Attachment 16 - Public comments received between 1101 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022, and 1100 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2022From: AnnMarie Zimmermann <>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:03 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Ralph Cell Zimmermann <>
Subject: Fwd: Opposing 118 Olive Plans
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Sean and Los Gatos Planning,
We are unable to go to the public hearing and therefore using our option to submit our opposition via
email. It is unpleasant for us to do this and we wish the Reicherts the best but we believe in the rules
you put in place for conforming lots (such as ours) and the reasons why you have them. That's why we
fully obliged during our restoration. When a lot is non-confirming is when we believe you need those
rules the most.
In additions to items in the below first email:
• We've attached the picture of cars parked in the middle of the day on Ashler. Parking in this
neighborhood is impacted by the funeral home, the DMV, Bywater, La Esquina,
Kickboxing studio, Enoteca Direct and other businesses within the two block radius. The area
cannot support the parking we have today and it will only get worse without requiring on-site
side by side parking.
• Privacy and noise concerns by these houses being so close and overbearing (as seen in the
picture of the window at 114 Olive overlooking our patio and kitchen even as only a one story
renovation)
• I understand that you review every application individually therefore precedence setting is not
an argument we can use to oppose this. If that is the case, then you should not be allowed to
use precedence (nearby homes with exceptions) to build a case in favor.
• This was a historic area of Los Gatos with small cottages where workers lived and supported the
houses in Almond Grove. We are losing that history and charm.
Ralph and AnnMarie Zimmermann
Los Gatos, CA 95030
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: AnnMarie Zimmermann <>
Date: Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:57 AM
Subject: Opposing 118 Olive Plans
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Ralph Cell Zimmermann <>
Hello Sean,
I hope you are doing well.
We oppose the plans at 118 Olive (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2388/O) for the same reasons
we opposed 114 Olive:
• Parking implications on Ashler, Olive and San Benito by waving the side-by-side parking
requirement. Parking and traffic conditions have only gotten worse since we last
corresponded.
• Privacy. We’ve attached a picture of 114 Olive overlooking our backyard and kitchen
even after revised plans. It’s still very obtrusive and uncomfortable.
• Potential damage to the Oak tree between 114 and 118 Olive. The family at 114 Olive
periodically cut the Oak over their house.
• Precedence setting by continuing to look for exceptions for non-conforming lots rather
than preserving the cottage like style and history of the neighborhood.
Ralph and AnnMarie Zimmermann
Los Gatos, CA
From: Don Wilhelm <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: My SUPPORT of the APPEAL of Planning Commission decision approving proposed
reconstruction of 118 Olive Street
EXTERNAL SENDER
Attn: Los Gatos Town Council,
My Support of the Appeal Re: 118 Olive Street
I support the opposition of neighbors of 118 Olive Street to the Planning Commission's decision
approving demolition of the existing single-family cottage residence at 118 Olive Street and construction
of a new & much larger single-family residence to exceed FAR standards and with reduced front yard &
side yard setbacks on a non-conforming property.
In particular, I support them in objecting to the reduced setbacks for this proposed project -- regardless
of precedents (examples) of relaxed (reduced from Code) setbacks on that street.
Los Gatos is replete with examples of setbacks all around property boundaries that are non-compliant
with the Code's standards. But this does not, and should not, mean that any applicant can, or should,
have their way with their desires for expanding their house upward and outward in all directions -- to
the detriment of neighbors; i.e., without regard for the impacts on the adjacent neighbors -- the
encroachments on the neighbors' properties & living spaces!
From my perspective, the Planning Division is altogether too willing to approve applicants' requests for
reduced setbacks.
Background for My Support
For example -- I invite the Town Council to please look carefully at the "remodel" under reconstruction
now at the tiny non-conforming 481 Woodland Avenue property. Please drive by that property, get out
of your cars and look at the house and property carefully and seriously -- and also review the history of
that project.
