Desk Item with Exhibits 18 and 19.176 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: 01/22/2025
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM
DATE: January 22, 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:
Corrections to the Floor Area Summary (page 4 of 12), Immediate Neighborhood Comparison
(page 6 of 12), and Proposed FAR (page 7 of 12) tables are provided on the following pages.
Changes are shown in strikethrough and corrections in underline.
Exhibit 18 includes additional correspondence from the project architect. Exhibit 19 includes
additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025, and
11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025.
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: January 22, 2025
From page 4 of 12 of the staff report.
From page 6 of 12 of the staff report.
Immediate Neighborhood Comparison
Address Zoning
House
Floor
Area
Garage
Floor
Area
Total
Floor
Area
Lot
Size
House
FAR
No. of
Stories
Exceed
FAR?
178 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8
1,300
2,660 325
1,625
2,985 8,090
0.16
0.33
2 No
180 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,605
733
3,338
8,010 0.33 2 No
172 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,332 630 2,962 7,132 0.33 2 No
162 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,647 622 3,269 8,680 0.30 2 No
177 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,227 484 2,711 6,640 0.34 2 No
179 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,919 577 3,496 7,500 0.39 1 Yes by
444 sf
185 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 1,206 0 1,206 7,500 0.16 1 No
116 Alta Heights Ct R-1:8 1,933 437 2,370 6,490 0.30 2 No
175 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,357 400 2,757 6,100 0.39 2 Yes by
283 sf
176 Loma Alta Ave
(E)
R-1:8 996 280 1,276 7,435 0.13 1 No
176 Loma Alta Ave.
(P)
R-1:8 3,418 529 3,947 7,435 0.46 2 Yes by
964 sf
Floor Area Summary
Existing SF Proposed SF Allowed SF Notes
Main Residence
First Floor
Second Floor
Total
Countable Below-Grade Area
Total Countable
996
--
996
--
1,684.5
1,212.5
2,897
521
3,418
--
--
2,454 max.
Exceeds
Max
Allowable
FAR by 954
964 s.f.
Below-Grade Area* 0 984 Exempt
Garage 280 529 691
* Pursuant to Sec. 29.10.020, floor area means the entire enclosed area of all floors that are more than four
feet above the proposed grade, measured from the outer face of exterior walls or in the case of party walls
from the centerline.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: January 22, 2025
From page 7 of 12 of the staff report.
EXHIBITS:
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
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 previously received with the January 21, 2025, 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
Exhibit received with this Desk Item Report:
18. Correspondence Provided by the Project Architect
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
Proposed FAR
Proposed SF Allowed SF Notes
Main Residence
Total
Countable Below-Grade Area
Total Countable
2,897
521
3,418
--
--
2,454 max.
Exceeds Max
Allowable FAR by
954 964 s.f.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From:Jay Plett Architect
To:Maria Chavarin; Jessica Thornberry; Blake Thornberry; Anita Camozzi Jay Plett
Cc:Erin Walters; Sean Mullin
Subject:Re: Additional Public Comment: S-24-042 - 176 Loma Alta Ave.
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 2:38:12 PM
Attachments:image003.jpg
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Adding Sean
Hi Maria,
This neighbor resides at Their parcel is conforming - its frontage is
62 feet and its site area is 8,680sf - their comment is not valid. We took our
measurements from the Town's GIS + a photo that appears to show a possible bayencroachment of about about 2'-0" from their house. The neighbor measured to afence line that may or may not be on the actual property line.
Thanks, jay
On 1/21/2025 1:19 PM, Maria Chavarin wrote:
Good afternoon:
Attached you will find additional public comment. This comment letter will beadded as an addendum to the public file and provided to the PlanningCommission.
Let me know if you have questions.
Sincerely
Maria Chavarin ● Assistant Planner
Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA95030
EXHIBIT 18
Ph: 408.354.6807 ● mchavarin@LosGatosCA.gov
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOURS:
Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM, Monday – Friday
Phone Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday
All permit submittals are to be done online via our Citizen’s Portal platform.All other services can be completed at the counter. For more information onpermit submittal, resubmittal, and issuance, please visitthe Building and Planning webpages.
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-mailaddress.
P Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-- Jay has moved around the corner in the loft at 16 Lyndon upstairs...
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
From:Jay Plett Architect
To:Maria Chavarin; Erin Walters; Sean Mullin; Jessica Thornberry; Blake
Subject:176 Loma Alta 178 neighbor comparison
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 4:20:05 PM
Attachments:Thornberry neighbor chart with 178.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Maria,
We would like to include this as a desk item - or however best to get in front of the
commission at this point.
Please advise, thanks, Jay
-- Jay has moved around the corner in the loft at 16 Lyndon upstairs...
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
From:Kelly Garton
To:Maria Chavarin
Subject:Re: Neighbor Concerns: 176 Loma Alta Ave. S-24-042
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 7:37:58 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Maria,
I submitted a form but wanted to also send via email just in case —-
I wanted to follow-up from my prior communication expressing concern for 2 trees on my
property () and the placement of upstairs windows.
In addition to adding details related to these concerns, after thoroughly reviewing the availabledocuments and updated plans printed on 14-Jan-2025, I have some additional concerns:
1. Height of structure: On more than one occasion it was shared that the new home would
be “the same height as ours”. After review of the documents this is not true and insteadwill be the highest (30’) home in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally recent (Dec
2024) shadow studies were made available which clearly indicates that due to the highheight of the structure the bordering side of the house is blocking most natural light
from my home and garden for the majority of the day. The height of the structure isintrusive and was not disclosed when the plans were originally shared.
2. Reduced setbacks: These reduced setbacks were brought up as a concern since the plansshow the chimney 3’ away from the property line near an existing set of smaller trees.
Again the reduced setback presents concern for the Chinese elm on our property. Byincreasing the set back this will likely be less impact to the tree’s health and stability.
Furthermore, the chimney will be located under a known partial tree canopy.Additionally, the proposed backyard garage is 3’ away from the property line. Also as
previously pointed out another tree of concern is the large redwood near the propertyline in the back neighboring corner of my lot. Again, if the setback of the proposed
partial subterranean garage were increased to at least 5’ this would give the tree a largerdiameter of undisturbed ground likely leading to less impact. Furthermore, I would like
to point out that part of the provided justification for the reduced setbacks is becauseother properties on the street also have reduced setbacks similar to the proposed
construction. I can’t speak for other homes but the original plans of my home clearlyindicate 5’ setbacks from the property line at both sides of our property and at our back
structure (not 4’6” or 3’ as depicted in the architects drawings). There appears to be nological nor architectural requirement/to support these reduced setbacks and only a desire
to build a larger structure.3. Window placement: I expressed concern about the upstairs window placement due to
master bathroom and master bedroom privacy. There has been no formal documentationon how these concerns will be addressed. Furthermore, in October 2024 only 2 windows
were shown in the design of the first floor facing our property. As of 14-Jan there are 2added windows that appear to be directly across from preexisting windows leading to
my dining room into the kitchen and into the family room. We were not made aware ofthese new changes and have not seen any action to address these privacy concerns.
4.Outside terrace: The justification shared for not having concerns about the masterbedroom terrace was based on the fact that also has one. It is important
EXHIBIT 19
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank