Exhibit 26 - Public Comments Received Between 1101 a.m., Friday, March 7, and 1100 a.m., Tuesday March 11, 2025EXHIBIT 26
From:
To:Maria Chavarin
Subject:176 Loma Alta Avenue
Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 3:50:19 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Maria,
I live nearby on the opposite side of the alley behind 176 Loma Alta Avenue. While theapplicant has resolved the height and setback violations to my satisfaction, I remain concernedabout the size of the proposed house. As designed, the house exceeds the FAR limit by 17% -a substantial 420 square feet over the allowable limit (allowed 2,454 sqft; proposed 2,874 sqft). To put this in perspective, this excess space is equivalent to two standard bedrooms.
The revised proposal already tries to obscure the size of the overall project by reclassifyingwhat was originally a basement family room as an ADU to take advantage of the ADU squarefootage exemption.
Granting a FAR variance of this magnitude creates a problematic precedent. If the Townpermits such a significant deviation from established standards, future homeowners willinevitably cite this case when requesting their own variances, effectively undermining thepurpose of FAR requirements.
From my personal experience during my own home remodel, the Town enforced FARrequirements with considerable strictness. This project should be held to those same standards.
Jim Lyon
From:Kayla Regulski
To:Planning; Maria Chavarin
Subject:Public Comment Item #2 - 176 Loma Alta Project
Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 9:48:16 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission Committee,
With all due respect to the Applicant, after reviewing the entirety of the plans and correspondences that have taken
place to date, I cannot see how the Town can approve these modified plans as they do not appear to have addressed
the primary adjacent neighbors' concerns. The fact that other properties have been granted exceptions cannot be the
sole argument on which the Applicants are basing their request.
The definition of an exception is to be an anomaly or an outlier. In no way should it be considered a "right". Many
neighbors have gone out of their way to follow the Residential Design Guidelines and ensure their home remodels
comply with standards. The Thornberry's chose to purchase 176 Loma Alta, knowing the lot size and FAR
calculation when they purchased it. The Town is under no obligation to approve an exception request. I cannot see
on what basis they are making their appeal.
The two adjacent neighbors both expressed reasonable concerns that have not been adequately addressed in the new
plans. The side yard setback at the fireplace is still out of spec (3'6" as opposed to 5'), further drainage evaluations
are not mentioned, no windows were modified, and a less than 2% reduction was made to the overall height of the
house. I understand it's not a requirement for this project, but at this stage I would suggest story poles might help all
parties involved better visualize and accurately determine the new design impact.
No one is arguing that the house needs to be re-built and I applaud the Thornberry's for seeking to keep with the
historical Victorian style architecture. I also appreciate the length to which the architect has gathered comparisons
and shared the neighborhood data analysis. But showing complete disregard for your neighbors is exactly what this
forum is meant to help limit and for the Town to fairly arbitrate.
I sincerely hope the Town reinforces the directions they already provided to the applicant as part of the January
22nd hearing which have not been resolved.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kayla Regulski
From: Jo Greiner
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 6:08 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: ReModel at 176 Loma Alto Ave LG
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
We live on and are acquainted with the Thornberry family who are hoping to modheir
home in light of three children and aging parents. They have experienced some very unfriendly,
even ugly criticism by neighbors who object to their remodel. I would hope it is not because of
Jessica’s family being from China as they are a lovely welll deucated young f family full of hope for a
positive experience in our Los Gatos community. We know other families who have left our town
after being totally discouraged by the remodeling process. It would be a shame and loss to Los
Gatos to find yet another fine family too discouraged to remain here. We hope you will strongly
consider accepting the Thornberry’s second proposal so that they can live out their Los Gato’s
dream!
Jo Greiner and Nayan McNeill
From:Chris Juelsgaard
To:Maria Chavarin
Subject:176 Loma Alta Comments
Date:Tuesday, March 11, 2025 8:53:30 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission,
My name is Chris Juelsgaard, and I am the homeowner of , a residence
located near the proposed project at 176 Loma Alta. I am writing today to express my positionagainst the proposed (revised) plans for 176 Loma Alta.
Despite their revisions, the proposed plans still greatly exceed FAR standards as well as
setback and building height requirements. What is the point of having these requirements ifowners can exceed them in such an egregious fashion? The planning commission risks
compromising neighborhood integrity if they begin permitting projects that do not even comeclose to what the Town Codes call for. I call on the Planning Commision to deny the
approval of the plans for 176 Loma Alta until such plans come in alignment with TownCodes.
Kindly note these comments have been sent prior to the 11am, March 11th, 2025 deadline for
public comment.
Sincerely,Chris Juelsgaard
Reference to 176 Loma Alta Avenue Application:
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission,
My wife Julie and I have lived at since 1998 and raised our three children
in this neighborhood. Over the years, we have seen numerous remodels, additions, tear-downs and rebuilds and there have never been any issues. Owners have always been reasonable and respectful of their neighbors with their proposals and their neighbors in return have always been very supportive.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in this instance. The applicants have proposed a house that exceeds the FAR requirements by a very wide margin without any regard for the significant negative impact on their neighbors. In addition, the applicants have refused to engage in any kind of dialogue with their neighbors regarding compromises to their plans or make any
meaningful changes to address the neighbors’ very legitimate concerns.
At the last hearing, these concerns were raised again and again by the applicants’ neighbors, and the Planning Commission wisely and correctly told the applicants that their proposed house would not work and was simply too big for such a small lot. The applicants were then given the
opportunity to work with their neighbors, make changes to address these concerns and come
back with a revised proposal for the Planning Commission to consider. The applicants refused to engage in dialogue with the neighbors to try and find a compromise even though the neighbors reached out to them. The applicants simply informed the neighbors
that they did not plan to make any further changes.
As a result, the next step is quite clear. The applicants were clearly told by the Planning Commission that their application would be denied unless they made appropriate adjustments to their proposal to address the articulated concerns. Yet the applicants made no meaningful
adjustments and are simply back basically trying to push through their original proposal.
This kind of bullying behavior cannot be tolerated. Not only does it violate the Planning Commission’s clear instructions, but it would set a dangerous precedent for future development projects in the neighborhood. If a house that exceeds the FAR requirements by this much were
to get approved in spite of vociferous opposition from neighbors, it would be difficult for the
Planning Commission to enforce the FAR requirements on future projects. Every new project would simply point to this project as support for their own plans. We therefore ask that the Planning Commission follow through on the very clear direction they
gave to the applicants. They were instructed to come back with appropriate changes to their
proposal to address the Planning Commission’s concerns or their application would be denied. They didn’t make any meaningful changes. Their application should therefore be denied with no further adjournment.
Thank you,
Tom and Julie Thomas
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank