Item 2 - Exhibit 09 - Appeal of Development Review Committee received September 18, 2020EXHIBIT 9
October 12, 2020
Karen Kurtz-107 Broadway
Planning staff and Commissioners,
To explain further the reasons for our appeal of the decision of the DRC regarding
101 Broadway proposed plans and in order to attempt to reach a compromise for
a new home, I am listing some of the many items laid out in the Towns Design
Guidelines that we would like to be seriously considered in order to protect our
special Broadway Historical neighborhood’s character with better privacy,
compatibility, harmony, enhancement, increased value and respect of the
surrounding neighborhood and the nearby neighbors. While these house plans
could fit nicely on a different type of lot, for this lot they are too high, massive
and generally out of proportion for the topography and the surrounding
neighborhood. This project must be reduced in scale and mass with better
utilization of the lower level and first floor and eliminate the second story in back
As it is now, all I will see is a large wall blocking the sunlight, views, mother
nature’s many pleasures along with no privacy in my outdoor living area, plus so
much more that has been available at 107 Broadway for over 100 years. It is
part of the history and beauty of this property. I expected a new home to be built
that would enhance and keep within the scope and respect of the other
surrounding homes and neighbors. Reducing the back to one story similar to
what others have done would help to create more privacy and reduce noise for
the neighbors on all sides including the future residents of the proposed home.
This house rises above all. 93 Broadway is a good example of a house plan that is
well fitted for the type of topography, scale and respect for this neighborhood.
I have spent much time and money over the last 32+ years to upgrade and upkeep
my Historical home to resemble the original home as much as possible. Built in
the 1870’s according to the town records, I would like to think that others would
have the same respect in keeping this historical home, characteristics and
neighborhood as original as possible.
While there are many listed guidelines to consider in the Towns Design
Guidelines, I have tried to limit it to those that seem the most important and
appropriate in order to create a more compatible, in scale home on this
challenging lot in a special neighborhood. They are listed in order by page
number, sections, paragraphs, etc. so hopefully easy to go through.
Design Guidelines Introduction
Page 10 1.4 Community Expectations
item 1--Homes will respect the scale and character of their immediate
neighborhoods
item 9--Homes will be designed with respect for the views, privacy and
solar access of their neighbors
Page 11 1.6 How to read your neighborhood
a. Paragraph 1-3: In addition to neighborhood patterns and
details……,consideration must be given to ensure that privacy
and shadow impacts on properties within and outside the
immediate neighborhood are evaluated
b. Some neighborhoods have a distinctive character and scale
c. General Design Principles
a. Item 2--Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than
stand out
b. Item 3--Reinforce prevailing neighborhood development
patterns
c. Item 7--Relate a structure’s size and bulk to those in the
immediate neighborhood
Page 13 Neighborhood patterns
a. paragraph 2……However, the broad intent of these guidelines is to
respect the scale and character of each of the Town’s individual
neighborhoods. The emphasis is on “neighborhood
compatibility”,……
b. 2.1 item 1--Residential development shall be similar in mass, bulk,
and scale to the immediate neighborhood.
Page 20 2.5.2 Design with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors
Existing views are not protected as a right. Never-the-less,
additions to existing homes and new houses should be
planned with an awareness of the impacts which they will
have on the views, sky exposure, sun access and privacy of
neighbors (see Section 3.11 for additional guidelines).
(included below to stay in page order)
Page 21 Building Design
New Homes should be adapted to the scale of the surrounding
neighborhood. While some larger new homes may be acceptable in established
neighborhoods, they will be expected to be designed to mitigate their visual
size and bulk.
Page 23 3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
a. Item 1--Two story houses may not be appropriate for every
neighborhood. For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes,
an 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 the Craftsman Style
b. Item 3--Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially
taller than the adjacent house. (note: that in the present plans, it
is showing the ADU at 107 Broadway taller than the proposed
home. It is actually shorter than the proposed home).
c. Item 4--Give special attention to adapting to the height and
massing of adjacent homes. Houses that are elevated above the
street shall be designed to be compatible in height and mass with
the other house on that side of the street, and should include
design techniques to minimize the visual mass resulting from its
raised elevation.
d. Item 5--In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of
the floor area on the first floor with less area on the second floor.
e. Item 6-(page 24) Take care in the placement of second floor
masses
Page 36 3.11.1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties
a. Item 1—Locate structure to minimize blocking sun access
to living spaces and actively used outdoor areas on
adjacent homes.
Note: shadow study that was completed while it may be correct, does not provide
for the reality of the whole lot or neighboring lots. Our backyards do not get sun
or very little year around because of the mountain and trees to the South East
and South. 107 Broadway does not get sun from the West because of the home
that sits above and the trees generally year around. The East sun exposure is the
only source of sun for 107 Broadway. I would like to continue to have a garden. I
have citrus trees that need sun and light to stay alive and to produce fruit, along
with many other reasons for sun exposure, like my mental and physical health.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences
a. Item 1—Windows should be placed to minimize views into the
living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes.
b. Item 5—Second floor balconies and decks should be used only
when they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors.
Page 39 Historic Resources
a. paragraph 3…… all construction within the historic districts will
receive additional design review scrutiny pursuant to the Town’s
adopted development review process.
b. Paragraph 4 The following design guidelines are generally more
prescriptive than those contained earlier in the document and
reflect the desire to maintain the integrity of the Town’s historic
resources and districts.
Intent
a. Paragraph 3 New structure and alterations are expected
to conform to the established proportions, siting, scale,
rhythm, and materials of the existing building or
neighborhood.
b. Paragraph 4—…..New buildings and alterations should
either blend in inconspicuously or match existing
buildings.
Page 40 Historic Resources Advantages to Property Owners
Item 5—Neighborhood Protection Plan
Historic designation generally controls the size, quality and
scale of new construction and also restricts demolition, thus
protecting the character and quality of the neighborhood.
Page 43 Non-contributing Structures
A noncontributing structure if not rehabilitated into a contributing
style or design, should be remodeled or expanded consistent with
its existing architectural style and design.
Page 47 Guidelines Overview
a. Item 3—*The primary consideration is that a proposed design
consciously reflects the scale, rhythm, and continuity of the
existing neighborhood to create a harmonious fit that will
enhance the quality of the neighborhood.
b. Item 7—Complete buildout to the maximum boundaries of
existing zoning requirements may not necessarily be acceptable
in some cases
Page 54 4.10 New Construction
a. Item 2—New structures should be built in the same style
and design of contributing structures in the district.
b. Item 6—The established contextual patterns and rhythms
should be respected.
c. Item 8—Conform new structures to existing and/or
required setbacks, and replace the “footprint” of the
original structures if any.
d. Item 9—Respect the established site patterns and
harmonize with neighboring buildings and existing
topography.
e. Item 11—New construction should be in keeping with the
existing neighborhood. It should be especially sensitive to
the height and scale of the homes on immediately
adjacent parcels. Front facades should appear similar in
height to those seen historically in the block.
f. Item 12—When a new project has more square footage
than the surrounding structures, reduce the scale of the
structure with sensitive design treatments.
g. Item 14—The proportion of window and door openings in
new construction should be similar to that of the existing
surrounding architecture
While we are not considered part of the Hillside District, our lots are on a steep
slope at the base of the Los Gatos mountains. There are additional Hillside
guidelines that should be considered regarding, privacy, views, shadow effects,
size, respect of neighbors and much more.
All the errors to date are totally unacceptable. It is a very intrusive project to the
neighborhood on all sides. It is devasting to our privacy, views, home values and
the characteristic of our neighborhood forever. I’m concerned about a fire risk
with this building so tall & close to my house. Please make the effort to view from
the backyard of 107 as it is the only way to get a true picture. I will make it
accessible and hide out of site. Sean Mullin has my contact information.
1. The balcony on this proposed home is regrettably not in the spirit of community or
respect. This 200 square foot balcony, situated on the left side of the house, is an abject
invasion of privacy of the neighbors. After cutting it down by 5 feet, it is still towering
over neighboring homes and remains 10 x 20 feet huge (!) on the second level.
Moreover, the noise that people on the side balcony will create, will carry down the
street! As it is, we are packed in so tightly, that I can hear conversations on both sides of
my neighboring homes – music and other daily commotions carry down the entire
block! This balcony is completely inappropriate and does not honor or CONSIDER in
ANY way the neighbors.
Modifying the massing of the upper floor could easily be achieved by altering
the floor plan and eliminating the balcony. This would solve several of the issues
at hand. It would eliminate the noise impact, the privacy impact in general, and
preserve the feeling and character of surrounding homes.
Page 5 Introduction, paragraph 3:
a. The Town recognizes and welcomes the need for change, but
desires that change occur in a manner that is respectful of the
scale, texture and character of the community’s individual
neighborhoods and unique natural setting.
Page 6 1.2, item 3--Ensure that new development is compatible with its
surrounding neighborhood.
Page 10 1.4, item 1--Homes will respect the scale and character of their
immediate neighborhoods
b. item 9--Homes will be designed with respect for the views, privacy
and solar access of their neighbors.
2. The nature of the design of the 101 Broadway project does not honor the historic design
guidelines. It destroys the feel and original tone of this historic neighborhood. Its
towering nature and tall mass seem to diminish other Victorian homes – like mine,
which I have kept a one-story and 1200 square feet – with all original details – even
though I did a complete rebuild, including foundation.
Moreover, it forces me (and probably other neighboring homes) to seek opportunities
to expand upward to block the intrusion. In order to protect myself from encroaching
neighbors, I will have to build my own structure, wall, or wall of enormous trees, or
second story, and whatever else I can find to block noise and eyes from leering into my
yard.
This project is the beginning of the end of our historic neighborhood – and it sets a
precedent for continued disregard.
Page 40 Historic Resources Advantages to Property Owners
c. Item 5—Neighborhood Protection Plan
i. Historic designation generally controls the size, quality and
scale of new construction and also restricts demolition, thus
protecting the character and quality of the neighborhood.
Page 43 Non-contributing Structures
d. A noncontributing structure if not rehabilitated into a contributing
style or design, should be remodeled or expanded consistent with
its existing architectural style and design.
Page 47 Guidelines Overview
Page 20 2.5.2 Design with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors
e. Existing views are not protected as a right. Never-the-less,
additions to existing homes and new houses should be planned
with an awareness of the impacts which they will have on the
views, sky exposure, sun access and privacy of neighbors
Page 21 Building Design, New Homes should be adapted to the scale of the
surrounding neighborhood. While some larger new homes may be acceptable in
established neighborhoods, they will be expected to be designed to mitigate
their visual size and bulk.
3. There are several issues with the HEIGHT / MASS of this project, and this is especially
disrespectful given that the proposed house can easily be built lower.
As it is now, the design completely disregards the character and size of the neighboring
homes, which themselves have had to put bedrooms and windows in basements –
below ground -- and were not allowed to build even one room on the second floor due
to their historic classification. (Mine, as well as Larry and DiAnne Brandhorst). Why is it
necessary to build the driveway 8 FEET above the street level as the Applicant has
proposed?
While it is true that the disputed house sits on a higher slope than the homes downhill
from it, it is not true that the negative impact needs to be this invasive. Rather than be
especially sensitive and respectful of this fact, the house has been intentionally built up
as high as possible, maximizing rather than minimizing its impact on the privacy and
well-being of neighbors. The recently added story poles, which were originally omitted,
create an even more intrusive and unesthetic look that can be seen from all street
views, front and back alike.
I seriously question the integrity of this project. The upper massing is way too much
for this location and very little has been done to minimize the impact on neighbors, or
to ensure that the mass and height fit in with the general look of the surrounding
properties.
Page 20 2.5.2 Design with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors
f. Existing views are not protected as a right. Never-the-less,
additions to existing homes and new houses should be planned
with an awareness of the impacts which they will have on the
views, sky exposure, sun access and privacy of neighbors (see
Section 3.11 for additional guidelines). (I will include later in order
to stay in page order)
Page 21 Building Design, New Homes should be adapted to the scale of the
surrounding neighborhood. While some larger new homes may be
acceptable in established neighborhoods, they will be expected to be
designed to mitigate their visual size and bulk.
4. Finally, the story poles on the front of the house were entirely omitted, and the
drawings submitted to the city relating to the story pole certificates were completely
wrong on the front portion of the house. BASED ON THIS FACT ALONE, THIS PROJECT
SHOULD BE REJECTED. At best this was a carless mistake, and at worst, it is intentionally
misleading. At this point, we really need an INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THESE PLANS.
After such “mistakes” how can we know what is really being proposed and what will go
up? This project is, once again, not being carried out in good faith.
5. I would also like a review of the elevation numbers related to a cross section drawing
that was incorrect. Please see letters and illustrations submitted by Larry Brandhorst.
Does this mean that the house will stand even taller that the remaining story poles
indicate?
6. Windows. I request that the many windows on the southeast side of the proposed
structure be addressed.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Clark <p_clark@hotmail.com>
To: planningcomment@losgatosca.gov <planningcomment@losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020, 08:52:35 AM PDT
Subject: Comments on 101 Broadway pending planning project
Hello
Since I am unable to attend the Zoom meeting this week to discuss 101 Broadway, I would like
to share some comments ahead of time.
First, I would like to say that I support having a new home on the site of 101 Broadway,
and am looking forward to welcoming new neighbors.
That said, I have two, related objections to the plans as they stand today. The first is the
so-called “future ADU.” While explicitly excluded from the current application, the so-
called ADU is clearly an integral part of the structure, fully connected to the rest of the
house. Not only is it structurally integrated, sitting underneath the master bedroom and
master bathroom, but it is also directly accessible from the kitchen. These plans
represent a 3,100 square foot house masquerading as a 2,450 square foot house. The
second objection is caused by that same so-called ADU. Its presence within the main
house forces the master bedroom and bathroom up a level, which in turn blocks the
view of the long-time resident next door. This directly contradicts a claim in the letter of
justification that states that “THE PROPOSED HOME WAS PLANNED AND
DESIGNED WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THE SITE, IMMEDIATE
NEIGHBORS AND TOWN'S RESIDENTS” and that “WE HAVE MET NUMEROUS
TIMES WITH KAREN KURTZ OF 107 BROADWAY AND MADE ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR HER CONCERNS.” If those claims were true, then the proposed structure would
not remove the view that Karen Kurtz has had for several decades.
Best regards
Paul Clark
117 Broadway
The proposed house at 101 Broadway looks great on paper, but it doesn't work on the lot. I
attended the January meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee where these plans were
discussed and was supportive. The burnt-out remains of the old house need to be replaced,
and I know Mark DeMattei builds beautiful homes.
That said, once the story poles went up and we visited the adjacent properties, we were
dismayed. Looking at the plans is one thing, and seeing the impact on the neighboring
properties is another. The topography of the land is lost when looking on paper. With a 2-story
home built back into the deep property, the uphill property will be hemmed in, losing light and
visual space. The two downhill properties will have serious loss of privacy.
While these plans might meet at the objective criteria in terms of FAR, height,
setbacks....sometimes this is not enough. No set of rules can take all conditions into
account. With the tight lots and steep slope of upper Broadway, what works in one part of town
doesn't work here.
There has got to be another way to build here without such severe impacts on the neighbors.
Thank you,
Warren and Maria Ristow
85 Broadway
May 26, 2020
Historical committee
Regarding 101 Broadway
My name is Karen Kurtz
I have been a resident of Los Gatos since 1967 and residing at my present home at
107 Broadway since 1988. My home was built approximately 132 years ago.
I agree that 101 Broadway should be demolished soon. It is presently a fire &
safety hazard as well as a health issue for our neighborhood. While I am happy
to know a new home will be built on the property, I am saddened to see the
present home plans which I do not believe blend in with our historic
neighborhood or with the Victorian style homes on either side of it and
throughout the neighborhood. I do not believe 101 Broadway should be 3 levels
in the front or have flat or straight roof lines as again there are no other homes in
the immediate area with that kind of architecture. I realize that the current trend
is contemporary but our neighborhood is not contemporary.
I also am very concerned about the impact on my views which have been
available & enjoyed at this property for over 100 years. Those views were
certainly a consideration when I purchased this property and have added value on
appraisals that I have had throughout the years. It will also block the light from
the east except for maybe the 3 months when the sun is at its highest. The east is
my only source of sun light because of the mountains & trees to the south and
west. Except for those few longer days I need to turn on my lights in the house
around 1:30 PM and all day in some rooms of my home on the lower
level. Taking away my light and views will devalue my property. This is my
retirement nest egg that I have fought to create and save for the last 32
years. Since I am in my 80’s this is a major concern for me now as I have no other
way to make up that lost value. I never considered or imagined that I would lose
those views and light source.
