Attachment 05Sean Mullin
From: Vladimir Kanevsky <vladimir.kanevsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:41 AM
To: Sean Mullin
Cc: vlakane; sandra@sandrapaim.com; Cristiane de Melo
Subject: Re: 223 Massol - Appeal of Planning Commission decision (HS-18-018 & HS-18-031)
Attachments: image002.jpg
Thank you or forwarding the appeal. Please accept this email as my official response. Best, Vladimir
Before I respond to the two items listed, I'd like to point out that the plans and pictures attached by Tyler are NOT of the
current plan and story poles. The pictures and plan attached are of the original plan, MR-17-018, that has been cancelled
and do not reflect the plans being appealed today.
We have made many changes and concessions to those original plans in an effort to address Jim and Sara's original
concerns. We have reduced the square footage and massing of the home, reduced the height of the structure
and removed windows to minimize any impact on their privacy and standard of living. We have submitted a new
application(HS-18-018) to reflect these changes. Pictures of this new plan have not been submitted. Honestly, I deeply
regret making these concessions as we have only received accusations and attempts to stop our project in return.
As background, we have made many attempts to discuss and review our plans and revisions with Jim and Sara but have
yet to get any feedback or response from them. They have not made any attempts to meet or talk to us, other than the
appeal letters from Tyler. They have never attended to a single meeting with the town or city. They have never picked
up the phone to call or ask for a conversation. They have treated us as adversaries during this entire process and have
been looking to win or get what they want at any cost, regardless of the emotional, physical and financial costs to my
family. It does not seem to bother or concern them in the least that they have forced us to change the design of our
dream home, delay our construction by 6+ months, the additional $100K+ in incurred costs, and most importantly
delaying our family plans by 1.5 years, including registering kids into the local schools, moving plans, friends/family, etc..
On the face of it, it seems very hypocritical and frankly very cruel, for them to accuse us of not being neighborly. This
appeal and as a consequence, the additional 60 day delay of our project, is just another example.
Response to point #1:
This approved garage plan, HS-18-031, is an outcome of many discussions with the Planning Commission and HPC to
ensure we meet all design guidelines and code requirements and most of all minimize impact to the neighborhood. We
will ultimately do what is required and permitted by the city. That said, we would be willing to move or remove any
portion of the garage that encroaches on the neighbors property, if additional compromise is needed. Just for reference,
the existing garage structure has been there for at least 60 years and has not been a bother to the neighbors until now.
Response to point #2:
This complaint lists the same three items covered in the appeal that was denied by the Planning Commission:
1. It accuses us of failing to conduct "strongly recommended" outreach: This implies that we were hiding something and
did not want our neighbors to know what we're building. That accusation is grossly untrue and malicious. To start with,
the outreach is "recommended" and not "required". Regardless, we did reach out to the neighbors by walking around
and knocking on our neighbor's doors almost every time we were at the house. We managed to meet and talk with
many of them but always seem to miss Jim and Sara at home. I stopped by their house at least twice. Also, the approved
plans have been submitted and online for everyone to see after the HPC approval in Dec, months before my original
application. It would seem that they were seen and reviewed by Jim/Sara prior to our original application in Feb 2018 as
ATTACHMENT 5
Sean told me "a neighbor" is being critical and I should expect a complaint. At that time, I did not know that Jim and Sara
were the neighbors that were complaining and asked Sean to give me the neighbor's in question contact info so I could
contact them to work things out. He said, because they have not officially complained yet, he could not share their
names, etc... In response, I asked Sean to give my contact info to them and have them call me. They did not and have
not reached out or spoken to us at all except for an accidental meeting w Sara in front of the house.
2. We removed a balcony "only" after brought to attention of the town - That is not true as the plans were submitted to
city and online for all to see. We removed the balcony as well as the windows on the side facing Jim/Sara's home,
lowered the house and reduced the massing, as an attempt to address one of Jim and Sara's original complaints about
wanting more privacy in their yard. Also, this is referencing the old application that is not being discussed today. It was
cancelled and replaced with the current application(HS-18-018) for a smaller home to address Jim and Sara's complaints.
3. "Evasive responses to efforts by the town to inspect the property" - We have worked closely with the town on
all/every aspect of the plan and never avoided or cancelled any inspections. Any cancellations were at the request of the
town's inspector and his availability. In general, we have made the property available to anyone that wanted to see it
and in fact only put up fencing in April as some of our lumber started to go missing.
As far as the neighbors request to bring in independent inspectors... A general and arbitrary request for an inspection
was made on April 11th and after multiple attempts to find out what specifically they were concerned with and wanted
to inspect, we received no answer. See attached thread as evidence and reference. From the Town's standpoint, a
private property owner is under no obligation to allow public access to their property at any time, whether under
application or under construction. More so, we have been working with the experts at the HPC, Planning and Building
Departments for almost one year to ensure our home is built to all current design, codes and building requirements. The
implication made by Tyler for an outside inspection is that the guidance given by HPC, Planning and Building teams is
inaccurate and needs to be vetted and validated. To stress the point one more time, we have made many attempts
throughout this process starting prior to Feb 6th 2018 to meet, discuss, and hear back from the McManis' on all aspects
of their concerns about the project. To date we have yet to get a response on any of proposed changes, modifications,
efforts, etc... including their request for an inspection. See attached email thread for additional history.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:18 AM Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> wrote:
Please find the attached appeal of the decisions of the Planning Commission of June 13th, 2018 (HS-18-018 & HS-18-
031) received at 09:40 AM, June 25, 2018.
This appeal is being scheduled for an upcoming Town Council hearing.
Regards,
Sean Mullin, AICP • Associate Planner
Community Development Department • 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6823 • smullin@Iosgatosca.gov
www.losgatosca.gov • https://www.facebook.com/Iosgatosca
Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM —1:00 PM, Monday — Friday
Please note the upcoming Town closure: July 4, 2018 — Independence Day
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. if you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Best,
Vladimir
408 892-2680