaulatlon proc:e6& witt*t 30 days of l'8C8Mng a requell for consuftallon from a Caflfomla
Native American trlJe that la tfadltlonally and culturaily aftlllated with the geograplic area of the proposed project.11 and pJtor to
th• rel .... elf• negative declanlllon, mftlglted negatJYll decllll'Bllon or Mlvlronmenhd Impact report. For purpoaea Of AB
. 52, "oonsultadon shall have the same meaning as provided In Gov. Code § 6.lj."i52.4 (SB 18).10
The followtng '°PIC8 Of consultation, if a tribe requests to dllaJae them, are mandafiDry topics of conmta11on:
a. Allematlves to the project.
b. Recommended ml:lpatlon measures.
c. Slgnticant effects. 1
1. The follow-.g topics are dl8crellonary 1oplcs of conauttaaon :
e. Type of envlromtental l'9View necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural raai>urces.
c. Significance of the project's Impacts on tribal cultural resources.
If necessary, orolect alternatives or appropriate measures tor preservation or"mtlgatlon that the tribe may recommend to the
lead agency. '2
• .
With some exceptions, any lnfonnallon. Including but not limited to, th& locatlon, desc~ion, and use of tribal cultural resources
submitted by a C81ifornia Native American tribe during the environmental review process ah8JJ not bl lnduded In the
enVlronment.i document or othenrlH dlacloeld by the lelld .gency or any other public agency ta the publlc,
con8'atent wllh Government Code aec:tlons 8254 (r) tnd 8214.10. Any lntonnatlon 8Ubmttted by a Calfomla Native
Amerl::an trbe dul1ng the consultation or envtronmental revJew process shall be pt.d>llshed In a contldentlal appendix to the
environmental document unless the trl>e that provided the idonnatlon consents, In writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the
Information to the plf>llC. 18
If a project may haw a significant impact on a tribal cultural t'880urce, the lead agency'• environmental document ahaU
dl1CU88 both of the~: .
a. Whether the proposed project has a algnlflcart Impact on an Identified tribal cultural reiource.
b. Whether feaelble attemdY8s or mitigation ·rneuures, Including those rneaatna that may be agreed to pursuant to
Public Reaoun:es Code action 21082.3, slDfMslon (a), avoid or &Ubelarftlally lesaen the Impact on the ldenUlied
trbll cultural re90la"Ce.14
Consultation with a tribe shan be conafdara<I concluded wh!tn either of the followlng occuJS:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant elfect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal
cultural resource; or
b. A party; acting in good lalh and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual &gf8ef1lent carinot be reached .15
Any mligation measures agreed upon In the eonsultallon conducled pursuant to Publio Reaources·eode section 21080.3.2
ehall be 1'8Commendad lor lnclueton In the envlronmmdll document and In 11'1 adopted mHlgllllon monHorlng and
1"8portlng prognim, r detennlned to avoid or lessen the l~ICt pursuant to Publlc Rnourcea Code 18Cllon 21082.3,
subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. ' ·
If mitigation meB8lA8 reoonvnended by the staff of the lead agency as a resul of Ile oonsulation process are not included In
the environmental document or If there are no agroed upon mitigation m886Ures at the conduslon of consultatlon, or if .
consultatlon does nol occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a proJect will cause a significant effect to a tribal
cultural resource, Ille lud agency shell consider f8881ble mlllgatlon pursuant to Public Resourees Code section 21084.3
(b).17 . .
An environmental Impact report mar not be certlftld, nor l11llY a mllgated negative declaration or a negalve declaration be
adopted unleas one of the following occura:
a. lbe consultation proceas belWeen the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as pro\llded In Public Resources
Code sections 21000.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.
b. The trl>e that requested consulation failed 1o provide comments to the lead agency or otheJWise failed to engage
In the. consultation proc:ess.
'Pam. R4lllOllRlllOodal 21~.1, dxle. Cd) 1111 (a)
• N>. Reacums docle f .21080.S.1 (b)
11 Pim. Raeclul'CB8Codaf21000.S.2(1)
ut Pim. F111&ourcee Coda 121080.3.2 (a)
•• Pub. BS90W"CeCI Code 121082.3 (C)(1)
to Pub. Resourcec Coda I 21082.S (b)
•Pub. Reeouroes Coda f 21080.3.2 (b)
•Pub. R9SOUl'CMCCdef 21082..9 (•)
11 Pub. Ra&OU!Ql6 Code I 21082.3 (e)
3
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Publlc Resources Code section
21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.18
This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental doeument.
Under SB 18:
Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of
"preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097 .9 and § 5091 .993 of the Public Resources
Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. _c;;overnment Code§ 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for
consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of
protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes
prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local ·
governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can
be found online at: hUps:l/w ww.OJ>r.ca .gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf
Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to
designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes Identified by the NAHC by requesting a ''Tribal
Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the
plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter
tlmeframe has been agreed to by the trlbe.19
There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law.
Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research, 20 the city or
county shall protectthe confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of
places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or
county's jurisdiction.21
•· ConclusJon Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation
or mitigation; or
o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual
agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22
NAHC ~.commendations for Cultural Resources Assessments:
Contact the NAHC for:
o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands
File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation wtth tribes that
are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist
in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
• The request form can be found at http :l/nahc.ca .gov/re sou rces/torms/.
Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center
(http ://ohp.parks.ca.govnpage id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE.
o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
o If a survey Is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage Is the preparation of a professional report detalling the
findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be sub!"litted immediately
to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and
associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public
disclosure.
o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate
regional CHRIS center.
11 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d)
11 (Gov. Code§ 86952.3 (a)(2)).
111 pursuant to Gov. Code eeclion 65040.2,
"(Gov. Code § &5352.3 (b)).
iz (Tribal GonsultaUon Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning ancs Research (2005) at p. 18).
4
letter A -Native American Heri tage Commissi on
A-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. The Town was not-contacted by any of the
tribes who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area of the Town pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21080.3 subd. (b). The Town also appreciates the resources
provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to facilitate tribal consultation in
the future. Additionally, the Town has made changes to the document to address the commenters
concerns regarding language pertalnlng to consultatlon with tribes in relation to tribal and cultural
resources. Based on the comment by NAHC, paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 64 of the Initial Study and
have been changed. These changes do not alter the findings or change the signiflcance of an
impact previously disclosed. The changes to the document are reflected below by the underlined
text.
Tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.l(k) have not been
previously identified within the project site and are considered unlikely to be present given the
sloped topography of the site. The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any
existing structures or extant historical tribal cultural resources with the potential for inclusion
on the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register. Furthermore. the Town
has not been contacted bv any tribes who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geograohic area of the Town pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3 subd . (b).
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been included with the project to ensure construction activities
are halted if archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains are
discovered. As such, potential impacts on historic tribal cultural resources are considered less
than significant.
A-2 As discussed in Comment A-1 above, the Town was not contacted by any of the tribes who are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area of the Town pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21080.3 subd. (b). Add itionally, the Town has made changes to the
document to address the commenters concerns regarding mitigation language to ad~ress tribal and
cultural resources. Based on the comment by NAHC, paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 64 of the Initial
Study and have been changed. These changes do not alter the findings or change the significance
of an impact previously disclosed. The changes to Mitigation Measure CUL -1 are reflected below
by the underlined text.
CUL-1: Archaeological Resources and Human R,mains.
MND, page 6, and IS, pages 43 and 44, Mitigation Measure CUL-1:
Prior to the issuance of any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, evidence that the following
measures have been completed or have been incorporated into the construction documents.
In order to avoid impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources and human
remains during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented.
26 Alpine Avenue 1 July 2017
Responses to Public Comments
With the incorporation of the following measures, significant impacts on these species would
be avoided.
a. In the event that archaeological traces or tribal cultural resources are encountered, all
construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community
Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the
find and make appropriate recommendations.
b. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The
Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
Americans.
c. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find or tribal cultural
resource is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a
preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring
are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and
for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the
site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared
and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in
conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological
site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will
include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified
resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered
information, and conclusions.
26 Alpine Avenue 2 July 2017
Responses to Public Comments
Phil & Melanie
Branon 121 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos , CA 95030
408-354-1782
phil.branon@gmail.com
July 19, 2017
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
Melanie and I have seen and reviewed the architectural plans for Susan and Toby
Corey's planned new home at 26 Alpine Ave. We are in complete support of this
project.
As 30-year residents of Alpine Ave, we're excited to see this lot developed !n a manner
that respects and utilizes the slope and shape of this property. The design has an
extremely low profile, is of modest size, and blends very nicely with the foliage on the
property.
We hope you agree and grant the necessary approval/permissions/permits to allow
them to proceed with the construction of what will be a great addition to the
neighborhood and the town.
Be st Regards,
Phil & Melanie Branon
·~
EXHIBIT 17
From: David Zlcovlch davrd •·:·:_i.:;ovich com
Subj">et: Corey Residence
D.'l<~: July 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM
To: David Zicovich ,::, v•d ·zrcovi:::h.c..:;m
To the LG Town Council,
We are owners of 19 Alpine Ave., directly across the street from the Corey's project.
We are happy to support our new neighbors development of their lot.
Amy Mccafferty and Ed Hofer
Amy McCatferty
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
408 387-3227
amccafferty.com
BR E #00967324
David Zicovich
Zicovich Builders, Inc.
(408) 399-0606
(408) 399-9175 fax
•I I
July 21, 2017
To whom it may concern,
We support the project proposed at 26 Alpine Ave. Los Gatos 95030~
The current design fits nested into hillside and would not affect the neighborhood
dte:uacter.
We have used Zicovich Builders with our current project and previous past
projects. Zicovich produces high quality projects while being mindful and
available to address neighbors concerns over the duration of the project including
minimizing street parking.
Best,
Dombrowski's
67 Alpine ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
f'rnm· James Dorrian j11ndorriJ1w mrr:.com
..:.11l>f. ct Corey plans
r .r: July 21 , 2017 at 8:41 AM
fe,,· Dave Zicovich :)c v::l <l"ltcovicl1.cnm
Dave,
The Corey plans look terrific. It looks perfect for the lot.
Best ,
Jim
Sent from my IPad
l:r"''' Jon Perera ir •:r;_,.y(.1adcbf).c;om
,11!:.j·: •,, · New Alpine Ave residence
r.. \•~. July 20, 201'/ at 8 :55 PM
,·n · ·l·";-:.f.. :--1·;v"1~h com
Hi David-
I like on Alpine Ave in Los Gatos . Just had the chance to see the proposed plans for the new
construction. The proposed home looks terrific. Really excited to see a more contemporary, fresh view
on Los Gatos homes. The proposed home looks like it will have a contemporary style while blending in
nicely with the street.
Regards,
Jon Perera
Resident, 66 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos, CA
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
July 24, 2017
Kr ista Gieselma n
38 Al pine 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
Ave n ue, 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 Arborlst. The trunk of thi s 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 residence
after the removal of the Coast Live Oak identified as Tree #12 in the project arborist's report. This tree
must be removed In order to facilitate the construction of the new residence. I downloaded and
reviewed the Clvll and Architectural Plans and also reviewed the Project Arborists Report In preparation
for this letter.
Please be advised that I am concerned about the close proximity of the proposed gradi ng 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 retai ning 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
\ 1 '1 1
I' . ( ) lhn, J 7 -i-1
EXHIBIT 18
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:
I am concerned that the required excavation may actually extend as close as 9-feet or 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 arborlst'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 regarding the preservation and stability of this oak.
Tree #12 is an 18-inch DBH Coast Live Oak. The required rerrioval of this tree will reduce screening
between the Gieselman residence and the new home beiow.
I recommend ttiat 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
Attachments:
-Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
-Photograph of Tree #9
Page 2
The 26-inch DBH Coast Live Oak lo~ted 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
Jocelyn Puga
To: Planning
Subject RE: Application S-1.6-05 2, 26 Alpine Avenue
---Original Message----
From: Steve Rice [mailto:steverice@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 2 :49 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Application S-16-052, 26 Alpine Avenue
Planning Commissioners:
I write to express my concerns about the above-referenced application. My residence is just up the street, on a similar
piece of property, and built next to the same creek. I went through this same process almost 30 years ago, and some of
the issues I worked through are still relevant today.
Before I discuss some of the technical issues, I want to address the ar chitectural style of the proposed residence. Alpine
Avenue is a very old and established street. While most of the homes have been remodeled or updated over the years,
virtually all of the homes have a craftsman or classic style. This would be the first home on the street with such a
modern appearance, and while it might look great In many areas, it really will not fit into the surrounding neighborhood.
I disagree with the Consulting Architect's opinion that the design would be "complementary to the streetscape."
My concerns about the project in general are pretty simple. First, I believe there is far too much "cut" in the project.
Second, while I agree that building within the LRDA might well be Impossible, measures· could be taken to bring the
project closer to the LRDA. Finally, the impact on significant trees, both on the subject property and on the neighbor ing
property are both unnecessary and unacceptable.
\
The proposes over 1,500 cubic yards of excavation and removal. This is a massive amount of earth movement. This is
made necessary by the 1,500 square foot "cellar." Shrinking, or outright removal, of the cellar should be considered.
Removal of this much soil will have a detrimental effect on both the trees on the property, as well as the trees on the
neighboring property.
For many years, the Town has encouraged cellars as an alternative to additional square footage. In this case, I believe
that works against what is intended. The purpose of the policy is to avoid "visible" square footage. I understand and
agree with the intent, and it works well on more level lots. Unfortunately, when you have a steep hillside lot like this
one, that below ground square footage results in an unacceptable amount of earth moving. Removal of the cellar, and
an overall reduction in square footage for the project, would make for a more acceptable project.
Overall, the project could be made smaller, and would fit closer to the LRDA. The size of what would fit on this
particular lot has been the subject of several hearings over the years, and even dates back to the subdivision approval
itself. This proposal is just too large for what was intended when the subdivision was approved.
Finally, as proposed, the project has a significant and detrimental impact on the trees, both on the property, and on the
property next door. With this amount of earth movement, and w1th the proposed "water feature" so close to a Heritage
Oak near the property line with 38 Alpine, that tree would likely suffer irreparable harm.
In summary, I believe this lot can and should support a development project; however, this project has too many
negative impacts. The project should be denied as proposed. It cannot be simply amended or modified, it must be
redesigned from the ground up.
l
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen M. Rice
54 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, CA. 95030
{408) 354-2575 F: (408) 354-2939
Cell: (408) 981-5555
SteveRice@msn.com
2
July 24, 2017
Dear Planning Commission:
We are unable to attend the Planning Commission this week, so thank you for reading
through our written comments on the proposed project at 26 Alpine.
As noted in the staff report, there have been several previous projects submitted for this
property. It is a challenging site, and we appreciate the efforts made by the current
property owner and development team to be sensitive to the potential impacts on our home
and quality oflife.
We are the downhill neighbors to the north of the property. Our house faces Jackson Street
and our back fence is on Alpine, which is level with our second story.
Based on the visuals provided by the story poles, we are concerned about privacy /sight
lines from the proposed house --especially the outdoor terrace on its northeast corner --
into our backyard, dining room, a second floor bedroom and bathroom. It is hard to
determine what screening will be in place once the identified trees are removed. We have
provided the builder with photos from the viewpoint of our house and we are included
them below for your background also.
It is also difficult to estimate the visual impact of the new home. We don't know how much
the modern-style exterior will blend into the hillside trees and vegetation, or if it will feel
imposing looking down on us because of its 2 9-foot height on top of a steep slope.
View from downstairs dining room:
View from backyard:
Should the Planning Commission approve this project as proposed, our request is to have
the Conditions of Approval clearly state the location ofreplacement trees and the
commitment to retain the natural vegetation that exists between the proposed house and
our property. This will be our best assurance that our privacy and quality of life will be
protected in the future when/if the house ownership changes.
Thank you.
Michael Cronk
Diane Cronk
Jillian Cronk
27 Jackson Street, Los Gatos
Daytime phone: 408-354-1242
Mobile: 408-348-0523
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent
To:
Subject
Krista Gieselman <gieselmankrista@me .com>
Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:47 PM
david@zicovich.com; Jocelyn Puga
Re: 26 Alpine Ave Renderings
Please add to 26 Alpine A venue file.
As indicated in earlier email.
J on met with Contractor and Architect on Nov ember 22, 2016 at 8:00pm.
Sincerely,
Krista Gieselman
Krista
908-400-1469
On Jul 23, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Krista Gieselman <gieselmankrista@me.com> wrote:
Good Evening -
My name is Krista Gieselman, 38 Alpine Ave. I was talking to a neighbor, and they told me you could make view renderings from 38
Alpine Avenue (our home) to 26 Alpine Avenue before the meeting on Wednesday. It would be really helpful to see how much of the
home will be visible from our side, plus, the impact of the additional trees to be removed.
Please note, my husband met with you in November requesting similar information on chimney and roof heights. To date, we have
not received any requested information.
The building plans request many additional trees to be removed that will definitely impact our view and privacy from the two
balcony's (both marketed in the glossy sell sheets) and outdoor sitting area. I would also appreciated the drawings reflect the privacy
trees/bushes that will be placed on the fence line.
See marketing photos below.
Sincerely,
Krista Gieselman
1
-=--..
fPad 9
Downtpwn Los
Ga_to.s Estate
Home·
38 Alpine Ave, los Gatos
Description
2:09PM
rours.beyondvt.com
An elegantly designed and appointed home boasting unrivaled curb ap
downtown Los Gatos locations. Located on Alpine Avenue, one ofthe r
immediate access to downtown Los Gatos amenities~ while offering thE
3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank