Item 3 - Addendum with Exhibits 11 through 12.15411 National Ave
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354‐6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/09/2025
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: April 8, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a Single‐Family Residence and
Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on a Vacant Property Zoned R‐
1:8. Located at 15411 National Avenue. APN 424‐12‐140. Architecture and
Site Application S‐23‐033. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303: New Construction. Property Owner: Vyankatesh and Rammy
Muddada. Applicant: Jose Rama. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 11 includes correspondence with neighbors provided by the applicant.
Exhibit 13 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 4, 2025, and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the April 9, 2025, Staff Report:
1. December 17, 2024, Town Council Staff Report with Attachments 1‐9
2. December 16, 2024, Town Council Addendum Report with Attachment 10
3. December 17, 2024, Town Council Desk Item Report with Attachments 11‐13
4. January 21, 2025, Town Council Resolution 2025‐010
5. Applicant’s Response Letter
6. Applicant’s Summary of Neighborhood Outreach
7. Neighbor’s Response
8. Draft Findings and Considerations
9. Draft Revised Conditions of Approval
10. Revised Development Plans
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15411 National Avenue/S-23-033
DATE: April 8, 2025
Received with this Addendum Report:
11. Applicant’s Correspondence with Neighbors
12. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 4, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April
8, 2025
From: Valeria Simets
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:15 AM
To: Ramya Muddada
Cc: LLL; Vyankatesh B; Jose rama; Erin Walters; Sean Mullin
Subject: Re: Updated window design - Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site
application S-23-033)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Thanks Ramya.
Valeria
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2025, at 9:32 AM, Ramya Muddada wrote:
Hi Leo and Valeria,
Please follow the link for the complete plans of 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site
application S-23-033),
Summary of changes:
1. Reduced sqft by almost 100 sqft.
2. Reduced the structure's height from 30ft to 27.8, a total of 2.4 feet height reduction.
3. Moved Egress windows and added an obscure glass for the egress window facing Leila Ct.
4. Add privacy trees on the side facing Blackwell Drive, following the Town's suggestion
(provided on 03/03/25) of the type and placement of the trees.
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
Best,
Ramya
On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 11:19:47 AM PST, Ramya Muddada
> wrote:
EXHIBIT 11
Hello Leo and Valeria,
We had to move the windows per the Town Council if you have some time, we can go over it
with you, please let me know your availability.
please note this is a draft and request you not to share it.
Best,
Ramya
<image (3).png>
From: Ramya Muddada
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Sean Mullin
Cc: Vyankatesh B; Erin Walters
Subject: Fw: Privacy Trees -Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site application
S-23-033)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Sean,
Can you please add my correspondence to neighbor as part of the outreach,
Best,
Ramya
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ramya Muddada <>
To: Hellen <>; Christian U. <>
Cc: Vyankatesh B <>; Jose (Architect) rama <>;
Erin Walters <ewalters@losgatosca.gov>; Sean Mullin <smullin@losgatosca.gov>; Venkat V.
<>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 at 08:41:48 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Privacy Trees -Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site application
S-23-033)
Hello Christian,
Thank you for getting back to us. We are happy that the tree suggested by the Town was
acceptable, and we agree to increase the # of privacy trees from 5 to 8,
Sheet A0.9 - Please disregard the trees shown on this page; the primary purpose of the sheet is
to measure the distance and height between the properties surrounding 15411 National Ave,
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns,
Best,
Ramya
On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 10:01:52 AM PDT, Christian U. <> wrote:
Dear Ramya,
Thank you for your patience.
SPECIES: The allergy department at our medical center has finally confirmed that the
"Pittosporum tenuifolium 'Silver Sheen' would not have an allergenic impact on our family. That
species would thus be acceptable to us.
NUMBER: We are however concerned about the gaps shown between the trees as well as the
amount of coverage along the fence in your latest proposed design. We request that the
number of trees be increased from 5 to at least 8, in order to avoid any such gaps and to
provide continuous coverage towards our property.
As a side comment, note that Sheet Title A0.9 in your revised plan contains an error. It shows a
drawing of our property at Dr with existing trees on our side of the fence, and a
drawing of our neighboring house at with no trees. Those two drawings are
reversed, as we have no existing trees in our backyard.
Thank you,
Christian and Hellen
On 3/4/2025 23:37, Ramya Muddada wrote:
Hello Christian and Venkat,
The City arborists and Erin had visited the site on 03/03/25 to determine the area to be avoided
for privacy trees due to the Oak Trees' canopy, which would deter the growth of privacy trees
planted,
Attached is the revised landscape plan, the city also recommended a privacy tree, "Pittosporum
tenuifolium 'Silver Sheen'.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns,
Best,
Ramya
On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 10:40:05 AM PST, Ramya
Muddada wrote:
Hello Christian,
I would suggest you provide the names of a few privacy trees, too
Below are the screenshots requested,
All the windows on the second floor facing Blackwell Dr. are non-operatable and will have
obscure glass.
