Attachment 6-7TOWN 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
ATTACHMENT 6
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
June 8, 2016
Mary Badame, Chair
Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Kendra Burch, Commissioner
Charles Erekson, Commissioner
Melanie Hansssen, Commissioner
Matthew Hudes, Commissioner
Tom O'Donnell, Commissioner
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Lisa C. Roberts
78 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
~"'-o.\-
J\ft.V\-t 'B° I 'l.O\ (c
l>c, M~~
Re: 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077
Dear Commissioners:
I am one of the Appellants who appealed the decision of the Development Review Committee
("DRC") approving Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 (the "Application'') regarding 19
Highland Avenue (the "Property"). I live at 78 Alpine Avenue ("78 Alpine"). I am submitting
this letter to provide further support for the Appeal.
Among other things, this letter addresses arguments made by the applicant Ed Pearson (the
"Applicant'') and the Planning Department Staff (the "Staff') opposing the Appeal. As you
know, the papers submitted in opposition to the Appeal have been voluminous. They include not
only discussions and analyses of reports on which the DRC relied in approving this project but
additional newly prepared reports. Including the Applicant's architect's new reports, the
Applicant bas submitted five new reports in opposition to this Appeal.
These reports were not made available to Appellants until posted by the Town no earlier than
Friday afternoon, June 3, 2016. Thus, this letter does not, and could not, address all the
statements and arguments asserted in those reports or otherwise in the materials submitted by the
Applicant and the Staff in opposition to the Appeal. It attempts to address some of the major
issues which alone, I submit, mandate granting of the Appeal. I appreciate your consideration of
this letter as well as all other materials and statements submitted in support of the Appeal . 1
1 It is my firm belief that there is more than ample evidence on the record to grant the Appeal.
However, given the plethora of new reports presented by the Applicant and the abbreviated time
for review or rebuttal of th~se reports, should this Commission have any concerns about granting
this Appeal outright, I request that Appellants be given further opportwrity to provide a thorough
response to the Applicant's new materials. EXHIBIT-2 2
ATTACHMENT 7
1. The Violations of State and Other Mandatory Laws Out lined in the Grassetti
Environmental Consulting and Pacific Biology Reports Require Grant ing of the
Appeal.
Appellants have submitted reports prepared for this Appeal after DRC approval of the
Application, including reports by Grassetti Environmental Consulting (''GECO") and Pacific
Biology ("Pacific") Reports. These reports ("Appellants' Reports") were prepared by highly
reputable and experienced professionals; they are well-reasoned and amply supported by the law
and the facts; and they reveal basic and profound deficiencies in the environmental and
biological review process employed by the Staff in connection with the Application and the
resulting illegality of the project as designed and approved. Among other things, they establish
that (i) the creek on the Property is not ephemeral as assumed by the Town in allowing only a
15-foot creek setback rather than the applicable 25-foot setback; (ii) in concluding that the creek
was ephemeral, Staff completely ignored another professional report already in its file advising
that the creek was not ephemeral; (iii) the Initial CEQA Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
was deficient in its discussion of the setback issue; and (iv) the Town's impermissible CEQA
process resulted in denial of resource agency and public review of the project (including the
Town's failure to appropriately consult with, or even make contact with, the regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction and public trust responsibilities for wildlife habitat and water quality). (See
GECO Report pp. 1, 3-5; Pacific Report pp. 1-2; see also Report by Wood Biological Consulting
dated January 2008 in the Town's file [the "Wood Report"].)
Even to the extent that the Applicant's new reports attempt to dispute Appellants' Reports, the
Appeal must be granted. This Commission has not been provided with any basis on which to
reject Appellants' Reports in favor of the Applicant's new reports. To the contrary, as discussed
above, Appellants' Reports are not only highly reputable and well-supported, they are supported
by an equally professional report in the Town's file on this project that Staff admittedly ignored
as discussed below. In any event, the very existence of a dispute mandates, at minimum,
granting of the appeal for further consideration of the Application by Staff.
2. Staff's Admitted Failure to Consider the Wood Report Further Mandates Granting
of the Appeal.
As noted above, Staff failed to consider the Wood Report requiring a 25-foot setback based on a
non-ephemeral creek. Staff has given no justification for having ignored the Wood Report. As
indicated in the attached May 27, 2016 email from Ms. Marni Moseley, Staff reviewing the most
recent Application on the Property was unaware that the Report was even in the file. (See
Attachment A .) Staff was required to consider all pertinent matters submitted to it. It failed to
do so. The Appeal must be granted for this additional, independent reason.
2
3. The Applicant's Post-Approval Arborist Report Further Supports Granting of the
Appeal.
a. The Design Should Have Allowed Preservation and Protection of Healthy,
MatureTrees, Including Tree 30.
Tree 30 is discussed here both as a special concern and as an example of the DRC's failure to
follow the Town's rules and guidelines for the protection of mature trees.
Tree 30 is located at an interior comer of the north side of the Property, only inches from the
property line between the Property and 78 Alpine. It is a large, healthy, double-oaked oak
soaring several stories and providing an important, probably the most important, single item of
screening between 78 Alpine and the Applicant's planned construction.2
In connection with the public hearing, the Applicant placed red ties around the trees slated for
removal, or allegedly did so. Tree 30 was not red-tied. The message was that the tree would
remain. Only by happenstance did I determine otherwise. Recognizing the danger to the tree
from construction regardless of its l~k of designation for upfront removal, I reviewed the plans
and determined that, in fact, the Applicant's plans called for removal of the tree. The Applicant
is not a lay person. He has repeatedly told me that he is a contractor, and not just a "paper
contractor" but one who does the actual work. I am sure that he has a firm and deep
understanding of the Property and the plans. As noted above, the tree is obvious, imposing, and
important. The fact that Applicant did not red-tie this tree, and thereby nearly misled me
regarding the impact of his project on this tree, was and continues to be of great concern to me.
While Town rules do not require red-tying, the Applicant took it upon himself to red-tie; he did it
in purported notice to the public; he had a duty which he did not perform of red-tying accurately.
After this issue was brought to the Applicant's attention, he instantly agreed to not to remove the
tree and to take measures to protect it, even as he admitted that the construction would not allow
the measures that normally would be taken, himselfvolwiteering that he could not stay away
from the area within tree's drip line. 1be Town's arborist report on which the Applicant relied
for approval of his Application, the Arbor Resources Report dated February 15, 2010 (the "At:bor
Report'') as well as the arborist report he has commissioned for this appeal, the Monarch
Consulting Arborists LLC's Report dated May 10, 2016 (the "Monarch Report") demonstrate
that the Applicant's agreement not to remove the tree is simply delaying the demise of the tree.3
2 The Applicant's architect Bess Wiersema of Studio Three Design claims that 78 Alpine will
retain "a filtered view through very dense tree cover." (Studio Three Design Report p. 2.) This
is utterly untrue.
3 With respect to the Applicant's agreement not to remove the tree, it is unclear what tree plan the
DRC approved. When the notice of the DRC public hearing was given, the tree plan included,
among other things, removal of Tree 30. One to two days before the public hearing, the
Applicant purported to change the plan to retain Tree 30 and remove other, different trees,
including Tree 8. The DRC approved the "Application" without any clarification whether it was
approving the plan as publicly noticed or thereafter revised . It is also not clear whether, if the
latter plan was approved, how the revisions including at least one new tree for removal did not
require public notice.
3
Specifically, the Arbor Report-on which the Application was approved~oncluded that the
tree would not survive construction, and the Monarch Report does not contradict this conclusion
but further supports it.
The Arbor Report expressly concluded that Tree 30 would be "adversely impacted by installing
the proposed dissipater." It described it as among four trees that would be "subjected to such
severe impacts that their premature decline and instability would result." (See Arbor Report pp.
3 and 4, bold in original.) It included it as among the 29 trees that '"would either be removed or
considered a loss (regardless if retained or removed)." (Id. p. 4, bold in original.) The tree was
ultimately slated for removal . (See Applicant's tree plan at time of notice of public hearing.)
Similarly, the Monarch Report effectively admits that the tree cannot be protected under the
current design. It contains a clear explanation of the need for protective fencing precluding
construction work or activity for an area extending from a bare minimum of a distance equaling
three times the tree's diameter at breast height ("DBH") to a recommended distance equaling
five times the DBG. It concludes that placing fencing around the tree (which, as it notes, is
located only 15 feet from the proposed house) is "not practical." (Id. p 9.) It the only possible
"protective" measure is a wrap around the tree (which, of course, merely protects to trunk and
provides no protection at all from the trunk) and a platform of plywood and mulch beside the tree
on which the soil compaction from construction activities can be dispersed. (Id) The Report
does not say that this will protect the tree. To the contrary, as expressly stated in the Report
under "Limits of the assignment," "[n]o tree risk assessments were performed." (Id. p . 1.)
Nothing in the Monarch Report indicates that Tree 30 is not worthy of protection. To the
contrary, while it denotes its condition as "fair," that description expressly denotes only "[m]inor
problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems that can be mitigated through
cultural practices such as pnming or a plant health care program." (Id. p. 4.) Indeed, the Report
remarks that a fair condition designation is "typical of an unmaintained woodland." (Id.) The
Report does not elucidate what alleged problem has been detected in the tree. The appearance of
the tree, including the trunk and canopy, is strong and healthy with no noticeable disruption of
the roots . The Arbor Report expressly concluded that, but for the construction, the tree was
'"worthy of protection.,,
It is worthy of protection, as are numerous other trees slated for destruction solely to
accommodate a project that, here and otherwise, unnecessarily harms the natural resources of the
site in violation of the intent and purposes of the Town's policies including tree removal policies.
The Applicant has not presented a plan to save the tree, and his design should be altered.
b. The Monarch Report Reveals That the Plan Approved by the DRC is Far
More Destructive Than Previously Disclosed.
Nowhere in the Application, including the Arbor Report, was it revealed that trees other than
those placed on the tree removal list would also be endangered by the project. Now, post-
approval, the Monarch Report has identified 14 retained trees that, by this report, the Applicant
now admits are endangered by this project and must be protected. As noted further below, the
Monarch Report is so out of whack with other rei)orts that there has not been ample time to
perform a detailed analysis, but, for example, the Monarch Report now admits that trees that the
4
Arbor Report listed assigned a suitability level of "high" and designated for retention without
more are endangered and in need of protection, including Trees 8 and 11.
Perhaps, as with other design approaches taken by the Applicant and his architect and accepted
by the DRC, the Applicant was able to skirt the clear intent of rules and guidelines with respect
to trees, identifying for review-and public notice----only trees that would be removed upfront
while not mentioning the ones that would be rendered susceptible to a slower death. This does
not, however, appear to be in keeping with the Town's professed mission to protect the Town's
trees and other natural resources.
c. The Striking Discrepancies Between the Monarch Report and the Arbor
Report (and Staff's June 8, 2016 Report) Justify the Commission's Disregard
of the Report as Well as Granting of This Appeal.
The Monarch Report attempts to establish that only a relatively small percentage of trees are
being removed. The math is misleading and the facts are otherwise, but the main point to be
made here is that there are so many discrepancies between the Monarch Report and other sources
of information that it should be disregarded in its entirety, and, for this additional reason, the
Appeal should be granted. There is not even clarity as to how many trees exist (or did exist) on
the Property, much less clarity as to, as now envisioned by the Applicant, what trees will or will
not be removed .
The Arbor Report counts 68 existing trees. -The Staff Report counts 87 existing trees. The
Monarch Report counts 91 existing trees. Only the first was of record at the time of approval. If
the Monarch Report is correct, the Arbor Report on which approval was given was wrong. If the
Monarch Report is not correct, inaccurate information has been presented to this Commission.
The discrepancies regarding tree disposition are equally serious. Again, for lack of time, only
examples can be given that surely reflect the pattern. Tree 8 is, as noted above, designated as
high in suitability in the Arbor Report and was to be retained. In an inexplicable manner just
before the public hearing before the DRC, the Applicant advised me that, after my expressed
concerns about Tree 30 (and thus after public notice of the Application was given), he "changed"
the tree plan to retain rather than remove Tree 30. As set forth in his March 27, 2016 email to
me (two days before the public hearing), he detailed other alleged changes including the removal
of Tree 8. (See Attachment B.) Now, the Monarch Report states that Tree 30 will be retained
and protected. (Monarch Report p. 19.) One might guess that this reflects that the Applicant's
post-notice attempt to change his tree plan did not go through, but that is not the explanation.
His post-notice changes also included the removal of Tree 27, which, since it was purportedly a
change, altered the disposition of the tree under the Arbor Report, and that change, unlike the
Tree 8 change, is reflected in the Monarch Report.
These are serious discrepancies. They do disservice to the integrity of the Town planning
process . They also warrant granting of this .appeal.
5
4. The Applicant's FAR and Other Data is Inapt and Misleading.
The Applicant's architect Ms. Wiersema has devoted considerable time and energy in preparing
a FAR analysis that is successful only in emphasizing how large the Applicant's proposed house
is compared to most neighboring properties, many if not all of which have much more spacious
flat building areas and few if any of the other limitations of the Applicant's Property. Otherwise,
the analysis is completely inapt.
Ms. Wiersema's submission is designed to establish that the proposed house is appropriately
sized for the site. Her analysis is fundamentally flawed. The issue before this Commission--
like the issue before the DRC-is whether the project complies with today's rules. Were Ms.
Wiersema to have presented data regarding the FAR of houses constructed on similar properties
under the rules, laws, guidelines, and plans that exist today, or March 29, 2016 when the
Application was approved, her data would perhaps have some relevant precedential value. She
did not submit any such data, at least not in any recognizable form . Rather, as she admits, she
relies on FAR data on houses that were constructed as far back as 1900, as well as under more
recent but equally outdated rules (such as those effective in 1935, 1942, 1986, 1987, 1989).
Effectively, Ms. Wiersema argues that a neighbor should not be entitled to object to construction
of a new house, even if it violates every currently existing town rule, unless the neighbor is
willing to chop off his or her long-existing house to meet today's standards. The Applicant, an
experienced and knowledgeable contractor, purchased the Property without an existing permit,
without entitlements, and without any pre-existing construction rights. His Application is
independent of prior applications. It is governed by current rules. As will be explained at the
hearing by Appellant-Dr. Anthony Badame, because of the nwnerous existing vagaries of the
Property, he is not entitled even to the current FAR maximum, and nothing about Ms.
Wiersema's analysis alters that.
S. Granting of the Appeal is Also Warranted Based on an Apparent and Possible
Violation of the Brown Act.
As attendee at the DRC public hearing on this Application, it is my clear understanding based on
statements by DRC members, including Ms. Moseley, that the DRC has already privately
discussed and reached agreement to approve the Application before the public hearing. It
therefore appears that the DRC may have violated the Brown Act by their private
communications, notwithstanding any argument that they acted as "staff' rather than committee
members during those discussions.
6. The Applicant and His Architect Have Misstated the Communications Between the
Applicant and Appellants.
It is not the province of this Commission to decide the personality or other differences between
the proponents before it, and it is unfortunate that the Applicant'~ Architect has resorted to
assertions that the Applicant is "honest and neighborly" and Appellants are "relentless and un-
neighborly." Were I not before this distinguished body, I would much enjoy addressing the
Applicant's honesty and neighborliness. In the interest of the integrity of this process, I will
6
forego that pleasure and state simply that the Architect's statements are not only outside of her
personal knowledge, they are false.
7. Conclusion.
As made clear at the DRC hearing and as will likely become further apparent at the hearing on
this Appeal, in approving this Application S-15-077, the DRC relied heavily on the then existing
Planning Commission's soft and now-expired approval of a different application (Application S-
03-049) by the prior owner of the Property. This reliance was and is an inappropriate and ill-
advised shortcut to a full and fair determination of this project under today's standards.
It is appropriate to close with a comment made by Commissioner O'Donnell at the hearing on
the prior application. As set forth in the minutes of that meeting, Commissioner O'Donnell
"[ c ]larified that the owner has a legal right to build a house on the lot and the Commission does
not have the right to determine whether or not a house is built on the lot." While the
Commission may not have the right to decide whether a house is built, it bas full authority to
decide what house is built, and, specifically, has full authority to ensure that the house that is
built conforms to law and the Town plan, rules, and, absent good reason for exception,
guidelines. I do not oppose construction of a house on the Property .. What I oppose is the
construction of a house that breaks the law and flaunts the rules . It was the Applicant's job to
design the house within the laws , plans, rules, and guidelines applicable to this Property, and it
was the DRC's job to ensure that this was done. For the reasons set forth above and in the
remaining materials submitted by Appellants, neither the Applicant nor the DRC performed their
respective jobs, and I request that this appeal be granted to right the errors that have been made.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal and this letter.
~~rJwiB __ ~Roberts
Attac~ents
7
Lisa Roberts
From:
Sent
To:
Dorothea Smullen <dorothea.smullen@gmail.com>
Monday, June 06, 2016 12:16 PM
Lisa Roberts
Subject: Fwd: 2008 Wood biological report survey 19 Highland Ave.
----------Forwarded message----------
,, From : Dorothea Smullen <dorothea.smullen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Re : 2008 Wood biological report survey 19 Highland Ave.
To: Marni Moseley <MMoseley@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: gecons <gecons@aol.com>
Did you get any more information about this report? We did get this report from your files so it obviously was
submitted to the City. We were able to get an additional copy of the map directly from Woods. We will be
submitting a letter with some attachments to be included in the PC packet.
Yours, Dede
408-679-0254 (Mobile)
On May 27, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Marni Moseley <MMoseley@losgatosca.gov> wrote :
None of the Mike Wood reports were ever submitted to the Town so I'm still researching this with our
old consultant.
From: Dorothea Smullen [mailto:dorothea.smullen@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Marni Moseley
Subject: 2008 Wood biologic.al report survey 19 Highland Ave.
Can we get a copy of the wood biological report survey that shows the top of bank and the
riparian setback. I cam pay for a copy if it cant be emailed. This is the report that is calling for
a bigger setback. Is there a reason the recommendations of this report were not considered?
Yours, Dede
408-679-0254 (Mobile)
1
yours,
Dede
408-679~0254
2
Lisa Roberts
"-i:rom:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
ed pearson <epearsonz@out look.com>
Sunday, Ma rch 27, 2016 3:24 PM
Lisa Roberts
19 Highland items 2
Changes to Tree Plan.txt; 19 Highland Arborist Report.pdf
Hi Again Lisa, here is the arbor ist report. Also please see changes letter attach~d . I would prefer to send you
the corrected Landscape and Tree plan in the morning. I have to w ait until my civil engineer gets to work in
the morning to make the changes. He couldn 't make it in today to do the changes .. hope that is ok.
Happy Easter ..
ed.
1
Changes to Tree Plan.txt
1. Tree 28 was removed by previous owner
2. Tree 8 and 27 is to be removed
3. Trees 29 and 30 will remain
Page 1
i ~~ ~ ~ d -~ :---~ ---; j -~
"' ';) §; c;... r-:-19 Highland Ave
Appeal Justification
Overview
I. Constraints Analysis
II. Grading and Retaining Walls
Ill. Setbacks
IV. CECA
V. Driveways
VI. Architecture
VII. Co ncl usion
I. Constraints Analysis
<n
"I
t=
ft
LRDA
"Ensutfl that proJea$ atll designed
to fit with and avoid the site conslTllints. • HOS«G..,,
CT18&plamed lor removal •TfM l> fW1>0..,
LRDA
,~Viablt1. options exist for placing development within LRDA.
• Turnaround
• House
• • Garage, Detached
---.. -.. ,,
LRDA
-50% of houso and manufactured yard
reside outside of LRDA.
PIH• explain. __J
LRDA ,,_ ""'""'"' of~··"''\
~
LRDA
~"' ~•path to Ito ,,;g;,,.., state eohaooes ""'""'"
11. Grading and Retaining Walls
-
Retaining Walls
• .•• elimination of retaining WIJ/111 /11 a prlorlty. •
HDS&G p.19
Grading
•Grading shall be kept to a minimum•
HDS&Gp.158
Over 700 feet of retain ing walls necessary to build house
~-, .... ~--. I ;_,....... ,, . . I /~~ '"'\.~· • ..:~ .. ':7" •• • _:..-_..--.
"The intl!lt .,,.. of mla/nlng W8/ls may"" -,.,..,, ,. "' . .
1· _____ ·:.· ·::·~· '•
SI "th' "d · 40°'-15"' f . r. .f: l f · opes w1 in res1 enco. ,. -10 <•-27%) 17"o;::;;..·"·cc')•~-~
'Gladlng lhoufd,,. a-In areas wl><1'1 the llopo i• Ql'Nlerth•n 25 ~ • _ •• ,.,. ~.JJ.l_,_'.7.:
"Bui/ding In""''' wi"fl ma19 lfJ8/l 3IJ p~nt ~----be all0id9d"_.,.,." 40%'-~
Rear yard flat pad artificially created ---·----·---.. --
"Tho ctHflon of p.,,..,,_,t flat pods ..• •llould be avoltled. • ..,...,,.,,
"Ret.lnlng wa/18 •h•ff not bo u••d to cre<1tfl large, flat yerd .,.,. .. • ,.,. .. ..,.
•Gr.ding lsru-. lhtt ,.mare•• ~hou/d be avoldfld. • "'*tCO.tU. ,, co.1i •
on:hllocl: ')>11...nonl ... ml'llrnltlng '}1-ading anc! ox/sling slopN. • -A1.1
Denuding the Hillside?
Excessjye Tree RrIBKMll.
-Compromise Sylvan Environment
-Compromise Privacy
-*Destabilize Creek Bed
-*Compromise Wildlife Habitat Through Lack of Tree Canopy Cover
-*Impact Wildlifo and Sonsitive Creek Habitat Through Increased Light & Glare
-*Impact Roosting Animals
*Above Not Addressed Wrtn Project's CEQA Documentation
Denuding The Hillside?
" •.• pfBSf1111111jon offr&es .•. is a priority." HDSU>p. II
• Red : Tree Already Removed
Yellow: Tree Planned For Removal
111. Setbacks
37 Mature Trees
Destroyed
Neighboring
Setbacks Conlllct
Slnlel Facade
Street Proxlmlly
Privacy
Future
Development
Setbacks?
Setbacks Conflict
Front I Rear
Setbacks Conflict
Creek
Wood Biological Consulting 2008: Intermittent Stream
•H.T. Harvey Ecological Consultants 2016: Ephemeral Drainage
Live Oak Ecological Consulting 2016: Intermittent Stream Descrlptlon
Pacific Biology 2016: lntermitte1t Stream
Intermittent Stream SB: 25' Pearson Project SB: 2'·12'
0 l'Mnon'• ConsUtanl
Creek Setback ...... ' ........ ' .... ,
I '
I ' I ',
I -'
I '
I
I
I
~""' -__,,. ~
Creek Setback
CEQA Breach
Grasntli Emlironmentlll ConlJU/ling 2016
Standard CEQA Process of Involvement Not Followed
Dept. of Fis h and Wildiife, and SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board:
-lmpropar Contact
-No Input
IV. CEQA
CEQA Breach
Glaa8elli EnWonn!wlla/ Conwlling 20111
CEQA Incorrectly Implemented
2010 IS/MND outdated and does not fully apply (setbacks)
Agencies have not commented on revised setbacks via the CEQA process
Streambed Alteration Agreement for which was never applied
New IS/Notice of Intent to Adopt, & MND review by public/agencies required
V . Driveways
HDS&G
• .•. drtvsways... They shoul':I not flrHtly •lter th• physical and visual charactw
of th• hillside ••• by defining wide straight •lignments." p. 60
•on adjoinln11 properties, driveways should be spaced a minimum of 20 feet apart
or located irrmedlately adjai;ent to each other.• p. 23
"Shared driveways servinf• more than one lot are em:OllTlJged as a means of
rsducing grading f!rld imperviaus surfac6s. • p.z:;
Driveway Congestion
-175feet
To\ Hlghlond
Alternatives Exist
Detached Garage
Elevated Garage
Shared Turnaround
Sharing Existing Driveway
Shorter Driveway to Right of Parcel
Split Property Access: Shorter Driveways to Left and Right of Parcel
Confer with Neighbors fo· Further Ideas
To 25 Hlghlond
VI. Architecture
What Do You Call This Architectural Style?
.utllnd: "boatdetictfl»darccnllm(>Omlywllh,_ruslic_ -Al.I
0 Ri)!ic Contemporary
O Modem
D Industrial
[1] No Architectural Clarity
Basic Tenets
~p.31:
"in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment"
"respectful of the rural character of the hi/lskiesw
"compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors•
Compatible With The Surrounding Neighborhood?
Maximum Allowed Height
HDS&G pp. 35-36
"The maximum allowed height for homas in hillside areas shaft be 25 feet.•
"The height of the lowest finished f/oor(s) of a structure •.. shall not be more than
four feet abo1'6 tho existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes.•
Three Story Conundrum
"Three-story elevations are prohibited."
HDS&G p.36
"A maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation."
Policy CD-14.3, p. CD-21 GP
Existing Grade Discrepancy
Calls Into question height limitations
---";•I --· -..,.,.. ...
-A'"2 6 .....
Red: Final Posted Plan s
Black: Original Posted Plans
~~¥(;}~-:.. t -~~:~ ~~4t ··~
-.3 ... ~A.Z.1
East Elevation
(front)
3
2
1
____J,4.J c:
North Elevation
(side facing creek)
4?
3
---·------ ---------- - ----------_..fll!lllll~.:....1
South Elevation
($ide facing street)
atehltect '711e home Is -· I '1'-ft le"9/ ~lo •"""""110d<I the-grade~ S-A f . 1 Spin Leval?
Gradli cllfhnncn?
p . 31
4?
3
---------------------------~~~--,,
Sou1t1 Elevation
(side facing street)
Does Building Form Reflect Hillside Form?
"Buikflngs shalt be desigMd to confonn to the
natural topography of the s1te• HDS&G p.3tl
HDS&GExam:>le Pearson Development
Confonnlng to natural topography???
p.31
Does Building Form Reflect Hillside Form?
'Buildhgs sll11ll be designed to conform to the
nstuf81 topography of the site" HOS&G p.36
HDS&G E'.xamplG Pearson Development
:l . ·-~J.:11.1~ J
Confonnlng to na!ural topography???
HDS&G Example
P.~ I
Pearoon ~opmenl
·~ .._
hlgh.-1 ......... ~~··-. ----· .
Cftllllld flat .... -..... Mlsldor/NQ<med --
Do this Don't do this
HDS&G Example
p. 18
-ii.to hi!Wdll/llKldilled
·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__JI
Do this Dori't do this
Wall Planes
HDSl.Gp. 38
"Avoid two stol)' waH pianos•
•second slorie$ should be stepped back so the difrer&nce In wall planes is vtslble from a distance •
Street View
Almost Completely
Composed of a
2 Story Wall Plane
Detail Consistency
HOS&Gp.40
•An;hJtecfu"'1 det>Uling shall b9 provided on BH sides of the building.·
~ of the ateh/tectural traatment used on the front facade shaH be rep91Jled on aH sides of the bullding. •
Stone/Wood
Repeated in a
MMnlngful Way?
FAR
Maximum AUowed FAR:
5100 sf
Pearson FAR·
5077 sf
Turrets
"Massive, tall e/e.718f1/J;, 5'JdJ as ... tun8ts ... should b9 avoid&d" HDS&G p . 40
Front Entry
Comprised of a
Massive, Tall Turret
FAR
• ... •chieving the maximum noor araa al/oW&d Is not guarantHd
due to Individual site constraints.• HDS&G p. 27
Site Constraints:
• Creek
• 40% Slope
• Numerous Mature Trees
Multiple site-speciftc cons1raints limit maximum achlevable FAR
...
FAR
·Greater weight •hall be gN9n to ...
height, bulldlng mas.~ and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatHily. • HDS&G p . 27
Height: Questionable Existing Grade
Mass & Scale: SOT! sf Building Spanning Very Close to Street
Visual Impacts: 3• Story Visual Perception
Grading: 40% Slope, 100• ft Retaining Walls
Compatibility: One of the Largest Homes, Anomalous Architecture
Bulk Mass Volume
"BuHdings shall bo design•ld to minimize bulk, mass and volume• HDS&G p. 36
Architec';urc, Detail P~1 ucity, Setoacks, FAR, and 3-Story Visual
All Combine to Maximize Bulk, Mass, and Volume
-... J!,;
A•
A~
1 .. ,,,,,e;:;.
IJIJJilill·AY. if]
L
::;:-
~-~. ~--::~ ,.,._,.,,
~ ·~
~
FAR
~ 1,_~ ...
::: -jj-
fii 8i
:~I jJ "]i" J4
I
~:r ..
~.I , .... 8111 I ;I ti II .......... _...._....
VII. Conclusion
Pearson Project:
• 5077 sf
• one of the largest
• multiple constraints
Reinventing The Broken Wheel?
1998: Denied by both Planning Commission and Town Council
2001: Denied by both Planning Commission and Town Council
2010: Slgnificantty smaller home given soft approval by planning staff and
hesitant approval by Planning Commission. Neighbors (worn out?) do not pursue
Town Council Review. Application Expired.
2016: DRC approves development verv similar In mass and scale of denied
1998and 2001 DCODOsa!s..
3 I 'approonate size for tne ptop<Jrty·
Max1mizmg FAR with multiple srte constraints 1s not appropnate
Max1m1zing bulk, mass, and volume extremely close to the street 1s not
appropnate
Granting a substantial LRDA f~xception to accommodate maximum FAR 1s not
appropnate
4 I "rx;o;1~stf:;-.r wt'r. d<"1~/opr,.'::>1. :,;;, ~iJrroun."ftr.f.• rss1.1c•:£Jei ~!YY..o(;:iJt>s'
Anomalous architecture 1ncompabble with surrounding properties
DRC Point Counterpoint
DRC minutes, March 29, 20 16
1 ~R~c:r;;it~o:~S iO tf'J fi .'_~~'-; r. dt~ rcq111rPd f(i ~-;,-:-fT't""' tt .. , .. :'? :o~;-:.\~11 ,.._,..
A more reasonably sized home would not require an exception to the LROA
2 1 . ,,,., .· .. +--· "'F-<: c·,--. ,., .. , •. , . •Foo,., ;.;r~_., .. ,_. ~.· .-·0•1 ........... , ::" ?!1 ':0 • ,, ,-4.,.,. .. ~, ·~· ~ '°' •'f-•..J ''•'""' ,,~ ~·.., l ~'-· •." .. .; I • '> t "J I ••."
5
6
1
2010 project was dtffE'rent and much smaller Exception to the LRDA was still
frowned upon.
""J •• -: .... ·t sd ~.::;,i;;/fi:v .,·:f~ thfl ..>::~~ f1 <.,r·1 .'U··-n:r...:ftl:nc; .~"-• .1t .·:-!
Wrth 37 mature trees removed, vis1bllrty will dramaltcaly rnaease
'.or;';:1:s l:/;:; o1~q~·f$t,l':1 : w~l! ;~Id m scre:er.l'lg
It will take decades to achieve the same screemng that the existing mature
bees provide
I Compliance with Genet al Plan not crted
Not applrcabie?
i
Requests Requests Con tin ued
1. Retum Creek and Riparian Buffer to Original State 6. New Initial Study for Public and Agency Review
2. Enforce Deve!opment Withi n LRDA 7. Reduce Drivew ay Impact
3. Minimize Grad ing and Retaining Walls 8 . Choose Appropriate Architecture: Compatible and Respectful
4 . Proh ibit I Minim ize Further Removal of Trees 9. Reduce FAR
5. Reassess Setbacks: Front/Rear Orientation , Creek 10. Reduce Bulk, Mass and Volume
•'
8June2016
Mr. Ed Pearson
239 Thurston Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
SUBJECT: 19 HIGHLAND A VENUE
Dear Mr. Pearson:
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCb, fES
Ecological Consultants
RECEIVED
JUN 8 -2016
TOWN OF I.OS GATOS
PLA NN IN G DI VIS ION
We've reviewed the 1 June 2016 correspondence s ubmitted by Grassetti Environmenta l Consulting, and
wanted to clarify a few points specifically regarding drainage flows and the setback distances.
The recomm en ded setback distance s provided in the Guidelin es and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
(Guidelines) 2005 , 2006) are entirely based on a consideration of the s lop e stability conditi ons on a specific
project site. While the Guidelines have specific requirements for si ng le famil y units on streamside
properties (e.g. Stream wi th Little or No Hardening -25 to 20 feet; Ephemeral Stream-I 0 to 15 feet), the
Guidelines do state that:
If a structure is proposed to be located closer to the Top of Bank than indicated by the following Slope
Stability R equirements, this may serve as a trigger for lo cal permitting agencies (in this instance the Town
of Los Gatos) lo require site-specific technical information related to precise sl op e condilions. Jfa prop ertv
is proposing lo place slruclures closer to a streams ide slope than allowed by the Slope Stability
Requirem e nts. th e permitting agencv s hould require fur th er study of on-site geotechnical soil and s lope
stabilitv conditions. Th e purpose of th e s tudy is to determin e:
(I) Wh elher or n ot the location of a proposed structure may threaten bank stability, and
(2) Wheth er or not the bank in st ab ility may threaten structur es and/o r potentially cause a health and
safety hazard. (Source: Guidelines, Appendi x C, page C . l ).
Based on a review of the correspondence prepared by UPP Geotechnology (l 7 Fe bruary 2016), which was
a respons e to comments raised by the Town's geologic and geotechnical consu ltant, the UPP report
specifi call y states "Based on our revie w, the proposed r esidence is about 15 feet (measured horizontally
from the bottom of th e creek bank at its closest point ...... Jn our opinion, an elevation rise of 6 in ch es over
a horizontal distance of 15 feet do es not present a slope stability hazard. " This statement appears to meet
the intent and guidance provide in the Guidelines regarding placement of p ermanent structures closer than
the Slope Protection Requirements.
Regarding th e setback di stan ce , based o n the proposed improvement plans (Peop les A ss ociates, November
2015), th at were recently re vise d (May 20 16) to reflect th e topographic top -of-bank as d etermine d by H. T.
Harvey & Ass ociates, th e aver age setback di stance between the top -of-bank and the building envelope/deck
as shown on the improvement plans i s approximate ly 27 feet (this valu e is an average of seven
measurem e nts taken approximately every 20 feet from one end of the proposed building to the other; va lues
range from 15 to 36 feet). Betwee n the proposed entra n ce road and th e top -of-bank, the average setback
di stance is 20 feet (thirteen separate meas urements were taken; va lu es ran ge from 4 to 40 feet).
JEXHIBlT 2 4
98 3 Un ive rsity Avenu e, Building D •Los Gato s, CA 95032 •Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3 2 10
Our description of the flow characteristics of the creek in our May 2016 report as "best characterized as
ephemeral," was based upon observations made before, during and after rain storms in February of this
year. We stated that "Flows within this drainage appeared to be flashy and are likely to di sa ppear into the
relatively permeab le Los Gatos and Mayhem soi ls that underlie the property a few days after a rainfall
event." To a ve ry large degree this is what was observed in the drainage over the last several weeks. The
above average rainfa ll this year has simply extended the flow duration, but there is no indi cation that the
primary source of water for the drainageway that crosses the si te is groundwater (which is the primary
c haracteristic used by the Environmental Protection Agency and U .S. Army Corps of Engineers in
differentiating between intermittent and ephemeral streams for purposes of defining their jurisdiction).
Additionally, the fact that numerous outfalls from the various private residences that abut the creek indjcates
that nuisance flows from th ese homes (e.g. excess irri gation, vehicle washing, etc.) may we ll be currently
contributing a s ignificant portion of the water that enters the creek during th e s ummer months.
1 hope you find the se clarifications helpful, please don't he sitate to contact me with any questions you might
have.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Bours ier, Ph.D.
Principal
2
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
UPPGEOTECHNOLOGY
Engineering Geology • Geotechnica l Eng ineering
Mr. Ed Pearso n
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:
RE(,c:IVED
.llJN 8 -201 6
TOWN OF LOS GATOS a division of C2 EARTH. INC.
PLANNING DIVISiON
17 February 2016
Document Id. 15193C-01 L2
Serial No. 175 03
As you requested, we are responding to comments raised by the Town's geologic and
geotechnical consultant, AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC). We previo usly conducted a limited
geotechnical study for the dev elopment of the site, and presented the results of that study in our
Limited Geotechnical Study r eport dated 22 November 2013 (Document Id. 13050C-01Rl).
Subsequently, we provide d updated seismic de s ig n criteria in our Supplemental
Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update lette r dated 22 December 2015 (Document
Id. l 5l93C-OIL1 ). The following ar e our respon ses to th e geotechnica l p eer revie w comments.
Liquefaction
AMEC is su e d a revi ew letter for the proj ect dated 29 January 2016 , which contained the
followin g comment:
Comme nt: Based on our review, we note that th e Upp repo rt does not spec ifically
comment on th e potential for liqu efa ction. Th e data on th e boring logs sugges t that th e
potential for liqu efaction is probably low. Upp s hould review th e data and confirm that
th e potential fo r liquefaction is low, or provide appropriate mitigation measures to th e
d esign.