In particular, please note the unwarranted 2-ft setback on the north side (from 483 Woodland Ave.) and
the super-generous 15-ft setback on the south side. FYI -- the actual true structure of the original 481
Woodland house had an 8-ft setback from the adjacent 483 Woodland Avenue property.
I consider this 2-ft northside setback from the 483 Woodland Avenue property to be a travesty in the
interpretation and application of the Town's Codes -- and I so stated this opinion to Planning in my
October 12, 2017 e-mail to Planning. Of course my objections were ignored by Planning, as Planning
was proceeding under its "ministerial authority" for "remodels."
I have been interacting with Planning for almost 10 years on behalf of the owner of 483 Woodland
Avenue -- ever since the 481 Woodland Avenue owner's 2014 proposal to demolish and reconstruct his
original cottage as a 2-story home. That plan was discouraged by the Planning Commission in October
2014. (FYI the 481 Woodland applicant purchased the property in 2012.)
And by the way, that 2014 plan was put forth with a code-compliant northside 5-ft setback. So it is mind-
boggling that Planning could & would make a quantum leap from a code-compliant setback in 2014 to a
flagrant Code-violating 2-ft northside setback for the "remodel" project now under construction. I
contend that Planning used twisted logic to justify this 2-ft setback.
Conclusion
From my perspective it appears that Los Gatos has become a mecca for buyers looking for cottages to
tear down and rebuild as 2-story homes as close to the property boundaries as possible -- without
regard for the impacts on the adjacent neighbors -- especially those on each side. And without regard
for & concern about preserving the character & quality of the neighborhood they are buying into.
Questions for the Town Council
Do planners ever get out into the neighborhoods they are "planning" and walk the streets -- like old time
COPS on their beats -- and get to know the local homeowners & residents they might be impacting?
Do any of the Town's Planners actually live in and understand Los Gatos? I believe that to become a
Town Council Member, one must be a Los Gatos resident. But can Planners come from anywhere?
Would any of the Town Council Members like to have the kind of the side setback travesty that has been
permitted at 481 Woodland Avenue be permitted on a property right next to you? And with a height
that would block out a lot of your sunlight and views?
A comparable travesty is pending at 118 Olive Street.
The End
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Don Wilhelm
Los Gatos, CA 95032
P.S. The 483 Woodland Ave. owner's request in early 2020 for an appeal of Planning's determinations
about the 2-ft setback for 481 Woodland was effectively thwarted and nullified by the apparent impact
of the Covid-19 pandemic on the town's operations, openness, and ability of certain key Town
Government people to keep track of and follow-through on their responsibilities to facilitate that
appeal.
Moreover, neither I nor the owner of 483 Woodland were ever voluntarily informed by Planning that an
appeal option actual exists -- until we asked about such an option in a private meeting with planning in
late 2019.
So, we can't help wondering if such "denial of basic information and right-to-know" is a common
practice in such situations -- by which it benefits the Town to "prevent" appeals.
Perhaps you on the Town Council, or the Town's Attorney, might know more about this.
From: Leesa Gidaro <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:28 AM
To: PublicComment <PublicComment@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #5 - 118 Olive Street
EXTERNAL SENDER
Olive Street is a unique location with several issues which impact the larger neighborhood.
This street is unusually narrow with limited parking. In addition, the lots are typically less than 5,000
square feet so many homes lack garages for historical reasons. As a result, there are extensive parking
issues.
These problems are only exacerbated when houses are built which exceed setback and FAR regulations,
and contributes to crowded and unhappy neighbors. An underground garage will not help alleviate this
situation as there's already not enough parking for those who live on Olive, and it's resulted in spillover
parking onto neighboring streets.
Thank you for the regulations that the Town has put in place... we appreciate them and know they were
put in place for a reason. So please, for the health of our neighborhood, let's not disregard them. We
love the home improvements that have taken place over the years, and completely understand the need
for larger homes to fit growing families, but the best way to keep neighbors happy is to build homes
which meet regulations and don't exceed FARs.
Sincerely,
--
Leesa Gidaro
Cell: