Item 2 - Desk Item and Exhibits.118 Olive Street
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 DESK ITEM
DATE: February 9, 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:
Exhibit 16 includes an updated three-dimensional rendering with added dimensions. Exhibit 18
includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 12,
2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2022, including one comment that was
erroneously not included in the staff report packet. Exhibit 17 includes the applicant’s response
to the additional public comments.
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
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013 DATE: February 9, 2022
EXHIBITS (continued):
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 the February 9, 2022 Staff Report:
14. Neighborhood outreach summary
15. Three-dimensional rendering
Received with this Desk Item Report:
16. Three-dimensional rendering with dimensions
17. Applicant’s response to public comments
18. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022 and 11:00
a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2022
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