I really want to work with the owner of 101 Broadway to create something that
can satisfy both of our needs which I believe is possible. We have long but narrow
lots so the height issue along with window placement becomes more prominent
when we are so close to one another. I am concerned about the neighbor on the
other side at 93 Broadway whose owner passed away suddenly a few months
ago. I’m not sure anyone is around to speak up about the privacy that they will
lose with all the windows that will look into that backyard & their skylights.
My wish is to create a pleasant living experience for all. Yes, demo the present
home but may we work together on the plans for the new replacement home so
that they are more compatible for all regarding our privacy, views and natural
light. I request that anyone who has a part in making the decision about the new
house plans visit my property to see for themselves the negative impact the
present plans will have on my property and the neighbor on the other side at 98
Broadway.
Thank you for your consideration and time,
Karen Kurtz
107 Broadway Ext
I am Karen Kurtz, a resident of Los Gatos for 53 years, the owner of 107 Broadway for 32 years,
next door up-hill from 101. My home is 133 years old and is part of the Bell Ringer project.
1. We all want a new home at 101, one that blends in, enhances, adds value, creates
privacy and is in harmony with our important Historical neighborhood. All stated as
requirements in the towns design guidelines in various sections.
2. Unfortunately, I do not believe this project meets these requirements. As it would
adversely affect its relationship with the Historical characteristics, aesthetics, values and
profile of the District leading to more tall and imposing structures.
3. Some examples from the design guidelines say:
a. Page 11 Design is to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out.
i. Relate a structure’s size and bulk to those in the immediate
neighborhood.
b. Pages 54/55 Historical Resources -New Construction.. From the Historical
section it is to
i. Respect the established site patterns and harmonize with neighboring
buildings…
ii. New construction should be in keeping with the existing neighborhood.
It should be especially sensitive to the height and scale of the homes on
immediate adjacent parcels.
iii. When a new project has more square footage than the surrounding
structures, reduce the scale of the structure with sensitive design
treatments. (I do not believe it is appropriate to consider or compare
with 4 plex’s or apartment houses across the street, or a house on a half-
acre)
4. I have had visits from neighbors and others in construction who all have been
flabbergasted by the scope and scale of this project.
5. For me, this project takes away major characteristics from my historical home
a. Blocks all of Mother nature, sunlight, trees, hills, breeze, town lights, sounds,
views and a whole lot more.
b. I will no longer see the sky from my kitchen window
c. It greatly devalues the financial value
d. Takes away privacy from my outdoor living area.
e. I have concerns about fire safety with a building so close and tall. This is a High-
Risk Fire District. I have lived through 2 major fires in the past 32 years. Fire
here is a reality.
6. I have sent a photo of the shadow effects from Sunday, August 30, 2020. Already would
be using artificial light.
7. Please do this right!
o: Sean Mullin and the Los Gatos Planning Commission
FROM: Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, 130 Broadway, Los Gatos
We continue to believe that that proposed structure at 101 Broadway can be better
designed to fit into the hillside and reduce the impact to neighboring homes. The
current plans show a house that is too tall and too close to the home at 107 Broadway,
blocking the sun and reducing the value of the historical house located at 107.
Below is the message that we sent prior to the DRC meeting on Sept 1, and as before,
we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project.
-- Evelyn & Irving Mitsunaga
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Irving MITSUNAGA <mitsunaga@comcast.net>
To: "PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov" <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 08/26/2020 10:07 AM
Subject: Comment re 101 Broadway
Planning Review Committee and Planning Commission --
We are unable to attend the September 1 teleconference regarding rebuilding 101
Broadway, but we go on record in opposition to the structure as currently
designed. The planned structure is too tall and too close to the property line between
101 and 107. The planned structure blocks the sun and the view of the residence at
107. Moreover, the house at 107 is historically designated and its property value will be
decreased with this new structure.
We have lived in our house on Broadway since 1974 and we support the resident at 107
Broadway in her opposition to the designed structure. It is possible to build a one-story
structure at 101 that will fit better with the neighboring houses and will preserve the
value of the historical homes, and that should be required. Thank you for the
opportunity to send an email.
Irving and Evelyn Mitsunaga
130 Broadway
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Hi Karen - it is unfortunate you found the proposal to lower the Ridge by 2'-0" unacceptable. Moving
forward,
we will abide by our prior agreement with you to modify the windows on the West Elevation and lower
the
ridge 6".
Regards, Mark and Jay
On 9/9/2020 5:56 PM, Karen Kurtz wrote:
Jay and Mark,
I appreciate the attempt to negotiate. I'm sure you know that 2 feet does
not address my concerns. After spending the last two days with no sun, I
think we have all learned how depressing it can be without having natural
sunlight. If you have read my notes to planning you know that I spent over 3
years searching for a Victorian home in the downtown area that had morning
sun from the East. It is very important for my mental and physical health.
I started from a ground level to suggest a one story addition on the back of
the house as the other neighbors have done. That would be a big step for me
as I would be giving up a lot of what I have enjoyed over the last 32 years.
In addition, as I told you in one of our meetings, I shortened the deck that
extended out from my ADU to create more privacy for 101 Broadway. The owner
did not request that of me but I knew it was invading her privacy and wanted
to do that for her. It was a good vantage point to enjoy the sites and for
the family to hang out on and to sleep outside on when they came to visit
during the summer, but I still did it for my neighbor as I knew how much she
enjoyed her privacy. As it turned out it created a nice lower patio for me
but that was not my objective. I also rejected a terraced patio, a
suggestion from the contractor, from my upstairs when I rebuilt the back
portion of my house, in order to protect the privacy of my neighbors on both
sides. It is my hope that you will consider doing the same for your
neighbors. I believe it is nothing less than what you would want if you
lived in the neighborhood. We live on the hillside on very narrow lots and
do not have a desire to be crammed in and on top of one another.
Let's keep talking to find some common ground and create a desirable
neighborhood for all.
Thank you,
Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Plett <jay@plett-arc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:00 PM
To: Karen Kurtz <kurtzk@comcast.net>; Ilona Merli <ilonamerli@gmail.com>;
Mark De Mattei <markd@demattei.com>
Subject: 101 Broadway - Ridge height
Hi Karen - per our proposal at the prior DRC meeting, we would be willing to
lower the Master Bed ridge by 2'
from where the storypoles are currently set. This proposal is simple enough
and should not necessitate a another meeting.
Please us know if you are in agreement.
Thank you, Mark and Jay
We spoke with Larry earlier in the day and have addressed his concerns.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
JAY PLETT ARCHITECT
jay@plett-arc.com
office 408 354 4551
mobile 408 585 8787
Virus-free. www.avast.com
October 21, 2020
This letter is to document the injustice and prejudice involved in the
matter of Applicant and Owner for the construction project at 101
Broadway; specifically, I am writing to you in response to the Letter of
Justification submitted to the Town of Los Gatos (without a date).
The Letter of Justification submitted by Applicant is a GROSS
misrepresentation of the facts, as it attempts to portray the neighbors
of said property to be in full support of the project: the neighbors of
101 Broadway (93 Broadway, 107 Broadway, 89 Broadway, 87
Broadway, and 86 Broadway, 117 and 130 Broadway) DO NOT AT ALL
approve of the proposed project. These properties are the actual
neighbors to 101 Broadway, and they are all opposed to said project as
it is currently proposed.
Applicant has conveniently (at best) and deceivingly (at worst)
represented the properties of 101 Broadway, 325 – 346 Broadway, as
well as 321 and 352 Main Street as being “neighbors that are in support
of the project.” First of all, 321 and 352 Main Street are on a completely
different street (!) that has NO VIEW and NO CONNECTION to the
project in question! Additionally, and perversely, they are two relatively
new homes built by Owner (Mark DeMattei/ party to Applicant)
himself! Second, the only other two properties mentioned on
Broadway, 100 and 98, are apartment complexes that house renters
who could certainly care a less (!) AND are not at all affected because
they do not personally have a financial or emotional stake in this game.
Furthermore, the pictures/ drawings submitted with the Letter of
Justification are completely inaccurate. If one could refer to an image as
a lie – they are lies. The 3-D image submitted portrays the proposed
design as “sunk in between” the neighboring historical homes, when in
fact, it towers SIX feet (probably more) over the home to the left (93
Broadway) and equally high as the neighbor to the right, situated at a
higher elevation.
So far, these images have been the only available visual references for
decision makers on staff for the Town of Los Gatos to determine the
appropriateness/inappropriateness of this project.
Of all the misleading statements put forth in this letter, the most
unconscionable is likely putting forth our neighbor Lynn Brandthorst,
who recently passed, as in support of this particular design. Please note
that Applicant simply states that Lynn was in favor of having “a” house
built – just as we all are. Why was this included as a “justification?”
The town’s reluctance to review this project as requested in a timely
and thorough manner will not go without remark, and most
importantly, will not go unchallenged. Karen Kurtz, neighbor at 107
Broadway pointed out the inaccuracies in these drawings/ images
MONTHS ago, and, again, was blown off, as she was when she pointed
out the inaccuracies of the story poles.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Ilona
Ilona Merli
89 Broadway
Los Gatos, CA 95030
408-839-6965
October 22, 2020
To Whom It May Concern:
The project at 101 Broadway is a political power play, and I am putting forth the
situation for consideration. I would like to avoid involving newspapers and attorneys,
and I am very much hoping that there will be an open and fair discussion on the matter.
I have been working together with three other immediate neighbors of the 101
Broadway project to bring the inappropriateness of the proposed design, as well as the
inaccuracies in the plans and images submitted by Applicant, to the attention of the
Town. We have all asked in writing and at meetings that all members come to visit the
actual site — only Joel Paulsen came (and story poles were incorrectly placed) and
Sean Mullin drove by last week. My neighbor wrote an articulate letter explaining how
very much in favor of the project she was, until she visited the site. She explained that it
is not something that one can understand on paper, but one must see the impact at the
location because of the topography and situation of this location. (Please see Maria and
Warren Ristow e-mail dated August 31)
It is also noteworthy, but not pertinent, to note that the two people who have
commissioned this project, Robert and Jean Moore, have also refused to come to
see the impact that their proposed home will have on neighboring homes.
In an effort to understand the projects that are typically permitted or denied in Los
Gatos, I have combed the neighborhoods for weeks, as well as Town records, to find
any such project anywhere in the historic districts in Los Gatos. I found nothing even
remotely similar. As a matter of fact, I have found projects of far, far, far less impact
that have been DENIED.
How is it that this project with its 200 square foot second floor balcony overlooking the
neighbor’s backyard, a 100 square foot front terrace, an elevator, an 8 foot-high
driveway, and countless windows towering over neighbors yards is being permitted to
be sandwiched between TWO HISTORIC HOMES (bellringers!) without a comment?
Interesting to note, that none of the four historic Victorian homes to the right and left of
101Broadway bear ANY resemblance to what is being proposed for this lot.
The neighbor at 93 built a bedroom and an office in the basement because of
restrictions that he was subject to. I remodeled my Victorian home without a second
story, keeping it at 1200 square feet, and I will NOT be permitted to build “up” or to build
anything that will counter the effects of what is happening at 101 Broadway. Did the
Historic Committee simply overlook these relevant facts?
For the record please understand what is really happening here:
Robert Moore, who himself owns a construction company, has hired Applicant, Jay
Plett, to design the 101 project. He has involved Mr. DeMattei, the owner of said
property, as well as DeMattei Construction, to “push” the design through the town’s
approval process. Mrs. Jean Moore has made clear that if this is not accomplished, she
and her husband will walk away from the property, leaving Mr. DeMattei with the empty
lot.
Mark DeMattei, Owner of 101 Broadway, is involved in this project because of his long-
standing relationships with people in the Town, and his power to get projects through
the Town more easily than a stranger. He is not involved in this project because Robert
Moore (himself in the construction business) needs a builder. He is involved because
Robert Moore needs approval and Mr. DeMattei has a better chance of getting that
approval.
Very few people in the town of Los Gatos are willing to stand up to Mr. DeMattei
because they have too much to lose. People depend on him for work/ contracts, such
as my neighbor on Broadway, and despite their disapproval of a project, would not be
willing to speak up. Generously, Mr. DeMattei donates to local schools and
organizations, and many people in town are not interested in challenging his projects,
regardless of how offensive or inappropriate, in return for this generosity.
Applicant and his team are KNOWINGLY putting forth a design that is very
inappropriate. They are banking on our ignorance, fear, and lack of resources, as well
as the Town’s loyalty, in order to complete this project. I hope that justice and decency
prevail. And if they do not, it will have been worth the fight to know that my neighbors
and I did not stand by and watch.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ilona Merli
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank