Loading...
Item 2 - Addendum with Exhibits 26 and 27.176 Loma Alta Ave PREPARED BY: Maria Chavarin Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 3/12/2025 ITEM NO: 2 ADDENDUM DATE: March 11, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence, Construct a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, Construct an Accessory Structure with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on a Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 176 Loma Alta Avenue. APN 532-28-031. Architecture and Site Application S-24-042. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner: The Thornberry 2021 Revocable Trust dated November 4, 2021, and The Donald S. Thornberry and Barbara J. Gardner Revocable Living Trust dated December 21, 2010. Applicant: Jay Plett. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin. REMARKS: Exhibit 26 includes additional public comments and Exhibit 27 includes a summary of the applicant’s neighborhood outreach. All documents were received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 7, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 11, 2025. 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 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/ S-24-042 DATE: March 11, 2025 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 March 12, Staff Report: 20. January 22, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 21. Applicant’s Response Letter 22. Neighborhood Analysis Exhibit by Applicant 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 Exhibits Received with this Addendum Report: 26. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 7, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 11, 2025 27. Applicant's Summary of Neighbor Outreach EXHIBIT 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 To: Planning Commission From: Blake and Jessica Thornberry – 176 Loma Alta Immediate neighbors outreach history We want to document our outreach efforts to the neighbors, particularly and Loma Alta, regarding our project. We’ve met with them multiple times to review our plans, but despite our efforts to address their concerns, there has been little constructive dialogue in return. Timeline of key events: •August 2024: We filed the plan. •October 2024: Plan finalized, we began showing neighbors andobtained 10 signatures of no objection.•Outreach with 178 Loma Alta: ◦10/7/2024: Met with Allison Railo to review plans. She declinedto sign the no-objection statement. ◦10/11/2024: Allison sent objections in a letter via text, but without constructive feedback. ◦10/15/2024: the same letter was sent to the town despite their verbiage of trying to “solve this between neighbors”. ◦11/3/2024: We held a FaceTime conversation with Allison andMatt Railo trying to address their concerns, but no specificcounter-proposals were offered. When asked “what do youwant us to change?”, the feedback we got was “You guys arethe ones with architectural resources, so you need to come upwith something we like”. ◦11/6/2024: We formally responded, stating we couldn’t modify our proposal further without actionable feedback. ◦1/22/2025 Planning Commission: Five neighbors who previously signed the no-objection statement reversed their position at the Planning Commission meeting without prior notice to us. When we arrived at the meeting, we thought theywere there to support us, but instead they shocked us withopposition. ◦2/7/2025: Discussion happened again between Matt and Blakeover a beer at Out of the Barrel, where it was directly EXHIBIT 27 This Page Intentionally Left Blank