The URL can be used to link to this page

Addendum with Exhibits 16 and 17.176 Loma Alta Ave PREPARED BY: Maria Chavarin Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 1/22/2025 ITEM NO: 2 ADDENDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence, Construct a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, Construct an Accessory Structure with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on a Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 176 Loma Alta Avenue. APN 532-28-031. Architecture and Site Application S-24-042. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner: The Thornberry 2021 Revocable Trust dated November 4, 2021, and The Donald S. Thornberry and Barbara J. Gardner Revocable Living Trust dated December 21, 2010. Applicant: Jay Plett. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin. REMARKS: Exhibit 16 includes a summary of neighborhood outreach and response letters from the property owners. Staff inadvertently did not include the property owner’s response letter in the staff report. Exhibit 17 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025. EXHIBITS: Previously Received with the January 17, 2025, Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/ S-24-042 DATE: January 21, 2025 5. Colors and Materials Board 6. Consulting Architect Report 7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect Report 8. Survey with Setbacks of Adjacent Residences 9. Arborist Report by Bo Firestone & Gardens 10. Peer Review Letter by Town’s Consulting Arborist 11. Public Comments Received Prior to 1100 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025 12. Property Owner’s Response to Public Comment 13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach Summary 14. Applicant’s Response to Public Comment 15. Development Plans Exhibits received with this Addendum Report: 16. Applicant’s Summary of Neighborhood Outreach and Response Letters 17. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 17, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025 From: Jessica Thornberry Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 2:03 PM To: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Blake ; Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov>; Jay Plett ; Anita Camozzi Jay Plett ; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comment Letter: S-24-042 - 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Erin, I realized the signature list submitted before is not the latest. Here’s the latest one attached with 3 additional signatures: Best, Jessica Thornberry EXHIBIT 16 From: Jessica Thornberry Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 2:52 PM To: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Blake Thornberry ; Jay Plett ; Anita Camozzi Jay Plett ; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comment Letter: S-24-042 - 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria/Erin, Apart from the additional signatures, I noticed response letter from Blake to the latest public comment that was sent yesterday was not included in the package. The only letter included under "exhibit 12 - property owner’s response to public comment" was dated 11/5/2024, right after we had the meeting with 178 owners. This is the email Blake sent yesterday: Reattaching his letter here: It’s also missing the response we sent for Kelly/Tom’s concerns about their tree/privancy, which is this one below: Should we print them out and make them desk items instead? Best, Jessica Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, Jessica and I have worked on numerous occasions to understand and accommodate Matt and Allison Railo — our next-door neighbors at . Since we moved to 176 Loma Alta in May of 2023, we’ve made no secret of our plans to improve the existing lot. Once our proposed improvement was ﬁnalized with the Town in October 2024, we began the town-recommended process of seeking feedback on our improvements from the nearby neighbors. On October 7th, Allison Railo joined us at our kitchen table to review the design plans for our proposed improvements. We walked through our proposed layout and the rationale for the design decisions we made. At that time, Allison was not comfortable signing the Neighbor Review Document and understandably needed a few more days to digest the proposed improvements. On October 11th, Allison sent a PDF letter to us via text with the concerns ultimately shared with the town in the ﬁrst Letter of Concern. The letter raised a host of objections to our proposal — namely with the exceptions we were seeking — but did not include any speciﬁc proposals for what would make our design acceptable to them. After discussion among ourselves, Jessica and I reached out to and were able to connect with the Railo’s on November 3rd via FaceTime (as they were traveling in Portugal). We went through each of their concerns item-by-item and tried to understand how their speciﬁc concerns could be mitigated through modiﬁcations to our proposal. During the course of the conversation, we were unable to obtain speciﬁc counter-proposals. The Railo’s were only able to articulate that they were unhappy with the exceptions we were seeking from the Town. Given that all the exceptions we were requesting are typical for our neighborhood (including the Railo’s own property) and fundamental to the proposed improvement, we did not feel that modifying our proposal to avoid the exceptions was reasonable for our project. As such, we replied formally to the Railo’s on November 6th that we did not feel that any of their concerns could be reasonably accommodated into our improvement proposal. Furthermore, many of the concerns raised by the Railo’s about our proposed improvement already exist in the baseline condition of our two properties. •The Railo dwelling has a 5-foot non-conﬁrming setback with our property. •The Railo’s large kitchen window on the side of their house looks directly into the dining and kitchen area of our existing dwelling. •The Railo dwelling is located to the southeast of ours and casts a shadow on our property during much of the morning hours throughout the year. I raise these issues not out of any objection to them, rather to illustrate that the concerns raised could conceivably apply both ways. Because of the narrow non- conﬁrming lots that are characteristic of the Loma Alta neighborhood, this is something we accepted before we purchased the property. Sincerely, Blake & Jessica Thornberry This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 11:07 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15423 for Town Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Town Contact Form First Name gina Last Name tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Message (Required) We apologize for the typo in the address in the last message I sent you. I meant the address to be 176 Loma Alta Ave., not 179 Loma Alta Ave. Thank you, Paul and Gina Tuckfield Which Department do you want to submit this message to? (Required) Community Development: Building & Planning Add an attachment Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. EXHIBIT 17 From: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 6:18 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15422 for Town Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Town Contact Form First Name gina Last Name tuckfleld Email Address (Required) Phone Number Message (Required) We just wanted to reach out to you to point out an error we saw on the plans for 179 Loma Alta Ave. citing our setbacks at The town recently mailed us the postcard notifying us of the hearing this Wednesday. We were able to take the time to view the plans using the link provided on the mailer. Our setback on our left is shown as 3 feet in the architect's plans, to support the request for setback exceptions. But, I measured it just now and the actual setback on our left side is 8 feet from foundation to fence/property line, NOT 3 feet. The setback on our right side is 8 feet (where the plans exclude that setback) We are not sure how they measured the setbacks of our house or the others. We did sign the petition the family showed us based on the drawing of the house, which we regret. We felt pressured to sign the petition. It was late in the evening and we had just arrived home from being out of the country when the homeowner came over asking for our signature. We signed it only because we saw the drawing of the house was a victorian, which is a style that deflnitely flts with the neighborhood. We have taken a large amount of time looking at the plans and reading the following report from Joel Paulson, Community Development Director. We agree with their recommendation: DENIAL Link to the report: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos- meet-9496dce6693b4eceb35f3393763b78fe/ITEM-Attachment- 010-dbcc05a5d13944cfbf49ed1911312a8d.pdf We feel that they should not be able to reduce the side setbacks, or exceed FAR (fioor area ratio) by 964 square feet. We do agree that the front setback should be allowed as the existing house has a setback close to the sidewalk as do all of the surrounding homes. Thank you for your time and work on this project. Paul and Gina Tuckfleld Which Department do you want to submit this message to? (Required) Community Development: Building & Planning Add an attachment Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. This Page Intentionally Left Blank