Loading...
Item 2 - Desk Item with Exhibits 28 and 29.176 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 DESK ITEM 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 28 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, March 11, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2025. A code compliance case was opened on March 11, 2025, after receiving concerns about trees removed from the project site. The code compliance case is an ongoing investigation by the Town’s Code compliance Officer and is not affiliated with this Architecture and Site application. Exhibit 29 is an opening statement that will be presented at the public hearing by the property owner. PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 12, 2025 EXHIBITS: Exhibits previously received 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 Board 6. Consulting Architect Report 7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect Report 8. Survey with Setbacks of Adjacent Residences 9. Arborist Report by Bo Firestone & Gardens 10. Peer Review Letter by Town’s Consulting Arborist 11. Public Comments Received Prior to 1100 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025 12. Property Owner’s Response to Public Comment 13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach Summary 14. Applicant’s Response to Public Comment 15. Development Plans Exhibits previously received with the January 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, 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., Tuesday, January 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025 Previously received with the March 12, 2025, 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 the March 12, 2025, Addendum Item 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 PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 12, 2025 Exhibits Received with this Desk Item Report: 28. Public Comment Received between 1101 a.m., Tuesday, March 11 and 1100 am, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 29. Opening Statement by property owner. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:18 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15672 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) Message (Required) Hi Maria, Please disregard the letter I just sent as an attachment at 11:02 this morning. I'm resending the letter in this format to make sure it is received. Sorry, for any inconvenience. I noticed on page 101 of the packet they took a picture of the windows at next to them stating minimum considered for privacy. Maybe that’s because they removed many trees that were blocking the windows. These windows are small and the majority face the back alley. The other two face their own master bedroom and bathroom. They cut down at least 8 trees in November 2023 and June 24, 2024. It is illegal to cut down trees during bird nesting season February 1-Aug 31 due to the California Fish & Game and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is also illegal to cut down trees without first getting a permit from the town arborist. No permits were pulled for removal of these trees. EXHIBIT 28 The proposed project at 176 includes stairwell windows that provide a view of their neighbors master bedroom and bathroom. At the last meeting the architect had the opportunity to speak lastly. He said that my house had a much wider lot than 176. I’m not sure what his point was but I don’t think it’s a justification that they should be able to exceed FAR by 420 SF. They knew the size of this nonconforming lot when they purchased it. For comparison my lot, is 8680 SF. My house is 2652 SF, because I followed all of the rules during the planning. Their nonconforming lot is 7345 SF and the proposed plans are 2874 SF. Basically, Our lot is larger, yet they want to build a house bigger that does not follow the building rules. I know the basement does not count towards FAR but with their basement they will have 4450 SF of living space. Why are they entitled to an extra 420 SF? Especially, when the mass of the proposed home is significantly impacting their immediate neighbors. Does this mean that moving forward this will set a precedence that we no longer have to follow the FAR laws in place? I am asking that the Thornberry’s be held accountable to following the FAR laws today just like the rest of us complied to when building our homes. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. COPY OF OPENING STATEMENT BY JESSICA THORNBERRY For the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Jessica Thornberry, and along with my spouse, Blake, we are the owners of this property. I understand there have been some misunderstandings in the public comments regarding our proposal, so today, I would like to walk you through our design compatibility study and let the data speak for itself. •This first slide shows an aerial view of our neighborhood, where we based our study on 16 homes in the immediate area. As you can see, the lots in thisneighborhood are long and narrow, and they are located in close proximity toeach other. •One of the primary concerns we’ve heard is regarding our Floor Area Ratio,or FAR. This chart compares the current FAR, our proposed FAR, and theFARs of the surrounding homes. The blue dot represents our current FAR,which is significantly smaller than the homes around us. The green dotsrepresent our proposed FAR, which has been reduced to 0.386. After thisadjustment, our house falls in line with the neighborhood average in keymetrics such as residential square footage, FAR, and delta to guidance. Infact, our proposed FAR ranks 7th out of 16 homes, placing us almost exactlyat the median. This addresses the concern that our house is too large for the lot size. In reality, our lot size and house size are both quite average when compared to the neighborhood. The key takeaway here is that we are moving from the smallest house on the block to one that is more in line with the neighborhood’s average. •Next, let's discuss the rear projection of our house in comparison to the neighbors. This image highlights that despite the narrow lot, the rear projection of our home is consistent with what is found in the surrounding properties. We've chosen a space-efficient Italianate Victorian design to ensure compatibility with the area. •Regarding setbacks, the staff report originally found our setbacks to becompatible with the neighborhood, but we have gone further by increasing thesetback on both sides of the property. As seen in the image, many of thehomes in the area have non-conforming setbacks, and we are simplyrequesting to align with the typical setback pattern, despite having thenarrowest lot frontage. (We believe the chimney to be an architectural feature,but will remove if the commission deems appropriate.) EXHIBIT 29 • In terms of height, our current home is the shortest in the neighborhood, and we are not asking for any exceptions here. In fact, we’ve reduced the height by six inches based on feedback from a neighbor, and after this adjustment, nine homes on the block will be equal to or taller than our proposed home. • On the issue of privacy, we are committed to addressing privacy concerns through fencing and landscaping, which we will implement at our own expense. If our neighbors have additional concerns, they are welcome to take their own preventive measures as well. We’ve made proactive efforts, but unfortunately, we haven’t seen the same level of collaboration in return. At the last meeting, one of the commissioners asked, "Why are we even discussing this project here today?" The response from planning was that it was due to our original FAR of 0.46, which was the highest on the block. Since that time, we have worked diligently to address the FAR and have made thoughtful compromises on every aspect discussed in the last meeting. Our goal has always been to enhance the beauty and character of the neighborhood while respecting the established framework. We’ve received numerous letters of endorsement in support of this project, which reflects the positive impact we aim to have on the community. We respectfully ask for fairness and objectivity in evaluating this proposal. We understand that change can be difficult, and it’s natural for some concerns to arise. However, it’s important that we base our decisions on facts and objective evidence, rather than subjective opinions or emotions. When decisions are influenced by personal biases rather than verifiable facts, we risk letting those biases shape the outcome, and that is something none of us want. Our intention is to enhance this community, and we trust that the committee will give fair and thoughtful consideration to our efforts. Thank you again for your time and for considering our project.