Our s ubsurface exploration revealed the site i s underl a in at sha llo w de pth s b y Franciscan
asse mbl age basalt an d s heared s ha le bedrock and me dium den se to de nse Santa C lara
formation s ilty sand w ith gravel. Borings drill e d w ithin the hom e s it e to d epths as much
a s 21 Yi fee t below ground surface did not reveal g roundwater.
According to the Seismic Hazard Zones m ap fo r the Los Gatos Quadrangle (CGS, 2002),
the site is not mapped within a State of California sei smic h aza rd zon e for earthquake-
induced liquefaction . In a dditi on, the site i s m apped outside of Santa Clara County
liquefaction hazard zon es.
Based up o n the depth to groundwater b eneath the home site and the r ecommendations for
supportin g the home in th e underlying Santa Clara formation and/or Franciscan
assemblage bedrock, we judge the potential for liquefaction to a ffect th e re s idence to b e
neglig ibl e .
Copyrighl -C2 Earth, Inc.
408 866 5436 (OJ I 866 94 1 6824 (f J I 750 Camden Ave Suite A Caripoell CA 95008 I C2@C2Earth com I www C2Earth com
Project Name: Pearson
17 February 2016
Document Id. 15193C-01L2
Page 2 of 3
Creek Bank Stability
UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY
a division of C2 EARTH. tNc.
Mr. Ryan Do provided additional peer rev iew comments via email dated 12 February 2016
regarding the proximity of the proposed home and driveway to a creek ba nk and the stability of
the creek ba nk. The e mail includ ed th e following review comments:
Comm e nt : R egarding th e structure, th e report should provide a stability analysis fo r
Section C-C' where the struc ture is within 20 feet of th e adjacent creek, or add language
indicating foun dations within this zone must extend to an elevation that is lower than th e
bottom elevation of th e adjacent creek.
Based on our review, the proposed residenc e is about 15 feet (measured horiz onta lly)
from the bottom of the creek bank at its clos es t point. The relative e levation difference
between th e 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/F ranci scan
assemblage bedrock.
We recommended that footin gs for the residence 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
ri se of 6 inches over a horizonta l distance of 15 feet (or an incline of about 2 d egr e es
from th e bottom of th e creek channel) doe s not presen t a s lop e s ta bility hazard.
Co mm ent: Regarding th e driveway, th e report should in clude a stability analys is or
otherwis e dis cuss th e d epth and steepness of th e creek bank adjacent to th e drive way at
critica l locations (where drive way is clos es t to th e creek and/or wh ere steep es t c reek
banks are).
We al so eva lua te d the slope stability and prox imity of the creek bank at several lo cation s
along the driveway. The dow n s lope side of the driveway i s shown to be supporte d by
block retaining walls up to a max imum r eta in ed hei ght of 4 feet. We recommend that th e
wall extend be low grade, such that th e bottom course of block is founded in the
underlying Santa Clara formation or Franciscan assemblage bedrock.
Based on our subsurface s tudy, we anticipate s upportive ma teri a ls to be about 2 to 3 fee t
below exis tin g ground surface alon g th e ali gnmen t. Taking the se de pth s to s upport into
account, we anticipate that th e r etaining wall around the proposed fire -tru ck turnaround at
the entrance to the s ite will be founded at or belo w th e elevation of th e bottom of th e
creek b ank.
Near the middle of the driveway where the creek gets closest (bottom of the ch anne l will
be about 10 feet horiz ontally from the driveway retaining wall), we anticipate that the
bottom course of blocks will b e about 1 foot a bove the bottom of the creek channe l. In
our opinion , an e le vation ri se of 1 foot over a hori zontal di stanc e of 10 fee t (or an inclin e
of about 6 degrees from the bottom of the creek channel) do es not present a s lope
stabi lity hazard.
Copyright -C2 Earth, Inc.
408 866 5436 10) I 366 94 1 6824 1fl I 750 Camden Ave Suite A Campbell CA 9~008 I C2@C2Earth com I ·1ww C2Earth com
Project Name: Pearson
17 February 2016
Document I d . 15193C-01 L2
Page 3 of 3
UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY
a division of C2 EARTH.1Nc.
We trust that the above satisfactorily addresses the concern s raised. It is ou r pleasure to co ntinue
to assist yo u o n your proj ect.
Sincerely yo urs,
Upp Geotechnology
a division of C2Earth, Inc.
~~mer, Principal
Certified Eng ineering Geologist 2314
C "fi d H d I . 882 THIS DOCUMENT HAS ert1 1e y rogeo og1st BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED
Craig N. Reid, Principal
Certified Engineering Geologist 24 7 1
Registered Geotechnical Engineer 3060
Di stributi on: Address ee (3 picked up and v ia e-mail to ep earsonz@outlook.com)
Th is doc ument is p rOlected under Federa l Copyright laws. Unauthorized use or c opying of this document by a nyone other than 1h e client(s) is
s trictly p roh ib ited. Contact C2Earth, Inc.for "A PPLICATION TO USE."
Copyright -C2£arth, Inc.
408 866 5 4 36 (ol I 866 94 1 68241f) I 750 Camden Ave Suite A Carnpbell CA 95008 I C2,§:C2Earth corn I ·:Mw C2Eart11 com