Item 3 - Desk Item with Exhibit 16.16620 Harwood Lot B
PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/23/2023
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: August 23, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision to
Approve Construction of a New Single-Family Residence for Lot B On Property
Zoned R-1:10. Located at 16220 Harwood Road, Lot B. APN 567-18-
076. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New
Construction. Architecture and Site Application S-22-036. Property Owner:
Majid Mohazzab. Applicant: Cherine Bassal. Appellant: Douglas McCracken.
Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 16 includes additional information from the appellant.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the August 18, 2023, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Letter of Justification
5. Color and Material Board
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Consulting Arborist’s Report
8. Neighbor’s Contacted
9. July 20, 2023, Development Review Committee meeting minutes
10. Appeal of Development Review Committee, July 20, 2023
11. Additional Appellant Information
12. Applicant’s Response to Appeal
13. Development Plans
14. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 16220 Harwood Road, Lot B/S-22-036
DATE: August 23, 2023
Previously received with the August 22, 2023, Addendum Report:
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Received with this Desk Item Report:
16. Additional Information from the Appellant
Town of Los Gatos
RE: Response to the applicant from 8/14/23 for 16220 Harwood Rd
1.The applicant is correct that he dropped off early plans for the house in October 2022. It was
less than a one minute exchange where he said he was required to deliver these to us and had
us sign something saying we received them. We do not dispute this. However, we also would
not say this was any type of conversation about the proposed development but rather the
minimum interaction and communication as required by the process. As a result, we did not
know that our concerns needed to be raised to the applicant directly.
The community of neighbors had spoken during the course of the past 6-8 months on several
occasions, as it was our understanding that the place to raise our concerns was at the DRC
meeting. None of the neighboring lots understood that by the time it got to the DRC most of the
work was already approved and that a decision was to be made that day. We all thought it was
the beginning of what would be a few exchanges leading to a solution we were all comfortable
with the final proposed development. While most of us would have preferred to see the lot
remain a school (and we know there was an offer to lease or buy the land to keep it a school
within the past year), we also do recognize the need for housing. But the neighbors did not feel
like we were included in the process.
We have not had a house built next to us before and did not understand the onus was on us to
reach out directly to the person developing the land. The last time we had development in the
community beyond a proposed remodel to an existing house was the addition and construction
of Almond Blossom Ct, Sebastian Ct and Gemini Ct in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During that
process, the developers had many interactions and meetings with the neighbors. And when a
second story was proposed and eventually added at 16226 Harwood Rd, again – many meetings
and revision to plans were made with the neighbors inputs.
2.Regarding comments made on NextDoor, people are allowed to voice their opinions. Nothing
stated is inaccurate and we still that the development a 2500-2700 sqft home would be
welcome on Parcel B. There are not many other 3000 sgft homes – and NO 3600+ sqft structures
in the immediate area. The comments are not in correct or misleading and quite frankly are
irrelevant to this process. The applicant could have reached out to discuss concerns – but chose
not to.
And when we talk about the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood, we are not referring just to the
homes immediately next to new homes but ones within a slightly larger zone (up to about 500
feet – and not going to into San Jose on the East side).
Homes in this range are noted below: , with most being in the 2500 – 2700 sqft range and many
single story homes
Address
Year
built
Square
foot Important note: Comment
101 Almond Blossom Ct 1987 3358 borders Parcel B & C
EXHIBIT 16
103 Almond Blossom Ct 1979
single
story 2544 borders Parcel B & C
notably left out of the
applicants list provided to
the town. We welcome a
single story this size plus
JADU.
105 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 2923
borders Parcel B
Attended DRC and
voiced concerns
100 Almond Blossom Ct 1987 2596
Views on hills to
West effected by
second story of
house
102 Almond Blossom Ct 1979
single
story 3227
They are bothered
by this development
since the town had
previous denied
their request to build
a second story to
their home – instead
they expanded their
ranch style home to
fill the lot within the
town guidelines
we welcome a 3200 single
story home on the lot
104 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 2932 106 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 3100
103 Almond Blossom Ln 1987 2756
Directly across the
street from Parcel A
Attended DRC and
voiced concerns
105 Almond Blossom Ln 1987 2756
Directly across the
street from Parcel B
189 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 Across from parcel A
Recently sold – no one to
make comment as new
owners have not moved in
188 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 Across from parcel A 187 Belwood Gateway 1965 single 2850 186 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 185 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 184 Belwood Gateway 1967 single 2468
183 Belwood Gateway 2008 2754
Most recent major
remodel in the
Belwood/Belgatos
neighborhood
102 Belvale 1967 single 2224
103 Belvale 1967 2448
Attended DRC – has
concerns 106 Belvale 1967 single 2144 107 Belvale 1967 2448 110 Belvale 1967 single 1916
100 Belvue Dr 1965 single 2104 101 Belvue Dr 1965 single 1430 104 Belvue Dr 1965 single 2120 105 Belvue Dr 1965 single 1744
100 Bacigalupi Dr 1968 single 1400 ~300 ft from Parcel A 101 Bacigalupi Dr 1968 single 2248
To our knowledge, none of these homes include additional JADU in their square footage and all
but three remain smaller than 3100. Homes adding JADUs in the neighborhood –as is their right
– are mostly adding second freestanding single story structures.
3. We have a better understanding on the California Law now regarding ADUs than we did a few
weeks ago. We are not asking the applicant to not have an ADU at all. However, it is deceiving to
continue to say a structure is 3100 sqft when in fact is will be over 3600 sqft once the JADU is
permitted. And as the JADU is supporting the second story, the proposed house cannot be built
without it without a complete home redesign.
When directly asked why the applicants house feels so much bigger than our home and the
surrounding homes, the applicant claimed he did not know. But the applicant did – because the
story poles included the JADUs which add 500 sqft that is supporting the second story and
pushing more of the structure upwards. It was not a very open, honest conversation with the
community. Again, we recognize a JADU is the applicants right, but it is impact the overall size
of the second story and raising the most concerns.
4. Regarding setbacks, we do not feel that the setbacks and balcony on your flag lot are in line with
the towns Residential Guidelines as they pertain to the Belwood Belgatos neighborhood.
5. When the houses were built at 16224, 16226 and 16228 Harwood Rd, it was 40 years ago and
Almond Blossom Ct and Sebastian Ct did not even exist. And when those Courts were added and
built at the edge of the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood, the design was approved based on the
fact that there was NOT another house directly behind it which made its size and design
possible. When those houses were to be added, there were several community meetings and
neighbors felt included in the conversations about design, windows and trees to be planted to
maximize privacy for all involved.
6. The applicants house on Parcel B is the only flag lot in the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood that
we can find. 16226 is not a flag lot. The driveway is a shared easement, with space taken out of
each of the property lots of 16224 and 16228 overall buildable/usable total. The three houses
also need to work together to maintain the shared driveway.
This is VERY different from a private driveway to a single home. We would have liked to have
seen the property at 16220 divided into a similar shared easement with the exit to the shared
driveway onto Almond Blossom Lane. We would welcome this change to the lot.
7. The issue is not only related to visibility to adjacent property windows. Our family has lived here
for 40 years with a certain level of privacy in both the home and the back yard. The close
proximity of the front of the Lot B house to our properties will drastically change the privacy we
expect.
8. X 102 Almond Blossom Ct is a 3200 sq foot single story home – we welcome a 3200 sq foot
single story home on Parcel B. The owner of 105 Almond Blossom Ct ( ) is not at all
happy with this development and attended the DRC to voice her concerns. (She cannot attend
the planning commission meeting due to a previously planned vacation)
9. This is inaccurate. Only part of the proposed house is to the left – and this is because they
needed to move it to the left due to the required setbacks from the neighbor at 16226 Harwood
Rd. The window a the stairs is directly behind our property and is 25’ from the fence line, not 60’
as the applicant claims. The location of windows was not done as a design with our house
specifically in mind. That said, based on the story poles Parcel B is directly behind all but the far
two upper windows of 16224 Harwood Rd. And the upper portion of Parcel B not only impedes
privacy (not just of our house but of the 6 neighboring houses) but also blocks all of the
mountain views to the East for 16224, 16226 and 16228 Harwood Rd.
10. This is inaccurate. The applicant knows several members of the community attended the DRC
meeting (which is very hard to do on a weekday at 10am). We have had conversations with the
neighbors for months. As we shared the most property line with Parcel B, we agreed to be the
person to represent their comments and concerns. We did not realize that the QUANTITY of
voices was relevant. Upon learning this, we encouraged them to send in any comments via email
to the planning commission so they understood that it was not just one concerned household
but many. Again, the community thought the place to bring our concerns was to the DRC
meeting to start a conversation – not that everything was already done and approved with a
final decision to be taken at that meeting.
And this does not even count the numerous walkers (Harwood is a very popular hill) who see us
out front working in the yard and stop to ask us questions about the proposed development on
the lot. Most people were shocked to see three homes being built there and commented on the
large footprint they appeared to have – many sharing stories about how they will miss the
school and the service it provided to the community, their kids and their grandkids. Others are
concerned that this sets a precedent for the overdevelopment of other lots in the neighborhood
in the future.
11.The residents at 16226 Harwood Rd are EXTREMELY concerned about privacy as the Parcel B
balcony and master bedroom are aligned with their master bedroom and existing balcony, albeit
slightly lower. (They are unable to attend the meeting due to work travel overseas)
12.Every plan we see has a different landscape and tree plan. Trees are being added and removed
without any notification or revisions on the plan and are inconsistent from page to page. It is
hard to tell what is actually proposed to be planted, and we welcome updates on this matter.
13.On this point, we simply noted to the DRC and planning council that people do not stop at this
stop sign. Without Parcel A, people can see down Almond Blossom Dr better and proceed safer.
In addition, the driveway into the school from Harwood Rd was always a one-way entrance, with
traffic exiting on to Almond Blossom Ln.
Now Parcel B is adding an active private driveway with limited visibility. (Remember what we
said about the quantity of walkers on Harwood Rd). We simply wanted to point out this possible
concerns to the planning committee who does not live here and see the activity on a daily basis.
14.We do not believe that we are asking the town to ignore their residential guidelines at all – we
feel a few are specifically not being followed. For example, the 2nd story balcony could be ruled
as not consistent with the Town’s Residential Design Guideline 3.11.2: Minimize privacy
intrusion on adjacent residences. Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when
they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. In addition, part of guidelines are the
letter of the ‘guidelines’ vs. the sprit of the ‘guidelines’. Had the applicant had open
exchanges/conversations with the adjacent neighbors as was recommended by the city
planners, some of this could have been identified and mitigated at an early time. But not
attempts were made, nor has any outreach occurred since the DRC.
15.While the architect reviews for design comments, we are unclear if the flag lot location of
Parcel B was taken into consideration or Town’s Residential Design Guideline 3.11.2: Minimize
privacy intrusion on adjacent residences would have been taken into account.
Had the applicant included any of the neighbors in the lengthy planning process with architects
and the city, we could have identified the areas that raised the most concerns and tried to work
together to find compromises or solutions the immediate neighbors all agreed to. The applicant
chose not to.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank