Addendum with Exhibits.102 Alta Heights
PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 06/09/2021
ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM
DATE: June 8, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence
and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Front and
Side Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 102 Alta
Heights Court. APN 532-29-045. Architectural and Site Application S-20-029.
Property Owner: Bo Development, LLC. Applicant: Eric Beckstrom. Project
Planner: Ryan Safty.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 12 includes the applicant’s response to parking and front setback concerns raised by
neighbors. Exhibit 13 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday,
June 4, 2021 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 8, 2021.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the June 9, 2021 Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Project Description and Letter of Justification
5. Consulting Arborist’s Report, dated November 3, 2020
6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated October 6, 2020
7. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s Report, received February 11, 2021
8. Applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts
9. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 2021
10. Color and Materials Board, received December 16, 2020
11. Development Plans, received May 9, 2021
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 8, 2021
Received with this Addendum:
12. Applicant’s response to parking and front setback concerns, received June 7, 2021
13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, June 4, 2021 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, June 8, 2021
S-20-029, Architecture Parking Pics, Notes 102 Alta Heights Court Page 1
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030, 650 847-8351, E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
June 7, 2021
TO: Los Gatos Planning/Building Dept
Project: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, 95030; APN: 532-29-045, Zoning: R:1-8
Construct New 2-story Residence in R:1-8 Zone – Parking pictures and additional notes
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking North West, 175 Loma Alta in background.
A 9’ x 18’ parking area is the universal code across the USA. The driveway is 20’ wide x 18’ deep, behind the
sidewalk/property line. Please note that 175 Loma Alta’s roof appears to be approx. 1’ higher than 102 AHC.
Looking straight at the proposed garage front (see orange netting). There is room for 2 cars and a Vespa.
EXHIBIT 12
S-20-029, Architecture Parking Pics, Notes 102 Alta Heights Court Page 2
View looking west at 175 Loma Alta. Note the +3’ space between cars and garage front story poles.
View West showing that the proposed front elevation is nearly the same as the existing house front porch. The second
story pole on the left is the cantilevered front bay.
S-20-029, Architecture Parking Pics, Notes 102 Alta Heights Court Page 3
View looking SouthEast at 175 Loma Alta. The parked cars at 102 AHC are just visible behind the 175 LA garage (4.75’
driveway) which projects into the setback. Note the large canopy of the Oak over the roof a nd side of the 175 LA
house which blocks the view of 102 Alta Heights Court.
View looking East at 175 Loma Alta on the left and 116 Alta Heights Court on the right. The parked cars at 102 AHC
are just visible behind the 175 LA garage (4.75’ driveway) which projects into the setback. Note the large canopy of
the Oak over the roof and side of the 175 LA house which blocks the view of 102 Alta Heights Court. Please also note
that 116 Loma Alta on the right projects approx. 12-14’ into the front yard setback (11’ driveway).
S-20-029, Architecture Parking Pics, Notes 102 Alta Heights Court Page 4
Additional Notes:
4 Houses around 102 Alta Heights Court
% over
Setbacks
Alta Heights Court Street Setbacks
175 Loma Alta Ave. (next door) 4.6 ft 42%
104 Alta Heights Court (next door) 25 ft
116 Alta Heights Court 11 ft 20%
112 Alta Heights Court 25 ft
Subtotal 65.6 ft
Houses 4
Average Setback from Alta Heights Court 16.4 ft
102 Alta Heights Court Footprint change
Proposed footprint 1,594 sf
Existing footprint 1,345 sf
Total footprint increase 249 sf
Sincerely,
Eric A. Beckstrom Catherine DuBridge
Architect/Owner Designer/Owner
6/7/2021
Mr. Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
CC: Ms. Jennifer Armer, Los Gatos Planning
RE: proposed project at 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos
Dear Mr. Ryan Safty,
We are the owners and residents of the neighboring house at 104 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos.
We have reviewed the applicant’s description of conversations with us in the ”Neighbor
Communication Timeline” portion packet prepared for Los Gatos Planning commission review and
have found several inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and misunderstandings.
We wish to relate our understanding and recollection of those discussions on 5/11/21 herewith for
the record.
1)The applicant states “We went door to door to 8 neighbors to introduce ourselves and show them
the house plans, which included an accurate 3D rendering of a BIM model, floorplans and a 3D
model view of the street (see attached).”
a.This is incorrect in our case. We were only shown one 3D rendering (which we
don’t see in this packet) and a letter of approval to be signed. We signed this letter
as a gesture of good faith and were initially supportive of the design. However,
upon reviewing the detailed plans (from the LG Planning website) and the story-
poles, we have subsequently rescinded our approval of the design after gaining a
clearer picture of the proposed setbacks and massing. These issues were not
apparent from the initial materials supplied by the applicant but were obtained from
the LG Pending Projects page.
2)The applicant states “Moving the house back on the lot would block Ms. Shah and Mr. Parihar’s
view of the mountains”.
a.We note that most of the view of the mountains is impacted by the current proposed
design and frankly moving the house back somewhat will not really make that
significantly worse. This is apparent from the pictures out of our windows on the west
side of our home, provided in our previous letter regarding our concerns about this
project. The applicant is likely doing this not to preserve our views but in fact to
maintain their backyard.
b.In passing we further note that several of our large windows facing the applicant’s
backyard are translucent precisely to provide privacy.
3)The applicant states “They also did not seem to grasp any of the points, and seemed unwilling
to compromise”
a.This is simply false. We simply made the applicants aware of our concerns and
specifically asked them to make proposals for changes. The applicants were
intransigent and refused to make any changes.
EXHBIT 13
4)The applicant states in the Conclusion: “We are frustrated, as there appears to be no way to
appease these people, short of scrapping the project altogether.”
a.We are surprised by this response given our request for proposals from the applicants
given our concerns.
b.We specifically requested that the applicants consider doing the following:
i.Restore side setbacks to 8’ given the size of the house.
ii.Remove cantilever projection of 1’9” on the east side of the house which
reduces the 5’6” setback even further to 3’7”
iii.Reduce the height of roof
The applicants claimed it was impossible to do any of these things and flatly refused to consider any
changes claiming that the design was too intricate and “like a piece of origami”. The unwillingness
of the applicants to even consider the requested changes was deeply disappointing.
5)The applicant states in the Conclusion: “Both neighbors, at 104 Alta Heights Ct and 175 Loma Alta
seemed to demand that we redesign our house exactly as they wished without compromise ”
a.As explained above, this is simply incorrect. We stated our concerns and asked for
proposals to address them. The applicants were intransigent and refused to make
any concessions.
6)The applicant states in the Conclusion: “It is absurd that Mr. Parihar and Ms. Shah, who have the
most radical, modern, boxy house in the neighborhood, say that our design is not compatible with
the neighborhood.”
a.Our concern about incompatibility centers around the size of the house for the size
of the lot, reduced setbacks being requested, and the excessively tall roofline, not
the aesthetics of the design.
b.We further point out that our house design, though modern, won the approval of
every neighbor on the cul-de-sac and was approved by LG Planning at the DRC
meeting. We adhered to all setback requirements and worked with our neighbors
transparently to address their concerns.
In comparison, the applicant’s proposed design does NOT have the support of
several of the neighbors on the cul-de-sac.
Sincerely,
Raj Parihar & Swati Shah, 104 Alta Heights, Owners and Residents