Best,
Ramya
On Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 12:04:05 AM
PST, wrote:
Hello Ramya,
Thank you for providing your proposed tree selections.
Upon review, we regret to inform you that both the Thuja Green Giant and the American Pillar
Arborvitae belong to the Cupressaceae family, which includes cypress and juniper species.
These trees are highly allergenic, particularly for children with sensitivities. Given our existing
allergy to trees within this family, we cannot agree to either of these types.
Furthermore, before we can engage in discussions regarding the number and specific placement
of the trees, it is essential that we have a clear understanding of the full scope of the
modifications to the project plan directed by the Town. This includes the reduction in the size of
the second story and the relocation of the windows facing our property. We would need to
review the complete revised plans —encompassing both the structural design and the
landscaping—before proceeding with any discussions and final decisions about the number and
placement of the trees. Understanding the full context is crucial, as the design and landscaping
elements are closely interrelated.
Lastly, we would appreciate receiving a full rendering of the property that includes the entire
shared property line. While the zoomed-in rendering provided was helpful, a broader view
would allow for a more accurate evaluation.
We respectfully request to receive the updated project plan before any final decisions are made.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Christian and Hellen Urricariet
cc: Erin Walters, Venkat V.
From: Ramya Muddada
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 1:46 PM
To: Christian (National Ave Nieghbore) U. ; Venkat
V.
Cc: Vyankatesh B ; Jose (Architect) rama
Erin Walters <ewalters@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Privacy Trees -Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site application
S-23-033)
Hello Christian and Venkat,
Can you please respond to the email with regards to Privacy Tree selections,
Best,
Ramya
On Thursday, January 23, 2025 at 10:20:55 AM PST, Ramya
Muddada wrote:
Hello Christian and Venkat,
Below are our proposed Privacy Tree selections; please let me know which one you prefer.
1. Thuja Green Giant Arborvitae
2. American Pillar Arborvitae
Please look at the attached for the placement of the trees adjoining the Blackwell Drive
property.
Best,
Ramya
From: Ramya Muddada
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Sean Mullin; Erin Walters
Cc: Vyankatesh B
Subject: Fw: Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site application S-23-033)-
Revised plans
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Sean,
Please add this to the today's addendum, too.
Best,
Ramya
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ramya Muddada
To: Devavrath S
Cc: Vyankatesh B ; Jose (Architect) rama ;
Erin Walters <ewalters@losgatosca.gov>; Sean Mullin <smullin@losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 10:32:17 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Your neighbor at 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site application S-23-033)-
Revised plans
Hello Devavrath,
Thank you for the question,
Every Bedroom has to have an Egress window to be operable for air circulation and emergency
exit. So, the 2 Egress windows on Blackwell Dr. were moved to Leila Ct and National Ave,
respectively. Both Leila Ct and National Ave Neighbors are aware and are okay with the
change.
The glass panels on Blackwell Dr are non-operable and will have obscure glass so that no one
can see in or out of them; the sole purpose of the glass panels is to provide ventilation for the
bedroom and also maintain privacy with the neighbors.
Lastly, Yes, we are okay with adding additional height to the existing shared fence - please get a
quote, and we will pay half the invoice,
Best,
Ramya
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 10:07, Ramya Muddada wrote:
Hello Devarath,
Please ignore my previous email,
Please follow the link for the complete plans of 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site
application S-23-033),
Summary of changes:
1. Reduced sqft by almost 100 sqft.
2. Reduced the structure's height from 30ft to 27.8, a total of 2.4 feet height reduction.
3. Moved two Egress windows facing Blackwell Dr. to Leila Ct. and National Ave., added an
obscure glass for the egress window facing Leila Ct., The glass panels facing Blackwell Dr. are
non-operable and will have obscure glass.
4. Add privacy trees on the side facing Blackwell Drive, following the Town's suggestion
(provided on 03/03/25) of the type and placement of the trees.
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
Best,
Ramya
On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 09:40:51 AM PDT, Ramya Muddada
wrote:
Hi Leo and Valeria,
Please follow the link for the complete plans of 15411 National Ave (APN 424-12-40 Site
application S-23-033),
Summary of changes:
1. Reduced sqft by almost 100 sqft.
2. Reduced the structure's height from 30ft to 27.8, a total of 2.4 feet height reduction.
3. Moved two Egress windows facing Blackwell Dr. to Leila Ct. and National Ave., added an
obscure glass for the egress window facing Leila Ct., The glass panels facing Blackwell Dr. are
non-operable and will have obscure glass.
4. Add privacy trees on the side facing Blackwell Drive, following the Town's suggestion
(provided on 03/03/25) of the type and placement of the trees.
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
250104 - V3 Rev. Ramya Resi.pdf
Best,
Ramya
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 10:59 AM
To: Erin Walters; Sean Mullin
Cc: Hellen
Subject: 377 Blackwell neighbor input to 15411 National Avenue project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Planning Staff,
Attached is our input and comments on the revised project at 15411 National Avenue, to be
included at the Town Planning Commission meeting on April 9, 2025.
Thank you,
Hellen Martinez and Christian Urricariet
EXHIBIT 12
April 8, 2025
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Via Email
Dear Planning Commission,
We are immediately adjacent neighbors at , one of several whose
quality of life is significantly impacted by this project with respect to structure massing,
privacy and loss of neighborhood character.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input on the Applicant’s revised project with
respect to Town Council Resolution 2025-010. We believe that the revised design does not
meet the direction in intent and spirit of such resolution in several areas, as described
below, and we are asking that you do not approve this application until further
modifications have been met to comply with the spirit and intent of the Town Council’s
specific direction.
1.Reduce the Second Floor Massing
The revised design only has decreased the second-floor countable space by 93 sq feet (6%
of the original design), without any significantly noticeable reduction to the
bulk/massing of the structure and thus not following the intent and spirit of Resolution
2025-010. During the Town Council meeting on December 17, the discussion between
Council Member Badame, who made the motion to grant the Appeal resulting in the
Resolution, and now Vice Mayor Moore who seconded it, clearly stated that their intent
was to reduce the square footage more significantly, either to “not exceed the largest
[residences] in the immediate neighborhood [2940 sq ft]” (Ms. Badame) or to “reduce the
square footage by a number of at least 300 sq feet” (Vice Mayor Moore [2940]) in order to
reduce massing. The Council decided to be non-prescriptive in the motion assuming the
Applicants would act in good faith and follow their direction, but the latter clearly have not
fully done so by only providing a non-significant (?), minimal reduction in size of 93 sq feet
without a significantly noticeable impact in massing/bulk.
In fact, during the Town’s Council’s discussion of the proposed motion, they talked about
whether privacy or size was the main concern with the design, and they said that a
significant reduction in second-floor massing would also remediate the privacy concerns.
Their small decrease of 93 sq feet by only removing a small storage area of 61 sq ft
and a marginal size reduction in one of the bedrooms, clearly does not meet their
intent. (please see more on our privacy concerns on point #3 below)
“I think this has to be reduced to an amount that may even need a redesign or
staff’s help because obviously if you make this smaller, it’s going to make some
of those issues go away. All the privacy impacts and all, all the extra windows,
you’re obviously going to have to relocate them and have fewer. “ - Council
Member Badame , Timestamp on hearing 2:12:32
The revised design is still significantly larger in Total Square Footage than the surrounding
houses, providing an indication of its large massing and scale, especially given its location
in the middle of the city block (flag lot):
Covered patio: 570 sq ft
Covered porch: 36 sq ft
Original project: 4,086 sq ft Total Square Footage.
Net reduction of 84 sq ft (2.5% of surface area)
For comparison, below are the total Square Footage (first floor + second floor + garage) of
several adjacent properties, per the Planning Staff report. None of these properties have a
basement.
As shown in the various renderings below comparing the old and new designs, there has
been no significant reduction in bulk and massing of the structure:
Old Design (w/o changes) New Design (with changes)
Old Design (w/o changes): North facing side, as seen from our property
New Design (with changes): North facing side, as seen from our property
Old Design (w/o changes): South facing side
New Design (with changes): South facing side
Consequently, we believe that numerous design guidelines quoted by Council Member
Badame during the Town Council meeting for the original design are still not being met by
the revised design, including (as quoted by Ms. Badame):
Section 2.1: General neighborhood design principles. They relate a structure’s size in
bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood.
“[Section 2.1 states] ‘Residential development shall be similar in mass bulk and
scale to the immediate neighborhood. Consideration will be given to the existing FARs,
residential square footage and lot size in the neighborhood’. It doesn’t get any clearer than
that. It doesn’t say ‘should’, it says ‘shall’ and ‘will’”.
Section 1.4: Community expectations - Homes will respect the scale and character of
their immediate neighborhoods.
Section 1.6: How to read your neighborhood. A house design that may be appropriate in
one neighborhood may not be appropriate in another neighborhood.
“This is a flag lot; it’s impacting several neighbors. It’s quite unusual to have a
development like this in a flag lot.”
Section 2.3.6: Locate second floor mass to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbors.
Section 2.5.2: Design with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors. Houses should be planned
with an awareness of the impact which they will have on the privacy of neighbors.
Section 3.3.2: Height, bulk and scale. For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes
and effort should be made to limit the house to one story in height or to accommodate
second floor space within the roof form as is common in craftsman style. Provide
substantial site setbacks for the entire house, provide substantial second floor side
setbacks.
Section 3.4.2: Minimize the visual impact of larger garages. Three car garages may not
be appropriate in most neighborhoods.
Section 3.11.2: Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences. Windows should
be placed to minimize views into living spaces and yard spaces in your neighboring homes.
Additionally, we believe the revised design still does not follow the intent of Town Code
Section 29.40.072 which states that “The use of below grade square footage is allowed
in residential zones as a means to provide ‘hidden’ square footage in lieu of visible
mass.” The revised design still includes a very large basement and also almost maximizes
its FAR (0.29) and its total basement size (1700 sq ft, similar to the first floor), while
maintaining a significant massing on the second floor. This does not follow the intent of
Sec. 29.40.072 of using a basement to decrease visible mass and thus creating a more
harmonious design with its surroundings, given its location in a flag lot.
Request:
We request that the second floor in the revised design be reduced in size by at least an
additional 300 sq feet, in order to significantly decrease its massing and be harmonious
with the surrounding residential structures. This may require moving one of the bedrooms
to the first floor, e.g., to the large space currently occupied by the “garage storage room”,
indicated below:
2.Privacy Trees
We have agreed with the Applicants on an adequate, non-allergenic tree species for the
privacy trees along our common fence, but we requested that the number of trees be
increased from five to eight to provide adequate coverage and avoid any gaps. The
Applicants have agreed to eight trees on their written communication to us on April 7.
3.Minimize and Relocate windows to mitigate privacy impacts on the neighbors.
The revised design has not relocated the problematic windows, as the Town Council
directed, but instead added windows to the second floor: New egress windows are
located on the Northeast and Southwest sides of the structure, without removing any of
the existing windows facing North. We request that the existing two large North-facing
windows which significantly impact on our privacy either be removed from the design or be
converted to smaller/higher clerestory-type windows. Even though those two existing
windows are obscured and have been converted to non-operable, those characteristics
may change in the future, for example if significant modifications or additions are made to
the second floor that convert those two windows back to egress windows. The two upstairs
bedrooms have enough light given the new Northeast and Southwest windows and the
skylights that appear to have been added to them in the revised design.
Request:
Eliminate or significantly decrease the size of the North-facing non-operable obscured
windows in the upstairs bedrooms, following the direction of the Town Council.
4.Use obscure glass to address privacy at impacted locations.
Given that the new Northeast egress window has a view into our backyard and one of our
upstairs bedrooms, we request that it also use obscured glass in the two lower panels, like
the new Southwest window does.
Here is a graphic of the new Northeast-facing window as seen from our upstairs bedroom:
Request:
Use obscured glass in the new Northeast-facing egress window (not film).
Closing Remarks
In their summary of their revised application (Exhibit 5), the Applicants provide a very long
list of changes they have made to address the Town Council Resolution 2025-010. While
those changes may follow the letter of the resolution, they clearly do not follow their
direction in intent and spirit by providing only marginal changes in most areas, as we have
described above.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission do not approve the changes in the
revised design and continue the matter to a date certain, providing very clear and specific
direction to the applicants to submit for the Commission’s review and approval revisions
to the design that adequately address our concerns as well as those of several other
neighbors, which the Town Council Resolution has shown the intention to address. We
request that this direction be as follows:
A)The second floor be reduced by an additional 300 sq feet in order to significantly
reduce second-floor massing and be harmonious with the nearby structures.
B)Eliminate or significantly decrease the size (e.g., to clerestory-type windows) of the
North-facing non-operable obscured windows in the upstairs bedrooms, following
the direction of the Town Council.
C)Use obscured glass in the new Northeast facing egress window (not film).
We believe that, given the history of this Application, these new directed modifications
need to be specifically reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, and not just
be left to “good faith” implementations by the Applicants as simple Conditions of
Approval.
In summary, we do not oppose the construction of a two-story house by the Applicants but
given its size and very unusual location in a flag lot overlooking the primary living areas of
several of its neighbors and the impact on our quality of life, we request that the Planning
Commission provide clear direction on additional changes to be made to its design to
adequately (not marginally) address our massing and privacy concerns, preserving our
neighborhood character and the expectations of privacy we have had as residents for
almost two decades. Our house on as well as several of the adjacent
houses in the immediate neighborhood were built in such a way to maximize privacy,
minimizing adjacent windows, offsetting the ones that exist, and facing the primary living
areas towards our respective backyards instead of each other. The houses surrounding
this rear flag lot have a high level of privacy by design, which would be severely impacted
by the current or revised structure designs.
Sincerely yours,
Hellen Martinez and Christian Urricariet
THE END.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank