Staff Report with Exhibits 20 through 25.176 Loma Alta
PREPARED BY: Maria Chavarin
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/12/2025
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: March 7, 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.
BACKGROUND:
On January 22, 2025, the Planning Commission discussed the item and received public
testimony (Exhibit 20). The Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of March
12, 2025, and provided the following direction to the applicant:
Reduce the floor area ratio (FAR);
Increase the side yard setback at the nook area;
Increase the side yard setback at the dining area;
Increase the side yard setback at the fireplace area;
Use frosted windows or change to clerestory windows at the restroom and children’s room
on the second floor;
Work with the neighbor on the placement of the window at the stairs;
Address privacy; and
Reduce the height of the residence.
Page 15
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
DISCUSSION:
In response to the Planning Commission’s direction, the applicant submitted revised
development plans (Exhibit 25) and a letter detailing the revisions to the project (Exhibit 21). In
addition, the applicant prepared an exhibit supporting their neighborhood analysis in relation
to the proposed project (Exhibit22). A summary of the applicant’s response to the Planning
Commission’s direction follows.
Floor Area Ratio
The applicant reduced the proposed countable square footage and FAR from a total of 3,418
square feet (0.46) to 2,874 square feet (0.39). This is a total reduction of 544 square feet of
countable square footage. The reduction in square footage was achieved through the following
modifications to the project (Exhibit 21 and 24):
Reduction of 23 square feet at the kitchen nook area;
Conversion of 777 square feet of the lower floor into an attached accessory dwelling unit
(ADU). The area of the ADU includes a portion of below grade square footage extending
beyond the building footprint above. Previously, this area was countable toward FAR, but it
is now exempt from FAR since it is an ADU. Consistent with state law, the ADU is not the
subject of this application and is reviewed ministerially through a Building Permit.
The remaining 804 square feet of below grade area that is exempt from FAR includes a
mechanical room that has increased by 76 square feet to serve the attached ADU.
The table below summarizes the revised floor area:
Floor Area Summary
Existing SF Original
Project SF
Revised
Project SF
Allowed
SF
Main Residence
First Floor
Second Floor
Total
Countable Below-Grade Area
Total Countable
Amount over max FAR
996
--
996
--
996
0
1,684.5
1,212.5
2,897
512
3,418
964
1661.5
1,212.5
2,874
0
2,874
420
--
--
--
--
2,454
Below-Grade Area 0 984 804 Exempt
Attached ADU* -- 777 Exempt
Garage 280 529 529 691
**Accessory Dwelling Unit is not a part of the Architecture and Site Application.
Page 16
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
The revised project results in a residence that exceeds the maximum allowable FAR by 420
square feet where the project previously exceeded the maximum allowable FAR by 964 square
feet.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Pursuant to Section 29.40.075 of the Town Code, the maximum FAR for the subject property is
0.33 (2,454 square feet). As detailed above, the applicant has revised their project and the
proposed residence now includes an FAR of 0.39 (2,874 square feet), exceeding the maximum
allowable floor area by 420 square feet. The table below reflects the current conditions of the
homes in the immediate neighborhood:
Revised 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 2,660 325 2,985 8,090 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)
Original Project
R-1:8 3,418 529 3,947 7,435 0.46 2 Yes, by
964 sf
176 Loma Alta Ave (P)
Revised Project
R-1:8 2,874 529 3,403 7,435 0.39 2 Yes by
420 sf
Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in
size from 1,206 square feet to 2,919 square feet. The floor area ratios range from 0.16 to 0.39.
The applicant proposes a 2,874-square foot residence (not including the proposed 777
square-foot attached ADU and 804 square feet of below-grade square footage) and a 529
square-foot detached garage on a 7,435-square foot parcel. The proposed residence would be
the second largest in terms of square footage and tied with two other parcels, for the largest in
terms of FAR in the immediate neighborhood.
Page 17
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
Setbacks
As explained in the applicant’s response letter, the kitchen nook area was reduced in size by 23
square feet, increasing the side setback from the previously proposed four feet to five feet
(Exhibit 20). The applicant has also increased the chimney setback by six inches on the side yard
resulting in a side yard of three feet, six inches, where three feet was previously proposed. The
revised plans also decrease the proposed width of the chimney. The applicant is willing to omit
the chimney should the Planning Commission find it necessary.
Windows
The Planning Commission directed the applicant to use frosted glass or change to clerestory
windows for the restroom and children’s room on the second floor and to work with the
neighbors regarding the placement of windows at the stairwell. The applicant’s response letter
does not address modifications to these windows and no changes have been made from the
previous plans reviewed by Planning Commission on January 22, 2025.
Privacy
To mitigate privacy between the adjacent properties at 172 and 178 Loma Alta Avenue, the
applicant now proposes planting Italian cypress trees along the side property lines to provide
privacy screening (Exhibit 25, Sheet A-1). The proposed trees are expected to be approximately
eight to ten feet tall at the time of planting. Additionally, a new seven-foot tall fence l is
proposed along the property line between the proposed residence and 178 Loma Alta Avenue.
Height
At the Planning Commission hearing of January 22, 2025, following discussion of the
relationship of the height of the proposed residence to the neighboring residences as shown on
the streetscapes included on Sheet A.1-1, the applicant agreed to reduce the overall height of
the proposed residence by six inches. In their response letter, the applicant explains that the
heights for 162 and 172 Loma Alta Avenue depicted in the original streetscape drawings were
found to be inaccurate (Exhibit 21). The applicant indicates that the height of these residences
were remeasured and the streetscapes updated to depict their accurate heights. The applicant
notes that, given the more accurate depiction of building heights in the streetscapes, the six-
inch height reduction is not warranted; however, the height of the proposed residence has
been reduced from 26 feet, six inches relative to the sidewalk, to 26 feet. The maximum height
of the residence when measured pursuant to Town Code was reduced from 29 feet, six inches
to 29 feet (Exhibit 25, Sheet A-7).
Page 18
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Friday, March 7, 2025, are included in Exhibit 23. The applicant’s response to the public
comments is included as Exhibit 24.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant submitted a response letter summarizing the revisions to the project (Exhibit
21), additional neighborhood analysis (Exhibit 22), and revised development plans (Exhibit
25) in response to the Planning Commission’s direction provided at the January 22, 2025,
Planning Commission meeting.
B. Recommendation
Should the Planning Commission determine that the revised project meets the direction
provided by the Planning Commission and find merit with the proposed project, the
Commission can take the actions below to approve the Architecture and Site application:
1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the
adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
(Exhibit 2);
2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030 (e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the findings as required by Section 29.40.075 (c) of the Town Code for granting
approval of an exception to the FAR standards (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code for
modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements
(Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed FAR
standards, for reduced side yard setbacks for a single-family residence, and for reduced
side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure (Exhibit 2);
6. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines
(Exhibit 2);
7. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
8. Approve Architecture and Site application S-24-042 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 25.
Page 19
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
Previously distributed with the January 22, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Letter of Justification
5. Colors and Materials
6. Town’s Consulting Architect
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect
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 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025
12. Property Owner’s Response to Public Comment
13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach Summary
14. Architect’s Response to Public Comment
15. Development Plans
Previously received with the January 22, 2025, Addendum Item Report:
16. Applicant’s Summary of Neighborhood Outreach and Response Letters
17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Previously received with the January 22, 2025, Desk Item Report:
18. Correspondence Provided by the Project Architect
19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
Received with this Staff Report:
20. January 22, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
21. Applicant’s Response Letter
22. Neighborhood Analysis Exhibit by Applicant
Page 20
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042
DATE: March 7, 2025
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp
23. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, and 11:00
a.m., Friday, March 7, 2025
24. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments
25. Revised Development Plans
Page 21
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 22
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2025
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Wednesday, January 22, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emily Thomas, Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett,
Commissioner Susan Burnett, Commissioner Steve Raspe, Commissioner Rob Stump
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
John Shepardson
-With respect to parklets in Town, particularly on North Santa Cruz Avenue, I am concerned
that so many cars go through there at well over 15 miles per hours and there are only
green plastic barriers to protect people. My suggestion would be one or two steel barriers
in front of the parklets. I would like to see more roundabouts in Town explored. I would
also like to explore something other than plastic barriers to protect bike lanes. I’d like to
see the Los Gatos High School track open more in the evenings or early morning for the
community. I suggest paying the Town Council members significantly, at least $75K or
more, because it is probably a full-time job and this salary would open the pool of talent
that could serve on the Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.228 Bachman Avenue
Request for Review Application PHST-24-017
APN 510-14-053
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: James Wood
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision determining that
the residence remain a contributor to the Historic District for property located in the
EXHIBIT 20Page 23
PAGE 2 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
Almond Grove Historic District zoned O:LHP. Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(3).
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
James Wood, Applicant/Appellant
-The decision of the HPC has put 228 Bachman at a dead end, and the Planning
Commission’s decision tonight will either enshrine a blight on this community that may
never be erased, or it will allow a practical, community-supported solution to this problem.
I would like to introduce Marvin Bamberg who has done the historical analysis.
Marvin Bamberg
-Our report addressed the five elements necessary for this determination and found them
to be not relevant to this house. The current designation of “contributing” is due to a 1990
historic survey that called the house, “Historic and some altered, but still a contributor to
the district if there is one,” however, this survey is incorrect and did not advance beyond a
few minutes of documenting the structure from the street. Our research has provided
more information that confirms that the survey’s interpretation of the house being, “a
potential contributing structure,” is incorrect. For a property to be a contributing structure
it must be architecturally compatible and developed in the period of significance; our
analysis of the building concludes it is incompatible with the architecture prevalent in the
district and should be categorized as Minimalist Spanish Revival rather than
Mediterranean. In January 2004, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee stated the
house siding was probably originally wood and was replaced with stucco, which would not
be allowed today.
Terry McElroy
-This house is an anomaly in this historic district. The house is not associated with any
significant events contributing to the Town; no significant persons are associated with this
site; there are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction; the
structure does not yield information to the Town history; the integrity has been
compromised with additions; and the original siding is gone. This property is ineligible for
inclusion in the Town register or the Town heritage resource and is not a historical resource
as defined by the Town Code.
James Wood, Applicant/Appellant
-Without a doubt this property is bringing down the property values of every other house in
the neighborhood and is a commercial property that has been abandoned for 20 years. We
bought the property with the intention of building a home we could live in. All the
surrounding neighbors support this building being demolished and another being built to
Page 24
PAGE 3 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
bring consistency in the neighborhood and to preserve the property values of the
community.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Barnett to grant an appeal of a Community
Development Director Decision for 228 Bachman Avenue. Seconded by
Vice Chair Burch.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
2.176 Loma Alta Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-24-042
APN 532-28-031
Applicant: Jay Plett
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.
Project Planner: Maria Chavarin
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. Categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Maria Chavarin, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Jay Plett/Applicant
-Sheet A-1.1 illustrates the house height is 26.5 feet from the street, not 30 feet, relative to
the neighbors. The 3-foot setback is for a chimney. The house itself is a 5-foot setback, not
3 feet. The parcel is nonconforming in terms of area, width, and irregular shape. An arborist
has looked at the trees and we dug a trench exposing redwood roots on the property. The
trees were struggling due to drought, so we pushed the basement down the hill under the
veranda as a precaution and that portion meets the definition of “below grade space.” If
the basement were all the way under the house, it would not count in square footage and
Page 25
PAGE 4 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
the mass, bulk, and appearance of the structure would not change. The staff report uses
Town records, but not county records, which we believe should carry equal weight,
because they can be more accurate in some instances.
Ion Mutlu (phonetic)
- I live at 177 Loma Alta Avenue, across from the subject site and fully support the
applicants’ plans to build their new home. The design complements existing architecture in
the neighborhood with a fresh and thoughtful vision. Loma Alta Avenue contains a variety
of structures, and this house would be a great addition. The applicants have shared their
plans and have been willing to compromise with their neighbors. The house size is
comparable to others in the immediate neighborhood. This is also not the highest home in
the neighborhood, because mine is higher.
Alison Railo
- I live next door at 178 Loma Alta. We support the staff’s conclusion that this building is far
to large for the lot and agree with their recommendation to deny the application. With
greater than typical height and substandard setbacks this building would significantly
impact our privacy and sunlight and is not compatible with the neighborhood. The
applicants did not offer any compromises or modifications. We request the side yard
setbacks be increased, the total FAR be reduced, and second floor stepbacks be created to
ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties.
Tom Valencia
- I am the partner to Kelly Garton at 172 Loma Alta. Our concerns are like the neighbors at
178 Loma Alta, that the height would cause the structure to shade our house for most of
the day and many months of the year; and a lack of privacy in the upstairs bedroom and
master bathroom because of the reduced setbacks. We understand things will change with
new construction, but we want the changes made with the community in mind and our
privacy preserved.
Ron Eng
- I live at 175 Loma Alta. We support the structure, but the setback is a concern. I echo the
comments of the other speakers regarding floor area ratio and height. Setbacks are there
for safety and privacy and reducing them would be ignoring the guidelines. I hope the
applicants will address the privacy concerns with perhaps frosted glass or smaller windows,
or skylights if lighting is an issue.
Phil Couchee
- I live at 16900 Cypress Way, about a quarter mile away. I support my neighbors and their
concerns. The Planning Commission must listen to the neighbors most affected, and privacy
must be considered. This is new construction that can be designed however the Planning
Commission decides to make accommodations to the neighbors. I urge the Planning
Commission to require the new construction to have larger setbacks.
Page 26
PAGE 5 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
Paul Tuckfield
- I live at 162 Loma Alta, two doors down from the subject site. I hope this project can be
modified to get closer or even within the guidelines for FAR and setbacks, although it is a
difficult lot to build on. I saw a front elevation rendering and I think it would be a pretty
house with great curb appeal, but it will be a big house that may decrease the value of the
homes next door.
Julie Thomas
- We have lived at 180 Loma Alta since 1998. Our main concern is the plans for the house do
not meet the standard FAR guidelines; it is quite a bit larger, making the home
incompatible with the neighborhood and the house sizes existing.
Gina Tuckfield
- I agree with the front setback of the proposed home, because all the houses face the front
and are close to the sidewalk. The subject lot is small, and the way the applicants are trying
to get wider setbacks is unfair to the neighbors. The applicants have stated that the setback
between our house and the house on the side away from them is 3 feet, and it is 8 feet;
they are using that as an excuse to have smaller setbacks, but it is not accurate. The house
itself is cute, but it is a massive two-story home that does not mirror other houses in the
vicinity with the second story being stepped back. Exceeding the maximum floor area ratio
by 984 square feet is a lot.
Matt Railo
- I reside at 178 Loma Alta, next door to the subject site and the applicants compared their
proposed home size to our house size. Our living area is not 1,300 square feet, it is 2,600
square feet, but our lot size is larger, so any suggestion that our FAR is comparable to what
is proposed is inaccurate. The proposal is to build a larger house on a smaller lot, and that
is the root of our concerns. Shade studies demonstrate a detrimental impact on both sides
of the proposed home, especially later in the day, but the shade stops at 3:00 pm and
should be extended to 5:00 pm to reflect the spring and summer months. Story poles could
allow everyone to see how these proposed plans would impact them. We support staff’s
conclusion to deny the project based on the house size.
Jay Plett/Applicant
- We are building on a difficult lot that is half the width of the 162 Loma Alta lot. The
setbacks we propose are much more compliant with required setbacks than most of the
houses in the immediate neighborhood. All the neighbors look at each other’s homes and
the applicants want privacy as much as their neighbors. There will be window coverings on
the upstairs windows, but they could be frosted if the Planning Commission deems it
necessary. The issue that is pushing the house so far over the FAR is the fact that a portion
of the basement that meets the rules for a basement happens to be under the porched
veranda and not under the house due to the neighboring trees. The applicants have
Page 27
PAGE 6 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
worked with the 172 Loma Alta neighbors and agreed to eliminate an upstairs window that
looks into their bedroom, our arborist would be onsite when installing the foundation, and
the foundation would be hand dug next to their tree. All the homes cast shadows on other
homes in the neighborhood. Many houses in the neighborhood also have a full two-story
façade with a tall gable, so the proposed home would not be the only one. Additionally, our
home is broken up with the front porch. The Town’s consulting architect Larry Cannon
found our design perfectly acceptable for the neighborhood and had no qualms about the
height. Mr. Cannon’s only suggestion was to move the porch back, which we did, and we
dealt with his issue with the column on the back veranda. Mr. Cannon was in favor of this
project.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
Commissioners asked a question of the applicant.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Burch to continue the public hearing for 176 Loma
Alta Avenue to a date certain of March 12, 2025. Seconded by
Commissioner Raspe.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
3. 220 Belgatos Road
Subdivision Application M-24-011
APN 527-25-005
Applicant: Robson Homes, LLC.
Appellant: Mary Cangemi
Property Owner: Union School District
Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman
Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee decision approving a
subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:10. Categorically exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions.
Jocelyn Shoopman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Page 28
PAGE 7 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
John Shepardson, Appellant
- I am an attorney representing property owner Mary Cangemi. This slide shows the
Government Code section that says the zoning and General Plan must be consistent. This
slide shows the old Mirassou Elementary School site designated as public land by the
General Plan, and this slide shows the same site designated by zoning as residential. The
law says they must be consistent, but they are not in that school or any school in Los Gatos.
The law also says when there is a conflict the General Plan takes precedence over the
zoning, so we’re doing a lot split on a property that has zoning that is trumped by the
General Plan. The zoning there does not apply to this decision making and the lot split itself
violates the General Plan, because it is a public space and our General Plan promotes
acquiring and developing more publicly accessible recreational spaces. It is in the General
Plan to promote and purchase these kinds of lands, and this project would destroy it,
because it would split this school for the clear intent to develop homes by taking away the
recreational area. This lot split itself violates the General Plan, and that is a serious problem
here and throughout the Town.
Jack Robson, Applicant
- The purpose of our application was to do a two-lot subdivision; there is no proposed
development, construction, or change in use. The property would remain the same besides
it being two lots instead of one. Town staff has confirmed we met all the requirements to
create that lot. With respect to the Appellant’s comments related to a change of use or the
General Plan conformance, we are not trying to modify any of that in this application.
Because there is no proposed development or construction in this project, we feel the
requirements related to asphalt repair and replacement and sidewalk repair and
replacement on Belgatos Road and Belvue Drive do not belong in this application, because
we are simply creating a legal lot split; those conditions of approval should be addressed
later when we make an Architecture and Site application. We agree to the repairs and
restoration of the sidewalk on Belgatos Road subject to us pulling a Building Permit, but
once again, a Building Permit is subject to an application being approved. We’re just trying
to recognize that the staff’s concern is related to improvements happening on both parcels,
although a future application may be on one of them. Related to asphalt repairs, the
language would be for us to come to an agreement prior to pulling a final Parcel Map. We
recognize the need to extend the sidewalk along Belvue Drive, and we are okay with that
extension and we would address it when or if an application for development is approved.
Rich Dobner
- I’ve lived in the Belwood neighborhood for 22 years. We have formed a group called the
Preserve Belwood Neighborhood Association and have had people such as the school
board and the Robson team to talk at community meetings. We have shared our input with
the school regarding the possible development if the property is sold. So far everything is
fine and we have no consternation around a split property.
Page 29
PAGE 8 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
Steve Daniel
- I have lived at 235 Belgatos for twenty years. I was on the original Preserve Belwood
Committee with Mr. Dobner and tried to help the process of putting the project together
and how it fit into the neighborhood. We support the project, but the latest design, while
vastly improved, feels like a direct hit to us. The private road that comes off onto Belgatos
will bisect our property and be directly across the street from our house. We are concerned
about lights coming into our living room and master bedroom, a significant increase in
street lighting, and traffic entering and exiting that driveway and parked in the road during
construction. We are the most impacted of all the houses in the neighborhood. We are
working with Jack Robson to find ways to lessen the impact on our house, and he has
committed to working with his engineering team to look at alternatives.
Jack Robson, Applicant
- I just want to reiterate that this is a two-lot subdivision. There is no proposed change of
use. There is no development in front of the Planning Commission. That time will come
when we make a formal application, and we look forward to addressing the community
and staff concerns at that time. We are active with neighborhood outreach and will remain
committed to that. I would like to recognize a letter from the school district that reiterates
what I am telling you, that the application being appealed is for a two-lot subdivision with
no proposed change of use.
John Shepardson, Appellant
- These are also grass fields; there’s an issue with turf and AstroTurf. Secondly, the Union
School District avoided the Naylor Act with the property exchange. My goal would be to
have them comply with the Naylor Act and offer that land to the Town at no more than
25% of the fair market value, so the Town could buy the land and ultimately the school and
perhaps have a community center. The very fact that we’re having a lot split on zoning that
is inapplicable because it is inconsistent with the General Plan, so we just have the General
Plan, and now why are we doing a lot split on public land? It is being brought by the
developer with the clear intent to develop it out. I’m not sure if the lot split is even legal,
because you’re doing a subdivision on zoning that is trumped by the General Plan, but you
are doing a lot split on public land, and so it violates the General Plan that talks about
acquiring recreational areas and it is undisputed that we would lose these fields forever.
We are talking about sidewalks and already moving in a direction of developing out that lot
at this stage, so it violates the General Plan. Where does the General Plan support a lot split
on public land? This is a larger issue in Town, because all the schools are zoned residential
and that must be cleaned up.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
Page 30
PAGE 9 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to continue the public hearing for 220
Belgatos Avenue to a date certain of February 12, 2025. Seconded by
Commissioner Barnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
•Town Council met on January 21, 2025 and considered three items:
o Adoption of a resolution for the National Avenue appeal of a Planning
Commission decision. The item will come back to the Planning Commission.
o Two Housing Element implementation programs were adopted and/or
introduced.
o The Oak Meadow PD amendment, an Architecture and Site, and Subdivision
application that the Planning Commission saw previously was approved.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
Historic Preservation Committee
Commissioner Burnett
-The HPC met on January 22, 2025:
o Considered two items, both of which were decided unanimously.
o Lee Quintana was elected as the new Chair of the HPC. Martha Queiroz was elected
Vice Chair. Alan Feinberg is the new member, and Planning Commission Chair Emily
Thomas is the new Commission member.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
January 22, 2025 meeting as approved by the
Planning Commission.
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin
Page 31
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 32
Thornberry
176 Loma alta avenue
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
REVISIONS TO PLANS PER PLANNING COMMISSION:
1.THE NOOK HAS BEEN MOVED AWAY FROM 178 BY 1'-0",
GIVING THE STRUCTURE A 5'-0” SETBACK FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE.
THE NOOK HAS ALSO BEEN MOVED 1'-0" BACK,
INCREASING THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
2.THIS HAS RESULTED IN A SMALLER NOOK SPACE,
REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA BY 23sf.
3.THE CHIMNEY HAS BEEN MOVED AWAY FROM 172 BY 6”
AND ITS WIDTH REDUCED. THIS SMALL PORTION COMPRISES
ONLY 10% OR LESS OF THE ENTIRE WALL LENGTH ADJACENT
TO 172. WE BELIEVE THIS chimney SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT AND BE ENTIRELY EXCLUDED
FROM THE SETBACK MEASUREMENT.
if the commission believes the chimney should be
eliminated, we will do so.
4.MEASUREMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORING BUIDING HEIGHTS
WERE CHECKED FOR ACCURACY. 172 AND 162 WERE FOUND
TO ACTUALLY BE HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DEPICTION.
THE STREETSCAPE HAS BEEN REVISED ACCORDINGLY. WE
HAVE OFFERED TO REDUCE THE HOMES HEIGHT BY 6”, BUT
IN LIGHT OF THE NEW FINDINGS, WE BELIEVE A 6” REDUCTION
IS NOT Warranted.
5.WE HAVE PROPOSED PRIVACY LANDSCAPE SCREENING
AND APPRORIATE FENCING BETWEEN BOTH 172 AND 178 TO
MITIGATE ANY PRIVACY CONCERNS. this solution has
been utilized successfully numerous time by the
planning commission and or staff on prior
projects.
6.neighbor outreach was conducted between the
parties - see thornberry (176) response.
EXHIBIT 21Page 33
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
176 Loma Alta | Appendix
Neighborhood Data
Address
Lot Information Floor-Area Ratio Residential Setback Height
Type Conforming Frontage (ft)Residential SF Lot SF Allowable FAR Residential
FAR
Delta to
Allowable FAR
Delta to
Allowable SF
Left Right Average Conforming Street Natural Grade
156 Loma Alta R-1:10 Yes 100 3,510.0 14,000.0 0.280 0.251 -0.029 -410 9.0 18.0 13.5 No 26.5 28.7
116 Alta Heights R-1:8 No n/a 1,933.0 6,620.0 0.340 0.292 -0.048 -318 n/a 5.0 5.0 No 24.7 24.7
161 Loma Alta R-1:8 Yes 65.03 2,631.4 8,712.0 0.320 0.302 -0.018 -156 12.0 11.0 11.5 Yes 27.8 29.0
162 Loma Alta R-1:8 Yes 62 2,652.0 8,680.0 0.320 0.306 -0.014 -126 14.0 8.0 11.0 Yes 30.0 32.3
172 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,532.0 7,039.0 0.330 0.360 0.030 209 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 24.0 28.0
175 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 55.6 2,357.0 5,560.0 0.350 0.424 0.074 411 11.0 n/a 11.0 Yes 25.9 28.0
177 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 51.09 3,018.0 6,640.0 0.340 0.455 0.115 760 10.0 4.0 7.0 No 28.5 28.5
178 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 3,260.8 8,033.0 0.330 0.406 0.076 610 4.5 4.8 4.6 No 22.5 28.0
179 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,919.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.389 0.059 444 3.2 16.0 9.6 No 26.0 26.0
180 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,605.0 7,962.0 0.330 0.327 -0.003 -22 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 25.5 30.0
185 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 1,206.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.161 -0.169 -1,269 6.0 9.0 7.5 No 13.5 13.5
187 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,372.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.316 -0.014 -103 7.0 6.5 6.8 No 29.5 27.6
188 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 44.95 3,229.3 7,081.0 0.330 0.456 0.126 893 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 29.4 29.4
190 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 44.95 2,991.0 7,041.0 0.330 0.425 0.095 667 8.3 8.7 8.5 Yes 23.5 23.5
191 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 1,989.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.265 -0.065 -486 10.0 10.5 10.3 Yes 32.0 25.1
176 Loma Alta (E)R-1:8 No 38 996.0 7,440.0 0.330 0.134 -0.196 -1,459 8.0 5.0 6.5 No 14.0 15.0
176 Loma Alta (P)R-1:8 No 38 2,874.0 7,440.0 0.330 0.386 0.056 419 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 26.0 29.5
Priority Data Key
1 Santa Clara County Assessor’s Map
1 Public Construction Documents
2 Licensed Surveyor
3 Hand Measure (see detail next slide)
4 Los Gatos ArcGIS website
Page 45
Page 46
From: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
Page 47
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
Page 48
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
Page 49
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
Page 50
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
Page 51
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.
Page 52
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.
Page 53
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.
Page 54
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
Page 55
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
Page 56
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
Page 57
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?
Page 58
* 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.
Page 59
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
Page 60
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.
Page 61
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.
Page 62
RespecJully,
Ma; and Allison Railo
Page 63
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
Page 64
Page 65
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
Page 66
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.
Page 67
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.
Page 68
Page 69
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.
Page 70
Page 71
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 .
Page 72
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:
Page 73
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
Page 74
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
Page 75
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
Page 76
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
Page 77
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
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
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)
Page 84
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.
Page 85
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.
Page 86
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.
Page 87
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.
Page 88
Thank you,
Gina Tuckfleld
Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser
Page 89
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
Page 90
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
Page 91
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
Page 92
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.
Page 93
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
Page 94
176 Loma Alta Proposal
Response from Blake & Jessica Thornberry
3/7/2025
Please find the following attached below:
1)Neighborhood Outreach History
2)General Response to Public Comment
•House Size & FAR
•FAR Comparison to Adjacent Neighbors
•Setbacks
•Privacy
Page of 1 8 EXHIBIT 24
Page 95
1) Neighborhood Outreach History
We met with staff numerous times for guidance in the design of this project and to gain
understanding of town design guidelines and policy.
After our initial design was submitted, per Town policy, we met with the neighbors as
directed to explain the project. We were met with objection from but no specific
objections were articulated by them.
All of the other immediate neighbors gave us there approval. asked that an arborist
be present during construction to help protect their front yard tree it was agreed the
stairwell windows may or may not need to be obscured at time of framing. We readily
agreed with their requests and to move forward.
The planning commission gave direction for us and to consult with staff as directed to
revise our plans accordingly.
The Town deadline for our submittal was Feb 26.
Prior to the deadline to submit, on Monday, February 24, we requested of the
neighbors at and (the neighbors on each side) to meet and review. The
neighbors told us they were unable to meet until March 2 as was going on
vacation. We offered to meet immediately, but were told they did not have the time and
it would need to wait upon their return March 2.
We submitted revised plans to Town on end of day Weds Feb 26.
Staff contacted us for some clarifications on the following
Thursday and Friday, the 27th and 28th.
We reached immediately on Mar 2 to and to meet and then met at end
of day.
The neighbors indicated they reviewed the plans on line and and were not satisfied. We
had plans available at the meeting, but they offered no constructive thoughts nor
wanted to review the plans together with us. – only they were still not happy. With every
iteration with the neighbors at , they kept moving the goal posts of demands.
There is no need to to do a window study as we are proposing to plant a dense privacy
hedge between our house and both and .
On Thursday, March 6, we received at end of day letters of objection from staff the
neighbors sent in at the last minute. The deadline for us to respond and for the
response to be included in the staff report was next day Friday the 7th at 11am ( this
letter).
Page of 2 8
Page 96
Page 97
We believe this project clearly fits within the average and median of the neighborhood
in terms of height, size, setbacks, and complies in every way with the Town's design
guidelines for non-conforming lots.
makes an issue that they complied with setbacks – of course they did – they're lot
is in a state of over-compliance – the lot meets and exceeds the zoning requirements.
There bis no issue here.
Page of 4 8
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Based on the existing setbacks our neighbors enjoy relative to our property, it is
unreasonable for them to object to anything greater-than-or-equal-to 5’-0”.
Our setback with is 5’-0” — with the exception of a chimney that we’ve made
smaller in the latest revision. If the planning commission wishes us to remove the
chimney, we can.
Our setback with is also 5’-0”. In the latest revision we reduced the size of the
nook to match the 5’-0” setback nominally enjoys with our property — despite
the fact that their surveyed setback is only 4”-6’.
The second-story setback with 178 is 9’-6”.
Privacy
We share a mutual and natural desire for privacy with our neighbors. We’ve offered
to provide landscaping privacy and fencing, which is better than the existing
condition today.
Currently, Loma Alta has a two-story house with unobstructed views of our
property and dwelling. (see photo below)
Loma Alta has a large side window 4’6” from the property that looks into our
property and dwelling. (see photo below)
Both and were constructed decades after our existing dwelling. Minimal
consideration for privacy was given during their construction. With our proposal,
we seek to improve the privacy situation for all. (see diagrams below)
Page of 7 8
View of from backyard of 176 View of from side yard of 176
Page 101
Page of 8 8
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118