Staff Report.118 Olive Street with Exhibits
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Senior 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: 02/09/2022
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: February 4, 2022
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 to Exceed Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on
Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 118 Olive Street.
APN 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application S-21-013. PROPERTY
OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert. APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect.
REMARKS:
On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application and continued the
matter to February 9, 2022. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to:
• Continue neighbor outreach efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns; and
• Provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence.
Following the meeting of January 12, 2022, the applicant provided updates to staff of their
continued neighbor outreach efforts (Exhibit 14). Additionally, the applicant provided a
rendering showing the exterior of the residence (Exhibit 15).
STORY POLES:
The installed story poles have remained in place on the site. The project sign was updated to
reflect the February 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At the time of this report’s preparation, the Town has not received any public comment.
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: February 4, 2022
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant has submitted a summary of their continued neighbor outreach and a three-
dimensional rendering at the direction of the Planning Commission.
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis in the January 12, 2022, Staff Report and the addition al information
provided by the applicant, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning
Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Make the finding that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the
adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ,
Section 15303: New Construction (Exhibit 2);
2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed FAR
standards, for reduced front and side yard setbacks, and for an exemption from the
parking requirements (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.40.075(c) of the Town Code for granting
approval of an exception to the FAR standards (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for
modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements
(Exhibit 2);
6. Make the findings as required by 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reduced parking
where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as
required (Exhibit 2);
7. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
8. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
9. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-21-003 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the Development Plans in Exhibit 11.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: February 4, 2022
CONCLUSION (continued):
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning Commission can:
a. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
b. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
c. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the January 12, 2022 Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Project Description and Letter of Justification, dated August 2, 2021
5. Color and Materials Board
6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated August 4, 2021
7. Applicant’s response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Owner’s summary of neighbor outreach
9. Photos of existing residence
10. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022
11. Development Plans
Received with the January 12, 2022 Addendum Report:
12. Applicant’s response to public comments
13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Received with this Staff Report:
14. Neighborhood outreach summary
15. Three-dimensional rendering
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: thomas reichert <thomasmichaelreichert@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Jay Plett <jay@plett-arc.com>
Subject: 118 Olive Planning Commission Follow up
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the call to discuss follow up steps based on the January 12th planning
commission direction for a continuance until February 9th. As part of the follow up, see notes on
our outreach efforts:
•As of this evening, January 13, 2022 we sent a note (see below for content of note) to
the direct neighborhood sphere as well as those signing the opposition letter Dated
December 17th, 2021. This note included our personal contact information and an
invitation to our home to discuss the project in plain view of the project.
Included in the distribution is the following (hand delivered):
•114, 116, 120, 122, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135. 107, 108, 110 and 121 Olive
•546 San Benito (believe they may also be the owner of 122 olive, but left 2 separate
invitations)
•630 San Benito (home owner of 116 Olive)
•19330 Overlook Rd (home owner of 116 Olive)
Additionally, specifically for 19330 Overlook Rd I was able to obtain their phone number from a
mutual neighbor and have called to leave a voicemail and sent a text message to relay contact
information.
Note that went out (also included was our family holiday card):
"Dear Neighbors,
You are invited to join for a meet and greet with the new residents of 118 Olive St.: Thomas and
Meredith Reichert and their Family. We have lived here for the past year and would love to meet
and share our proposed project to expand our current home to meet the needs of our family. We
plan to be out front of our home on Monday January 17th and Friday January 28th around 530p if
you’re available to join. If you prefer to email, call or text, my contact is below:
thomasmichaelreichert@gmail.com (858)449-4536
Sincerely,
The Reichert Family "
--
Thomas M. Reichert
EXHIBIT 14
maintain the property in its current zoning conditions. We discussed how the neighborhood has many
examples of variances, including those who signed the opposition letter, but continued his position.
Overall we learned he likes the project and design, but would prefer if we had no variances. He also
mentioned he wished there was more outreach earlier in the project- one area we think in retrospect
would have been great advice to take. Our architect mentioned it to us early, but we as new owners and
first time home renovators didn’t realize the impacts. The Planning Commission's advice to extend to
give us this additional time really did help us to engage further and give adequate time to discuss with
our neighbors. Another topic which was discussed that night was our driveway length, some concerns
about us having less than 20’. The next morning we were able to get a measurement from the garage to
the sidewalk and measured it at 20’-4”, We believe this clarification helps ease these concerns, but we
weren't able to discuss it at the time we all met. In our initial analysis of the neighborhood variances we
didn't call out driveway compliance, if we did, appears to be one of many homes which
doesn't have a 20' clearance. Additionally, we didn't note that this home has an entry stairway that
appears to be within 10' of the front setback because we were only reviewing Olive St homes.
Pam ( Olive)- She continued to stay neutral on her position on the project. She was helpful to keep
the conversation as friendly as possible and provided a good neighborly fabric for us all to align with
positivity.
Mark/Christie ( Olive)- They continued their support for the project. One point at the beginning of
the meeting we really appreciated their positive support of the project because it felt very much like we
were being teamed up against. As mentioned the meeting ended up much better than where it started.
Jim ( Olive)- He joined the meeting after most others left, but came and shared that he supported
our project as long as we don’t use the contractor from the Olive project.
Eric ( Olive resident)- He also joined late, but continues to share his support for the project.
Additionally he confirmed what we believed in regards to Lynn ( Olive Owner at ) that
she has now supports our project, but has general concerns about the neighborhood being able to
maintain its character in the long term.
In summary of the 2+2 on each side and 5 across from our project during the extension by
Planning Commission:
114, 116, 129 and 132 support the project
120 and 122 like the project, but don’t agree with the variances and blocking views
127 and 135 have not participated in the outreach
133 remains neutral
We believe the additional time to meet the neighbors was a positive recommendation and that we used
that time to engage with the intent of the extension. We suggest the proposed change above the garage
to a roof be accepted by the Planning Commission as part of the good faith discussions to take feedback
from the neighbors. We don’t believe any changes to the variances would be necessary given the
Planning Commission's instruction to limit the scope of the extension, the examples given of the
immediate neighborhood which also have similar setbacks and FAR’s (which were considered as part of
the Planning Department recommendation for approval and inline with the the Town's zoning code
which allows for variances on these specific types of non-conforming lots and fits the neighborhood
streetscape), as well as an understanding from the neighbors that they acknowledged the intention of
our meetings would likely not result in significant changes.
Thank you
-Thomas Reichert
PS.
FYI. See follow up note we plan to distribute to the neighbors who came on Friday:
"Hi Neighbors,
It was great to meet you at our house on Friday. We wanted to confirm that we heard your concerns. It’s
our intention to be mindful of our design and keep in line with the context of the neighborhood.
Specifically we understand that there are many homes on this block that exceed the FAR and setback
exceptions, we looked at each of these categories and chose to not be the largest, tallest or closest in
any position to ensure that any future precedence would not impact greater growth that what already
exists on the block, yet still allow families to grow in an environment with rising housing costs and
shortages. We will continue to suggest the patio above the garage be changed to a roof to maintain the
privacy of our direct neighbor. We also wanted to clarify that our driveway will functionally be designed
to be more than 20’, which was highly discussed to ensure we have a driveway and a garage space.
Lastly, while we know there were several other topics, we would urge you to reach out to us if you
would like to discuss further.
Thank you
Thomas, Meredith and Family"
EXHIBIT 15
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PL
PL
PL
PL
19'-0"15'-0"
15'-0"
10'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
28'-0"
EXHIBIT 16
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: thomas reichert <thomasmichaelreichert@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Jay Plett <jay@plett-arc.com>
Subject: Re: 118 Olive - Public Comments
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
Thanks for sending this public comment. Going into the meeting tonight we realize there may
not be enough time allotted to speak, so we’ll summarize a few thoughts after reviewing this
additional information.
First, we appreciate the open nature of the process for neighbors to be able to share concerns.
In our Planning Commission meeting last month they asked us All to discuss the project as
neighbors- in person would be ideal, but phone or e-mail would work. We personally reached
out with a letter to each household identified, shared our personal contact information, hosted
two meetings at our home and had follow up letters suggesting our openness to any further
direct contact to discuss. We supplied a summary of all the discussions that took place to the
Planning Department for reference (as accurate as possible knowing it would be open to public
scrutiny) for anyone to review.
We wanted to call out one specific item with the recent public comment letter. Understanding
everyone is entitled to voice their opinions, there was one comment that was expressed which
was different from our interpretation in regard to the meeting at our home on Jan 28th with
Jim from 110 Olive. After reading the public comment, which we had a separate conversation
with Jim we were immediately concerned that he may have been offended about our outreach
attempt. Just in case, we wanted to make sure Jim didn’t not share the perspective in the public
comment. We reached out to connect directly with him last night at his home where he
confirmed we didn’t offend him during our meeting on Jan 28th and that he is still good with
our proposed project given our feedback. Furthermore, suggested we ignore the representation
from the public comment in regard to the negative impact of that letter. We are very aware
some neighbors may choose to change their mind or avoid potential conflict, but are pointing
out that all our interactions with Jim continue to be positive.
Not specific to the public comment submitted, but to clarify some of the history of the planning
process we have up to this point:
We originally submitted the home as a renovation project. As we moved further along the
process with Planning Department it became clear they were ready to proceed to with a
recommendation for Planning Commission, but we started to discuss pros and cons of a project
of this scale to either be a new build vs saving 50% of the structure to fall under specific
guidelines for renovation. At this point we grew concerned that unexpected costs from delays,
wood dry rot or other unknown issues may be outweighed by doing a new build. We engaged
EXHIBIT 17
Planning to understand that we could potentially keep the design exactly the same as if we
were planning a renovation, but make concessions as if it were a new build: add fire sprinklers,
lose gas powered appliances, underground utilities, etc. This wasn’t a straightforward or easy
decision, the cost of renovating a home and building a basement while maintaining the
structure with understanding the overall impact and disruptions to the neighbors while we
either lift or roll the existing structure to the back of the lot for months while we dig a
basement. All to say, we made compromises to our intentions, thinking about overall impacts
to the neighbors and project costs which ultimately plays into our feasibility to expand the
house for our growing family.
Our current design for a new home is EXACTLY the same as it was when we had recommended
approval for a renovation (except the placement of one window). The design keeps the house
in the EXACT same setting as it sits today, with only 2 small difference- (1) garage is bumped out
to be compliant and help with parking and (2) we have a small room added to the front which
adds visual appeal/street presence scale so the massing of the house isn't a large flat 2 story. To
add, the design brings massing off of the second story and maintains most of the volume on the
ground floor which intentionally is meant to be part of the neighborhood context.
In regard to the front setback: the front is set back similar to the context of the neighbors. If we
tried to move the whole house back it would limit the already small area for our kids to play in
back and we want to respect the back neighbor’s privacy by not getting closer to their property.
One of the questions that we haven’t heard a strong case for yet based on the discussion to this
point: How does our use of the FAR or setbacks impact the other homes for this lot and
context? Specifically citing, the code allows these exceptions for this use case and there are so
many examples in the immediate neighbors that have similar exceptions, including those who
signed the public comment of opposition. It was not clear to us what issue would be solved by
making an adjustment to our plan that wasn’t readily part of the fabric of many of the adjacent
homes. We believe that Town Planning Commission and the Planning Department with their
consulting architect considered all the details in recommending our plan for approval.
A bit long winded here, apologies. Just wanted to write since the time to discuss may be very
limited during the actual session.
Thank you,
The Reichert's
From: Andrea Galatea <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Proposed project at 118 Olive Street, Los Gatos
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Sean,
My name is Andrea Galatea and I have resided at , Los Gatos for several years.
. is next door to the proposed project at 118 Olive St. I am writing to let you and the
planning commission know that I am definitely not in support of the proposed project.
Please feel free to email me should you have any questions, and I would be happy to
elaborate. Best, Andrea Galatea
EXHIBIT 18