Loading...
Exhibit 23 - Public Comments Received Between 1101 a.m., Tuesday, January 22, 2025 and 1100 a.m., Friday, March 7, 2025From:Lea Zhu To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Lola Alta Support Letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 1:39:32 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Lea Zhu, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuableaddition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance theneighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. Byapproving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EXHIBIT 23 From:ying liang To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 12:02:40 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Ying, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ying From:Ray Clayton To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 4:04:33 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] My wife and I live at . and we have reviewed the plans for this project. We feel that this proposal would benefit Los Gatos because it is a classical Victorian style, whichbest represents the history of our town's development in the late 1800s - early 1900s. So few new examples of this architecture are being built in our town, and it is refreshing to see ayoung couple admire this style. I see very modern architecture creeping into town and altering the "old town feel." We understand that some neighbors are complaining about the size, where their own homesloom over this one. We think this represents a NIMBY slant. If you look at 15 Loma Alta, which was approved by the town, I can't see any reason to deny the plans of 176 Loma Alta. Thank you,Ray & Robin Clayton From:Qian Zheng To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 11:55:05 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Qian Zheng and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the LosGatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal andcontribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all theresidents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Qian From:lisa xiong To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 12:40:30 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Lisa and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Lisa Sent from my iPhone From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:29 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15621 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Jasmine Last Name Ting Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Ave, Los Gatos Message (Required) I'd like to express my support for the 176 Loma Alta proposed design. I am a Monte Sereno resident and have been to that area frequently. The Loma Alta neighborhood is transitioning, with a mixed of old and new properties. The new design will not only add value to the surrounding area, but also keep the old town's charm. The current owners gave considerations to the harmony of the neighborhood appeal and safety of the street. I urge the city to approve the proposed design. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:42 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15622 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Wei Last Name Tan Email Address (Required) t Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Message (Required) Dear Committee, My name is Wei Tan, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 1:23 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15625 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Lulu Last Name Sterling Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 loma alta Message (Required) Dear Committee, My name is Lulu Sterling and I live on I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From:Yu Chen To:Maria Chavarin Subject:PETITION IN SUPPORT OF 176 LOMA ALTA DEVELOPMENT from yu chen Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 4:51:07 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, Please use the updated letter below. To the Los Gatos Planning Committee and Town Officials, My name is Yu Chen, and I reside at . I am writing toexpress my strong support for the proposed development at 176 Loma Alta and to urge theTown to approve this project in a fair and equitable manner. The proposed design aligns with the character of the neighborhood, where many homes havealready been granted similar Exceptions. The homeowners of 176 Loma Alta have madeevery effort to ensure that their design integrates harmoniously with the existing communitywhile also complying with reasonable development guidelines. However, despite these efforts,the project has faced organized opposition, seemingly aimed at blocking a fair and lawfulprocess. It is deeply concerning that a standard that has been applied favorably to others is nowbeing denied in this case. When certain homeowners in the neighborhood benefit fromapprovals while others—especially minorities—face undue obstacles, it raises seriousquestions about fairness, consistency, and equal treatment to any new comer in theneighborhood. Los Gatos should be a community that upholds fairness and inclusivity,rather than one where certain individuals attempt to impose arbitrary barriers todevelopment based on personal bias. Furthermore, the "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) mentality should have no place in LosGatos. Cities grow, evolve, and thrive when fair and reasonable development is encouraged.Homeowners who follow due process and comply with town regulations should not beunfairly denied the same opportunities that others have already received. Selective oppositionto projects that are consistent with existing neighborhood structures only serves toexclude and divide, rather than strengthen our community. If the Town and certain neighbors continue to obstruct the rightful development of thisproperty, the homeowner reserves the right to explore alternative legal development options,including splitting the lot and building two rental townhouses. I strongly believe that none ofthe opposing neighbors would prefer this outcome, as it would bring significant changes to theneighborhood that they themselves are trying to avoid. It is in everyone’s best interest to allowa reasonable, well-designed, and community-conscious project to proceed rather than force analternative that may be less desirable for all parties involved. I urge the Planning Committee to: 1. Ensure zoning laws are applied fairly and consistently – If other similar projectshave been approved in the neighborhood, this one should receive the same consideration.2. Recognize the value this project brings to the community – The design enhances the neighborhood’s character, increases property values, and reflects responsiblehomeownership. 3. Reject exclusionary or unfair opposition – No resident should be unfairly targetedor disadvantaged in the planning process due to their background, less roots in a certain neighborhood or the preferences of a select few. By approving this project, the Town will affirm its commitment to fairness, inclusivity, andequal treatment for all residents of Los Gatos. The future of our town should not bedictated by those who seek to maintain exclusivity at the expense of others. I respectfully request that the Planning Committee approve the 176 Loma Alta proposal andensure that all residents—regardless of background or how much tie they have in the neighborhood—are treated justly in the planning process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Yu Chen From:Rui Shen To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Monday, March 3, 2025 12:52:24 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, My name is Rui Shen, and I reside at After reviewing the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta, I wanted to express my support forthe project. The design is not only visually appealing but also speaks to the owners' clear intent to create adream home, one that will be a beautiful addition to our town. It’s evident that a lot of care,thought, and love have been put into every detail, showcasing their desire to build a placewhere they can live and thrive as part of the Los Gatos community. This home reflects a vision of a meaningful life in our town, and I believe it will not onlyenhance the neighborhood’s charm but also contribute to the overall spirit of the community.The owners’ commitment to creating a home that reflects their dreams and values willundoubtedly add warmth and character to Los Gatos. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rui From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:07 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15636 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Paul Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 162 Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) I live at , which is two doors down from the proposed construction at 176 loma alta. I wanted to ask a few questions about whether new plans that were supposed to address immediate neighbors' concerns actually address them. As I recall from the town meeting I attended, the council listed 3-4 specific concerns to be addressed. One was that the original plans exceed FAR limits prett aggressively. I notice the basement is now intended to be an ADU, and is now under a covered porch, and wondered if that was to technically address some concerns. My questions are: * What is the computed FAR ratio for the original plans and for the new revised plans? * does the basement square footage in the original plan or the new plan contribute to floor square footage in the FAR calculations? * and if so did that status change in any way with the new plans? I realize I may be misunderstanding both the drawings themselves, and/or the building codes, but it seems like they aren't complyng and dont intend to comply. So thank you for any clarification you can make about the above questions. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From:Faye C. Ye To:Maria Chavarin Subject:Support for the Proposed Design at 176 Loma Alta Date:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 8:39:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good evening Maria, My name is Faye, and I live in . While I’m not an immediateneighbor of 176 Loma Alta, I have reviewed the proposed design and wanted to share mysupport as a fellow resident who cares about our community’s character. I believe the design is tasteful and fits well with the surrounding architecture in terms of style,size, and character. The Victorian house would add to the charm of the neighborhood andenhance its overall appeal. I kindly ask the town to reconsider the design and grant the necessary exceptions, as has beendone for other residents. This would reflect a fair approach for everyone in our community. Ilove our town and only wish to see it become an even better place to live. Thank you very much for considering my prospective. Best, Faye Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, As noted in our prior le;er, my husband Ma; and I, along with our two children, have lived in the historic home at for 11 years. We want to thank the Planning Commission and Town Staff for all your work on this process so far, and respecJully submit that the applicants’ latest proposal should be denied like their first, and this Mme without further adjournment. Given the applicants’ failure to make material changes to their plans, all the comments in our previously submi;ed le;er sMll apply. In addiMon, we note the following: FAR: The applicants have completely disregarded the direcMon of the Planning Commission, parMcularly related to the proposed FAR. At the last hearing, the Planning Commission was in agreement that the proposed FAR was too high, and exceeded by too much the FAR allowed by the Town code, parMcularly in the context of our neighborhood. Comments made by three different Commission members, with concurrence from the Commission as a whole, idenMfied the FAR as a problem that needed to be addressed: "This house does not work on this lot"; "Too big of a house, too small of a lot”; and "I can't make the necessary findings to support the applicaMon.” In summarizing the Planning Commission's discussion, the Commission Chair stated: "The biggest problem we've seen from the community members, the Planning Commission, with regards to being able to make the findings, is exceeding the FAR.” Despite this crystal clear direcMon, the applicants have proposed minimal changes to the plan. The only reducMon to FAR is a 23 SF reducMon by reducing the 'nook' dimension by one foot. This is less than a 1% reducMon of the above-ground floor area. This simply cannot be what the Commission had in mind in granMng applicants another chance. In terms of their ability to reduce the excessive above-ground FAR (and alleviate impact on our neighboring property), one addiMonal thing to note is that, contrary to their architect’s asserMon at the last hearing, a second-floor step back would be enMrely consistent with Italianate style, as can be seen on NaMonal Historic Register examples of Italianate residences: h;ps://savingplaces.org/stories/what-is- italianate-architecture and h;ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphus_W._Brower_House. Applicants could have done so (in an effort to comply with Town rule 3.3.2 regarding height and bulk at front and side setbacks), but simply have chosen not to. Privacy and Setbacks: The applicants have similarly disregarded the Commission's direcMon regarding setbacks and privacy impacts. The Commission members stated that privacy concerns could and should be miMgated. Specific direcMon provided by the Commission to the applicants included increasing the side setback (kitchen nook and dining room bump-out), removing the chimney, improving privacy by using clerestory windows in the bathroom and frosted windows in the kids’ bedrooms, and to work with the neighbors on the placement of the window in the stairway so that it would not be looking into someone else's restroom. The applicants have ignored the Commission's direcMon regarding privacy and setbacks apart from the one-foot move of the ‘nook’ and a statement that they would remove the chimney if directed by the Planning Commission. The revised plans do not include modificaMon to the windows. The applicants did not work with the neighbors on the placement of the stairway window. The proposed use of fence and landscaping to address privacy is inadequate. A fence will be too low to screen the view from the new 2nd floor windows into our house. New landscaping, if viable, would take many years to provide any screening, and given the small side yard setback area, is likely not viable. Excessive Height / Drainage: The applicants also have ignored the Planning Commission's comment on the need to address the slope (elevaMon difference) between lots when considering building height. Because of differences in elevaMon, the proposed height will have an even greater impact on the neighboring homes. This has not been evaluated or addressed. As can be seen in the two a;ached photos, our street and the lots around applicants’ property are not flat and do not go downhill in a linear way; to the contrary, some “downhill” lots actually are higher than ostensibly “uphill” ones. Given the excepMons being sought by the applicants, and especially taking these complicaMng factors into account, any further proposals should be required to use story poles so that everyone (including the Commission members) can properly see what the actual impact of the proposed structure would be. This same issue also again raises our previously expressed concern around drainage. Applicants’ architect a;empted to casually dismiss this point at the last hearing by claiming that water does not run uphill, but (even assuming the validity of that unscienMfic asserMon) as the photos show, the direcMon of elevaMon is not so simple on our street. The applicants’ massive basement structure conMnues to pose a threat of water intrusion to our property, which is not addressed by their so far vague drainage plans. Discussions with Neighbors: At the last hearing, the Commission quite explicitly suggested to the applicants that they should listen to their many neighbors who had spoken at the hearing. Despite this, the applicants never reached out to us to discuss the project following the hearing. We actually reached out to them in an a;empt to iniMate a dialogue, and had one meeMng. However, disappoinMngly, we then heard nothing back ager that meeMng, and in fact applicants simply filed their revised proposal without ever discussing it with us. Ager we again reached out to them, we had a final meeMng, in which the applicants merely confirmed they would not make any further changes to their current submission. In other words, they made no a;empt to compromise, accepted no feedback from neighbors (or indeed the Commission), and only even met with us when we requested to do so. As we previously stated, we support the applicants’ ability to build a new house on the site, but it should be designed to be consistent with the Town's design standards and to minimize impacts on the neighboring properMes. However, as designed (and as was the case with the prior plan already denied by the Commission), with greatly excessive FAR, greater than typical height, and substandard side setbacks, the property will significantly impact our privacy and sunlight. The applicant (as stated by Staff) is proposing the largest house on one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood with a FAR much higher than either the Town's standard or other houses. This disproporMonately large house directly causes negaMve impacts to us as the neighbor. The Town Code states that an excepMon, like the one requested here, may only be granted if the proposed project is compaMble with the adjacent home. This project would not be compaMble because of the impact it would cause to our home. Nothing in the applicants’ minimally altered plans changes this conclusion. RespecJully, Ma; and Allison Railo From:Margo Zhao To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Support Letter Date:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:20:28 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Maria, My name is Margo, and I live in . My friend showed me the design of 176 Loma Alta and I think it is a good fit to the existing community. Hope thecommittee can consider the design favorably. Thank you! Margo We ask you to listen to the neighbors and do what is right for the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and dedication to the Town. As a past LGUSD Board Member I know making decisions that affect the public can be challenging. Kim and Phil Couchee From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:30 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15644 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Paul Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 162 Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) I don’t understand why it still is intentionally 420 sq ft above FAR limits. It’s nearly four thousand square feet of living space, and the restrictions on square footage have been in place since long before this lot was bought. the latest iteration of the design is essentially the same as the plans shown to me several months ago. Honestly, i would have recommended to the Thornberrys to just comply with the code if i had realized the plans did not comply from the start. I did pass on this recommendation later in the town council meeting though, and they’ve had a chance to fix that since. 
 I hope they take the opportunity to show good faith towards the neighbors in to reduce above ground mass, and just comply with the FAR limit law. 

 I think the FAR limit was specifically created to head off confrontational and risky plans from being submitted in the first place, to the benefit of all folks involved. I built a house 20 years ago, complied with the FAR law from the start, and have been happy ever since. I hope its not to late for the Thornberrys. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 of 15 pages Setbacks of my home from approved plans; the setbacks of my home continue to be misrepresented on the proposed plans for 176 and therefore should not be used for justification of further reduced setbacks (of any kind): Roof height: Given that story poles were not required for this project, I made a request (also documented in email correspondence at the end of this letter) to clarify how much taller the proposed home would be relative to my home. For example, if I am looking up from my bathroom window, how much higher will the roof line be from my perspective? I did not receive a clarification. Instead, I was continued to be given the height relative to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is gradually sloped between the 2 properties and therefore does not provide an accurate depiction. The sidewalk at the front of my home slopes down approximately 6 inches to a 1 foot across the front of from left to right. With the height of the proposed structure having the maximum height of 30 feet, there is significant concern of the impact on the immediate neighbors regardless of the height shown in the streetscape measured from the sidewalk. Due to the height and mass of the home, the proposed structure would significantly shade my home and property throughout the calendar year, specifically the only 2 windows on the 2nd level (shadow study below with the 2 windows marked by orange boxes). An offer of lowering the height by 6 inches (a reduction of 1.67% of the total height) is clearly not a meaningful change and again as stated in the response letter, 176 does not feel that they should make any height adjustments. The response letter depicts that the height of my home is a "new finding”. Clearly the height of a home completed in 1993 is not new. I shared with the homeowner of 176 that the height of my home is 24 feet during one of the follow-up meetings. In addition to the setbacks of my home, the height was also misrepresented on the original plans. 4 of 15 pages (purple Victorian on the right) is located on a downward slope and is not a relevant height comparison for the proposed home at 176 given the different grade of the lot, location of the home on the lot, separating driveway, and the style/pitch of the roof of ; my home is depicted on the left (gray Traditional/Craftsman): Windows: As documented in the email correspondence provided at the end of this letter, it was stated that a window study would be conducted to better understand how window placement at 176 would affect my home. A window study was not completed and therefore was not shared. My home was built with only 2 windows on the first floor and 2 windows on the second floor facing 176. The windows were placed to purposefully be off-set to the existing windows of 176. From the limited information and estimated placement of the windows, it appears all 4 windows of my home facing 176 will be impacted. On the first floor it impacts privacy into the main living room and kitchen. On the second floor it impacts the windows leading to the master bathroom and master bedroom. The new plan does not denote frosted or obscured glass. Additionally, since the windows of concern for 176 are in the stairwell, it is a high traffic area where there will be light understandably needed during the late evening and early morning. This light will filter directly into our bathroom and bedroom. As it stands, the proposed home at 176 has at least 6 windows in the stairwell alone. Given the height of the proposed structure and proximity of the home this is of significant concern. I would also like to clarify a statement made by the architect at the prior meeting held on 22-Jan-2025 — at no point in time since the original proposed plans for 176 were shared was a window removed or moved on the side facing my home. Th urrent proposed plans have a total of 8 windows facing my home and 12 windows facing . 5 of 15 pages The revised plan proposes 7-foot-tall landscaping as a method to ensure privacy. I would like to note that there previously were several established trees and vegetation along the property line and on the property of 176 that were removed before this project began. In fact, in August 2023, 176 was at risk of losing their fire insurance coverage. At the time the owners at 176 were out of town - my father, previous owner of my home, ensured the tree work was completed and provided pictures so that they could submit to their insurance company to avoid cancellation. In particular, small trees on the property line between my home and 176 were topped and are now stunted to the height of low bushes providing no privacy. As stated by the fire department in their assessment letter (Exhibit A-1) and top of mind for Los Gatos residents, 176, my home and other neighboring homes are considered to be in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Adding any significant landscaping that would provide adequate privacy given the close proximity of the homes is not an adequate nor safe measure given the increasing concern of fire. Email on 25-Jan-2025 from 176 stating a window study would be conducted; the study was never done: FAR: The revised submitted plans from 19-Feb-2025 and 26-Feb-2025 do not clearly list the new FAR. From the information summarized in Exhibit A-1, 176 is requesting a total of 1,581 square feet (SF) (below grade) of the proposed home to be exempt and therefore not considered in the FAR. The intent of below grade/footprint of the main house FAR exemption was to allow for a decrease in mass of the above grade structure. However, the only change made since 22-Jan-2025 that would impact the above grade square footage and therefore the FAR is the removal of 23 square feet (the size of a modest closet) from the first floor. Furthermore, there is a minor expansion of the basement and a relabeling of a prior movie theater/game room to an ADU. To fit the definition of an ADU, a second small bathroom was added to the basement and the previously labeled bar is now a kitchenette. Clearly these additions and label changes do not address the concern of above ground mass brought up by the commissioners and neighbors. Despite the below grade basement not factoring into the FAR, it is important to note that the new FAR of 0.39 is still 420 SF over the allowed FAR of 0.33. Furthermore, the proposed finished livable space of the proposed construction on this 7,435 SF lot is 2,874 (main residence including 1st and 2nd floor), 1,581 SF (FAR exempt basement space which includes a guest room and an ADU) and detached garage of 528.5 SF for a total of 4,983.5 SF of finished structure. In response to the concern of above grade FAR, 176 has responded by not sufficiently decreasing the above grade massing square footage (only by 23 SF) and repurposing the basement to fit within an ADU guideline. My partner and I have remained open to meeting with 176 and the week following the 22- Jan-2025 town meeting we met in-person with 176 on 2 occasions for a total of about 3 hours. After the first meeting, there were listed actions and agreements: (1) window study to address privacy concerns (2) clarity on height of proposed home compared to my home (3) location of drain (full email correspondence is located at the end of this letter and screenshots have been provided in the above section for reference). Since those in-person meetings, 176 did not reach out or follow up on any of the requests. Then a month later, 24-Feb-2025, I refreshed the planning site and saw the resubmitted revised plans for the first time. As summarized and detailed above, none of the concerns were adequately addressed. I followed up with 176 for updates on reports set as action items and was provided no information other than pointed to the already submitted and posted (unshared) plans on the town planning site. There were options on how to navigate neighbor concerns. 176 made the deliberate choice to stop communication, not share, and minimize or ignore concerns clearly stated on several occasions by myself, fellow neighbors and commissioners. In no way were the concerns or questions brought up to 176 inhibiting the construction of a single-family home; there were multiple opportunities to discuss and align on compromises on both sides. 176 made the choice to minimize and, in many instances, dismissed their proposed plan’s impacts on others. A choice was made to disregard reasonable requests. Again, the owners of 176 did not share any proposed drawings or alternate plans before revised plans were resubmitted beginning with the plans dated 19-Feb-2025. Given that none of these plans were shared with us, we did not align nor agree to any of the proposed changes. The revised plan continues to minimize and, in many cases, ignore our remaining concerns that have repeatedly been shared with 176 on several occasions. Instead, as clearly expressed in the owners of 176 response letter, any opportunity for meaningful adjustments have been dismissed. Rules established by the planning commission (setbacks, height, FAR, neighborhood compatibility, etc.) are established to preserve privacy and address safety. Especially given changing state laws, there is a responsibility to not propagate or push the limits of any perceived loopholes, exceptions and maximums in this town. In particular, much of the justification of this proposed home is based on prior homes depicted as exceptions to the rule and, in many cases, inaccurately represented by county/town records. How far will the limits and exceptions keep on being pushed for new construction? It is important to recognize that any approved project could be precedent setting and be used to have a large and lasting impact on existing established neighborhoods. 6 of 15 pages Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] 7 of 15 pages [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback 13 messages Blake Thornberry o homas Valencia Kelly Garton Cc Penguin Hi om & Kelly appreciate you both or taking the time to talk today and providing more eedback on our project Kelly Garton Here are some actions or us to take Conduct a window study to see the relative location o our side-acing windows to understand whether they are located directly across rom each other they are located directly across rom maintaining light intake (examples below) Study whether the height o the house can be reduced any to mitigate shadow concerns Mark the location o the storm drain on our side yard n addition we agreed to the removal o the chimney he proposed structure will now match the existing structure s 5 t setbacks m also going to note in this thread that we ve previously agreed to have an arborist onsite during the excavation o the oundation near the Chinese Elm tree to minimize impact Please let me know i missed anything hanks again or the time and eedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=a…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 1 of 9 Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 2 of 9 8 of 15 pages Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 3 of 9 9 of 15 pages Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback 10 of 15 pages Blake Kelly Garton Mon Jan 27 2025 at 10 09 PM o Blake hornberry Cc homas Valencia Penguin Hi Blake hank you or your time on Saturday - greatly appreciated Also thanks or providing a summary o the main points brought up during this recent discussion A ew additional details below Conduct a window study to see the relative location o our side-acing windows to understand whether they are located directly across rom each other they are located directly across rom each other we can discuss whether it s easible to move the our windows to better o set them not possible we ve previously agreed to install translucent/stained window elements to avoid direct line-o -sight while still maintaining light intake (examples below) Another option that was brought up was to alter the size or height o the windows acing With a window study it will be help ul to better understand how to preserve privacy on both sides Study whether the height o the house can be reduced any to mitigate shadow concerns he di erence in height o our 2 story home (with basement) compared to the proposed structure as discussed is a concern here is a substantial di erence in the height o our home relative to the proposed structure Per our architectural plans the maximum height o is 24' (does not include chimney) and the maximum height o proposed 176 is 30' (not including the decorative widows peak) here ore the maximum height di erence is ~6' he approximate 6' di erence does not account or the downhill grade rom 176 to which would naturally add additional height to the proposed 176 structure Although recognized that the homes across the street are typically taller it is important to note the lot di erences these homes back up to a hillside and the topography slopes down to the street Our concerns pertain to the di erences in height o the new proposed structure compared to the immediate neighboring homes and 178) particularly given the minimum 5' set backs o both and the proposed home at 176 he relative scale o height di erences is shown in the attachment rom the report provided by Cannon Design Group ( is depicted on the right) would like to point out that the request is not to match the height o he request is or reasonable consideration o reducing the overall height in relation to the neighboring structures and there ore minimizing the shading impacts on Mark the location o the storm drain on our side yard We do not have any immediate objections to the proposed drainage on the side yard However we would like to better understand how the side French drain will be shi ted https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 4 of 9 March 6, 2025 Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Support for Revised Plan at 176 Loma Alta Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express my strong support for the revised plans for 176 Loma Alta and to urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposed changes. Blake and Jessica have been exceptional neighbors, making a sincere effort to address concerns raised by the immediate neighbors and modifying their plans accordingly. Their revisions demonstrate a thoughtful and reasonable approach to balancing their own needs with the feedback from the neighborhood. The key adjustments include: 1. Reducing the house height by 6 inches, addressing concerns about massing. 2. Reducing the size of the nook, increasing the setback to 178 Loma Alta. 3. Converting the basement into an ADU, ensuring no further misunderstanding regarding below-grade space and FAR calculations. Notably, the basement never contributed to the massing of the house in the first place. 4. Planting privacy vegetation between 172 Loma Alta to address and mitigate neighbor privacy concerns. These changes are showing a genuine effort to scale back and accommodate feedback. Blake and Jessica have gone above and beyond to work with their neighbors, even as some of those opposing the project reside in homes with similar bulk and mass. It is important to recognize their good-faith efforts rather than impose unreasonable barriers to their project. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to approve the revised plan and allow these considerate homeowners to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ayhan Mutlu (immediate neighbor) From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 4:59 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15646 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Gina Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) General Planning Inquiry Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) Hi Maria and Erin, We live at Loma Alta Ave., two doors down from 176 Loma Alta Ave. I attended the planning commission meeting on 1/22/25. At the end of the meeting the commissioners asked the Thornberry’s at 176 to make several changes. They did not do what was asked of them such as, significantly decrease FAR, chimney, window study/placement, increase setbacks, and overall height. The only thing they did do was find the ADU loophole, which allows them to add 544 sq. ft. by adding a toilet to the basement and turning the bar into a kitchenette. They are still exceeding FAR 420 sq. ft. They knew the lot was nonconforming when they purchased it. We built our home and stayed within all of the rules, never entertaining the thought of trying to break any rules. I’m not understanding what sets them apart from not having to follow the rules put in place by our town. For comparison, our lot size is 8680 sq. ft. and our house is 2652 sq. ft. We maxed out our size, without breaking any rules and having zero conflict with neighbors. The Thornberry’s at 176 have a nonconforming lot size of 7435 sq. ft. and the plans show the house at 2874 sq. ft. The basement is 1581 sq. ft. I do realize that this is not included in the FAR calculations. But, they will have an overall living space of 4455 sq. ft. Why, with this much space on a small, nonconforming lot should they be entitled to an additional 420 sq. ft.? Does this now set a precedent that anyone can break the FAR rules? I’m asking that you hold the Thornberry’s at 176 accountable to the FAR rules like the rest of the town. Thank you for your consideration. Gina Tuckfield Loma Alta Ave. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:23 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15647 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Yifan Last Name Ge Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Avenue Message (Required) The current house at the address is quite old. A new construction would be a great addition to the community, and I believe it will enhance the community’s appeal. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 9:34 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15648 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Gina Last Name Tuckfleld Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) General Planning Inquiry Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) Hi Maria and Erin, I would like to add one more thing to the letter I sent you yesterday regarding the size of 176 Loma Alta Ave. Not only is it excessive in square feet, but the visual appearance of it from the sidewalk is larger than the houses in the area. It is two stories high with a “large fiat roof.” Whereas, the other homes are only one story with a “peak roof” from the sidewalk and the second stories are set back. You can refer to the photos of and Loma Alta that Kelly Garton ) sent you. It is so large that it is impacting the houses ( and ) on each side of it. Thank you, Gina Tuckfleld Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser From: Thomas Valencia Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 8:07 AM To: Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Concerns of Proposed Home at 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, Please see the attached document outlining concerns of the resubmitted plans for 176 Loma Alta Ave. Please confirm receipt of the letter. Best, Tom Valencia Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am a resident of , the house immediately bordering the proposed project at 176 Loma Alta. After the recent town meeting regarding the proposed construction of 176 Loma Alta, the town commissioners requested that 176 Loma Alta find ways to work with the neighbors to address concerns about impacts; however, 176 Loma Alta has chosen to resubmit plans with disregard to the clear and specific concerns reviewed by the commissioners and neighbors. The challenges of the lot at 176 Loma Alta could have been easily reviewed and seen before purchase of the lot. Just as the first plans that were submitted and denied, the revised proposed plans lack the general consideration of building codes, existing conditions, and the impacts on neighboring homes. The revised proposed plans were not shared or aligned with the neighbors on either side ( and ) before resubmission. FAR The total FAR is not clearly stated in the revised plans. The proposed home at 176 remains well over the allowed FAR by 420 square feet. The proposed home is over the allotted FAR even with an exemption of 1,581 square feet of finished basement/ADU space. The recategorizing of the basement section is clearly a deceptive attempt to be allowed more square footage under the appearance of an ADU. The main concern regarding the FAR is the above ground square footage. In response, the applicants are proposing a reduction of 23 square feet on the first level, which accounts for less than 1% of the above ground square footage. This does not adequately address the commissioner’s and neighbors’ concerns about the large mass of the home. Height The proposed height would significantly impact neighboring homes on either side by shading the interior and exterior spaces for several hours a day throughout the year. Loma Alta Ave. is sloped in multiple directions and the height comparison in the plans does not give an accurate view or comparison of what the impacts and height would be when compared from a different location (i.e., side of house, back yard). Of course, a structure regardless of height would naturally shade neighbors. However, the shadows cast by the proposed structure are amplified due to the proximity (reduced setbacks), location of the home on the lot relative to the neighboring homes, substantially higher roof, as well as the high flat shape of the roofline. A reduction of 6 inches (that the applicant doesn’t even want to honor) does not acknowledge the severe impacts on the preexisting homes. Privacy From the beginning of plan development, it was shared with the applicant that there were significant concerns with any windows that could impact the privacy of the master bedroom and bathroom. On multiple occasions the applicants were asked to clarify specifically where the windows would be placed, but there were uncertainties regarding the placement of the windows and structure itself. Despite agreeing to conduct a window study, the applicant never followed up. Placement of the home and features of the home including windows, should be known, and made clear for understanding of impacts on privacy before the home is constructed. There was no study done to assess window placement and there was no proposal to resize, shift or remove a window. The 176 Loma Alta revised proposed plans have made no adjustments to the windows/ placement on the side of the neighboring . The reason stated for this is that the windows are aesthetically meant to be a certain size and placed in specific locations. Throughout the neighborhood, homes have made architectural adjustments to maintain privacy and reduce impacts to privacy between homes. A reduction in the number of windows on the side of a house, high windows and skylights are common methods used to maintain such a sense of privacy. 176 Loma Alta has refused to consider these options. Instead, the applicant left the windows as is with no room for compromise. Vegetation Screen When the applicant purchased the lot there were several mature trees present. The applicant removed several trees including many that were a much taller privacy screen than 7 feet. The proposed 7-foot vegetation screen does not adequately address privacy concerns of the second story windows. Furthermore, with consideration of proximity of homes to each other any plan to plant vegetation directly between the homes poses a fire risk. Chimney The placement of the chimney with a proposed 3-foot 6 inches setback encroaches onto the neighboring property and is near the root system and canopy of a large Chinese elm. Even after the applicant agreed in writing that the chimney would be removed, it remains in the revised plans. Existing Trees of Neighboring Homes The reduced setbacks and placement of structures on the property present concerns for the stability of existing trees on both sides of 176 Loma Alta. Trenching, grading, removal of 25% of a root system and building towards an existing canopy could impact the trees. If the stability and/or health of the trees are compromised, they could potentially become unstable and become a danger during drought or extremely wet/windy seasons. For the proposed home at 176, FAR, height, privacy, and chimney were all specific elements the planning commissioners emphasized as needing to be addressed. In addition, it was also stressed that these concerns should be discussed with the neighbors to find an acceptable way to mitigate impacts. Instead, even after meeting with the applicants and establishing action items, the applicants never followed up with the requested information and never shared revisions prior to resubmission. We have remained supportive of the applicants building a new home and have met with them on several occasions with positive intent. Despite several opportunities to align on compromises on both sides, the neighbors and planning commissioner’s concerns have been greatly dismissed and the evident impacts on others have been ignored. Respectfully, Tom Valencia From: Barbara Gardner Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 6:37 AM To: Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Public Comments S-24-042, 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] To the Los Gatos City Planners and the Los Gatos Planning Commission Re: S-24-042, 176 Loma Alta Ave. I think the Thornberrys are being treated unfairly. Decisions made by Los Gatos city planners and the planning commission are expected to be based on facts and identifiable and objectively measured parameters. They are not expected to be based on emotional pleas concerning items these bodies are not empowered to regulate. The city planners concluded that the proposed setbacks of 176 Loma Alta are compatible with the neighborhood, given the preponderance of non-conforming lots. As the Thornberrys have documented, their proposed setbacks, as well as their overall house size, FAR, height and size of their lot - are all within the range of what neighboring homes have. These are the types of issues the planning commission is empowered to judge. In addition there is widespread sentiment that the proposed home is indeed a lovely one, and in keeping with the neighborhood styles. Neighbors living close to 176 Loma Alta have enjoyed the benefits of living near the smallest house in the neighborhood for many years. They have gotten used to it, and take some of the advantages it has conferred for granted. This is normal, it’s understandable. People often resist change. But it becomes a problem when people feel attached to keeping the benefits of living next door to such a small house, and view it as something they are entitled to. As was detailed in submitted documents, Blake and Jessica reached out to their neighbors last fall, and received endorsements from many, and lack of objection from the others. However, just prior to the first planning commission meeting in January, and unbeknownst to Blake and Jessica, their immediate neighbors made efforts to undermine their prior outreach. The objections largely amount to wanting to deny Blake and Jessica the exceptions for their non-conforming lot that most of their neighbors already enjoy. It is only fair for the city planning process to consider objections for items which are out of line with either building guidelines or precedent. But, when the majority of the other nearby neighbors with non-conforming lots presently enjoy multiple exceptions to current guidelines, then the refusal to grant similar exceptions in this case can easily be construed as biased, and as a non-fact based process that is discriminatory. The Thornberry’s proposal for their home on 176 Loma Alta should be approved. Joan Gardner Member, community-at-large