19 Highland Ave - Desk Item & Exhibits 20-21TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 4
DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 8, 2016
PREPARED BY: Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
MMo seley@ losgatosca.gov
APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-15-077
LOCATION : 19 Highland Avenue (north side of Highland Avenue just east
of 15 Highland Avenue)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Ed Pearson
CONT ACT PERSON: Ed Pearson
APPELLANTS: Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to
construct a new single-family residence and remove large
protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yi. APN 529-37-033
EXHIBITS: Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report:
1. Emails from appellants, received May 11, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Staff Report :
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations
4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages)
5 . Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (3 pages)
6. Town Council Resolution (2001-128)
7. December 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes (15
pages)
8. Consulting Architect's Report, dated February 24 , 2016
9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15, 2010
10. Project Data Sheet
11 . Letter from Anthony Badame, received March 24 , 2016
12. March 29, 2016 Development Review Committee minutes (two
pages)
13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages)
14 . May 11 , 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes
15 . Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May
27,2016
16. Public comment received through 11 :00 a.m., Thursday, June 2,
2016
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
June 8, 2016
REMARKS:
17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016
18. Development plans (16 pages), received March 22, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Addendum Report:
19. Letter from appellant (58 pages), received on June 2, 2016
Received with this Desk Item Report:
20. Revised neighborhood outreach statement (one page), received
June 6, 2016
21. Applicant's response to Appellant's letter (five pages), received
June 8, 2016
The attached Exhibits were received after distribution of the staff report and addendum report.
Exhibit 20 is a revision to Attachment 12 of Exhibit 15 within the staff report. Exhibit 21 is a
response to the appellant's letter (Exhibit 19).
p~CY)~
Marni Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
JP:MFM:cg
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 l 6\Highland-l 9-appeal-6-8-16-DESK.doc
~ .................. ~pproved by:
/Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
RECEIVED
JUN 6 -2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Appellant group contact and meetin gs PLANNING 01v1s10N
19 Highland
Attachment# 12
19 Highland avenue
1. 3/11/2016 Met with Teresa Spalding and presented project to her. We discussed project for
about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if I could screen it with some
tree cover. I agreed and said It would be in my final landscape plan . She then gave me a letter
dated 3/11/2016 stating her approval and support for the project.
2 . 3/12/2016 met with Badame and his wife. Presented project to him, they both looked at It and
had no comments. Said they would get back to me in a couple days . Badame sends 12 page
opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29/2016. He did not contact me with any
discussion or feedback whatsoever.
3. 3/19/2016 Met with Peter Rehon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He
thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home . He mentioned that he fully
supported the past owner Dr. Orphan and his project In 2010. He stated that he fully supports
me being able develop my site and looks forward to having a new ne ighbor.
Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to
meet w ith her. Her main concern was the retention and protection of tree #30. We emailed
several times during the first week of April 2016 that is when she sent me a proposal/contract
for the protection of tree #30 ..
4. Setup meeting with the four appellants on 3/26/2016 at the Smullen's house. Of the four
appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were In attendance . Badame and Spalding did
not attend.
S. Setup meeting with Cede Smullen on 4/6/2016 at her home to discuss issues regarding the
easement that runs through my property. The Smullen's use this easement for ingress/egress to
access their home at 25 Highland. We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all
where easement states It is. I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into It.
To date, she has not contacted me in any way concerning this Issue .
6. Setup meeting with the four appellants for 5/7 /2016 at the Smullen's house. Of the four
appellants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding
were not in attendance . After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot of time
preparing presentation '!nd'rece1ved no response . At 2:45 on the same day, Anthony Badame
sent text saying sorry he missed meeting and would like to meet. I replied at 2:46 sayi ng "I
would be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime. It is now 5/17 /2016 I still have
not received any type of reply whatsoever.
7 .. Smullen set up meeting for Wednesday at 1:00 pm on 5/18/2016. Of the four appellants, OeDe
Smullen and Lisa Roberts were there. Teresa Spalding arrived approximately 5 -10 minutes
before the meeting concluded. Mr. Badame did not attend. Also, Mr. Badame has chosen not to
attend any of the three meetings that the appellant group has organized, which he is a part of.
8. The response or lack of, from the appellant group dearly speaks volumes when It comes to
their genuine Interest in this project. I have made every effort to meet with the appellants and
discuss my project. Considering the additional time and funds I have incurred, at a minimum, I
expect the entire appellant group to attend meetings that they themselves have o rganized
and scheduled. I h ave been constantly frustrated with this and find It to be very disrespectful.
EXHIBIT 2 0
8 June 2016
Mr. Ed P earson
239 Thurston Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
SUBJECT: 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE
Dear Mr. Pearson:
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Ecological Consultants
RECEIVED
JU N 8 -201G
TOWN OF I.OS GATOS
PLAN NIN G DIVISION
We've reviewed the 1 June 2016 correspondence submitted by Grassetti Environmental Consulting, and
wanted to clarify a few points specifi cally regarding drainage flow s and the setback distances.
The reconunended setback distances provided in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
(Guidelines) 2005, 2 006) are entirely based on a consideration of the slope stability conditions on a spec ific
project si t e. While the Guidelines have specific requirements for s ing le family units on streamside
properties (e.g. Stream with Little or No H ardening -25 to 20 feet ; Ephemeral Stream-I 0 to 15 feet), the
Guidelines d o st ate that:
If a structure is proposed to be located closer to the Top of Bank than indicated by the following Slope
S tability Requirements, this may serve as a trigger for lo cal p ermitting agencies (in this instance the Town
of Los Gato s) to requ ire site-specific t echnical information related to precise slope conditions. !fa prooertv
is proposing to place structures closer to a s treams ide slope than allowed by the Slop e Stabilitv
Requirem ents. the permitting agencv should require further study of on-site geotechnical soil and s lope
stability conditions. Th e purpose of the study is to determine:
(I) Wh eth er or not th e location of a proposed stru cture may threaten bank stability, and
(2) Whether or not the bank instability may threaten structures and/or potentially cause a health and
safety hazard (Source: G uid e lines, Appendix C, page C. l ).
Based on a review of the correspondence prepared by UPP Geotechnology (17 February 2016), which was
a r espon se to comments raised by the Town 's geolog ic and geotechnical consultant, the UPP report
specifically s tates "Based on our review, the proposed r es idence is about 15 fee t (measured horizontally
from the bottom of the creek bank at its closest point ..... .In our opinion, an elevation rise of 6 in ches over
a horizontal dis tance of I 5 feet do es not present a slope stability hazard. " This stat ement appears to meet
the intent and guidance provide in the Guidelines reg arding placement of permanent structures c lo ser than
the Slope Protection Requirements.
Regarding the setback distance, based on the propos ed improve ment plans (Peoples A ssociates, November
20 15), that were recently r evised (May 20 16) to r eflect the topographic top-of-bank a s determined by H. T.
Harvey & Associates, the average setback distance between th e top-of-bank and the building e n velope/deck
as shown on the improvement plan s is approximately 27 feet (this value is an average of s even
measurements taken approximately every 20 feet from one end of the propose d building to the other; values
range from 15 to 36 feet). Between the proposed entrance road an d the top-of-bank, the average setback
di stance is 20 feet (thirteen separate measureme nts were taken ; va lues ran ge from 4 to 40 feet).
~XWBIT 21
983 U niv e rs ity Avenue, Building D • Lo s Gato s, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.32 00 • F: 408.458.3 2 10
Our description of the flow characteristics of the creek in our May 20 I 6 report as "best characterized as
ephemeral," was based upon observations made before, during and after rain s tonns in February of this
year. W e s tated that "Flows within this drainage appeared to be flashy and are likely to dis appear into the
re latively penneable Los Gatos and Mayhem soils that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall
event." To a very large degree this is what was observed in the drainage over the last several weeks. The
above average rainfall this year has simply extended the flow duration, but there is no indication that the
primary source of water for th e drainageway that crosses the s ite is groundwater (which is the primary
characteristic used by the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers in
differentiating between intermittent and ephemera l streams for purposes of defining their jurisdiction).
Additionally, the fact that numerous outfalls from the various private residences that abut the creek indicates
that nuisance flows from these homes (e.g. excess irri gation, vehicle washing, etc.) may well be currently
contributing a significant portion of the water that enters the creek during the s ummer months.
l hope you find these clarifications helpful, please don 't hesitate to contact me with any questions you might
have.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D.
Principal
2
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY
Engineering Geology • Geotechnical Engineering
Mr. Ed Pearson
239 Thurston Street
Los Gatos , CA 95030
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
PEARSON PROPERTY
19 HIGHLAND AVENUE
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Pearson:
RECEIVED
.I! IN 8 -2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS adivisionot C2 EARTH,INC.
PLANNING DlVISiON
17 February 2016
Document Id. 15193C-01L2
Serial No. 17503
As you requested, we are responding to comments raised by the Town's geologic and
geotechnical consultant, AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC). We previously conducted a limited
geotechnical study for the development of the site, and presented the results of that study in our
Limited Geotechnical Study report dated 22 November 2013 (Document Id. 13050C-01Rl).
Subsequently, we provided updated seismic design criteria in our Supplemental
Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Jetter dated 22 December 2015 (Document
Id. 15193C-O 1L1 ). The following are our responses to the geotechnical peer rev iew comments.
Liquefaction
AMEC issued a rev iew letter for the project dated 29 January 2016, which contained the
following comment:
Comment: Based on our review, we note that the Upp report does not specifically
com ment on the potential for liquefaction. The data on the boring logs suggest that the
potential for liquefaction is probably low. Upp should review the data and confirm that
the potential for liquefaction is low, or provide appropriate mitigation measures to the
design .
Our subsurface exploration revealed the site is underlain at shallow depths by Franciscan
assemblage basalt and sheared shale bedrock and medium dense to dense Santa Clara
formation silty sand with gravel. Borings drilled within the home site to depths as much
as 21 Yi feet below ground surface did not reveal groundwater.
According to the Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (CGS, 2002),
the site is not mapped within a State of California seismic hazard zone for earthquake-
induced liquefaction . In addition, the site is mapped outside of Santa Clara County
liquefaction hazard zones .
Based upon the depth to groundwater beneath the home site and the recommendations for
supporting the home in the underly ing Santa Clara formation and/or Franciscan
assemblage bedrock, we judge the potential for liquefaction to affect the residence to be
negligible.
Copyright -C2Earlh, Inc.
408 866 5436 (o) I 866 941 6824 (f) I 750 Camden Ave Suit e A Ca1~1poell CA 95008 I C2@C2Earth com I www C2Earth com
Project Name: Pearson
17 February 20 16
Docume nt Id. 15193C -01 L2
Page 2 of 3
Creek Bank Stability
UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY
a div isio n of C2 EA RTH . INC.
Mr. Ryan Do provided additional peer review comments via email dated 12 February 2016
regarding the proximity of the proposed home and driveway to a creek bank and the stability of
the creek bank. The email included the following review comments:
Comment: Regarding th e structure, th e repo rt should provide a stability analysis for
Section C-C' where the structure is within 20 feet of the adjacent creek, or add language
indica ting foundations within this zone must extend to an elevation that is lower than the
bottom elevatio n of the adjacent creek.
Based on our review, the proposed res idence is about 15 feet (measured hori zo ntally)
from the bottom of the creek bank at its closest point. The relative elevation difference
between the ground surface and the bottom of the creek channel at that location is about
5 feet. Based on our subsurface exploration, we anticipate about 3 Yi to 4 feet of non-
supportive soil mantling the supportive Santa Clara formation materials/Franciscan
assemblage bedrock.
We recommended that footings for the re sidence be constructed at least 1 foot into the
Santa Clara formation or Franciscan assemblage. Thus, the bottom of footings will be
within about 6 inches above the bottom of the creek channel. In our opinion, an elevation
rise of 6 inches over a horizontal distance of 15 feet (or an incline of about 2 degrees
from the bottom of the creek channel ) does not present a slope stability h azard.
Comment: Regarding the driveway, th e report should include a stability analysis or
otherwise discuss th e depth and s teepness of th e cree k bank adjacent to th e driveway at
critical locations (w here driveway is closest to the creek and/or wh ere steepest creek
banks are).
We also evaluated the slope stability and proximity of the creek bank at several locations
along the driveway. The downslope side of the driveway is shown to be supported by
block retaining walls up to a maximum retained height of 4 feet. We recommend that the
wall extend below grade, such that the bottom course of block is founded in the
underlying Santa Clara formation or Franciscan assemblage bedrock.
Based on our subsurface study, we anticipate supportive materials to be about 2 to 3 feet
below existing ground surface along the alignment. Taking these depths to support into
account, we anticipate that the retaining wall around the proposed fire-truck turnaround at
the entrance to the site will be founded at or below the elevation of the bottom of the
creek bank.
Near the middle of the driveway where the creek gets closest (bottom of the channel will
be about 10 feet horizontally from the driveway retaining wall), we anticipate that the
bottom course of blocks will be about 1 foot above the bottom of the creek channel. In
our opinion , an elevation rise of 1 foot over a hori zo ntal distance of 10 feet (or an incline
of about 6 degrees from the bottom of the creek channel) does not present a slope
stability hazard.
Copyright -C2Earth, Inc.
408 866 5436 10) I 866 941 6824 1f1 I 750 Camden Ave Su ite A Campbell CA 95008 I C2@C2Ea rth corr I '.'/WW C2!:art h com
Project Name : Pearson
17 February 2016
Document Id. 15193C-01 L2
Page 3 of 3
UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY
a division of C2 EARTH.1Nc.
We trust that the above satisfactorily addresses the concerns rai sed. It is our pleasure to continue
to assist you on your project.
Sincerely yours,
Upp Geotechnology
a division of C2Earth, Inc.
~~m er, Principal
Certified Engineering Geologis t 2314
Craig N. Reid, Principal
Certified Hydroge ologist 882 s~~ ~~~~~L~N:iGH::0
Certified Engineering Geologist 2471
Registered Geotechnical Engineer 3060
Dis tribution: Addressee (3 p icked up and v ia e-mai l to ep ea rsonz@outlook.com)
This doc111nen1 is pro1ec1ed under Federal Copyrigh1 laws. Unauthorized use or copying oflhis documenl by anyone other 1han the client(.f) is
s trictly prohibited. Con/act C2Earlh, Inc. for ''APPl/CATION TO USE."
Copyrig ht -C2Earth, Inc.
408 866 5436 lo) I 866 94168241f) I 750 Camden Ave Suite A Campbell CA 95008 I C2Q.C2Earth com I www C2Eartt1 com