1 : SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW 7757
HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE
2 : SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW 7674
PEPPERCORN
3 : SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW 7067
CITYSCAPE
4 : SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
SW 7066
GRAY MATTERS
MATERIALS ARE REFERENCED BY LETTER COLORS ARE REFERENCED BY NUMBER:
A : CEMENT PLASTER
FINISH : SAND
B : VINYL WINDOW
F: SPANISH TILE ROOF
COLOR :
G : COPPER CHIMMEY CAP
C : STUCCO FOAM TRIM
E : PERCAST BALUSTERS
D : METAL RAILING
H : TUSCAN COLUMN CAPITAL
COLUMN TO HAVE SQUARED PROFILE
BALUSTERS TO HAVE SQUARED
PROFILE TO MATCH COLMNS
A-3
F
G
C-1 C-1 D-2
A-3
A-4
B-2 E-1 C-1
F
C-1
D-2
H-1
Job #:
Sheet
Drawn by:
Scale:
Date:WINCHESTER MEMORY CARE /
ASSISTED LIVING
15860 - 15894 WINCHESTER BLVD., LOS GATOS, CA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESUBMITTAL #4 : APRIL 4, 2022
COPYRIGHT © 2022
SWENSON BUILDER
Revisions:
20-9215
APRIL 01, 2021
Consultant:
AS NOTEDPLANNING REVIEW NO. 21 1724
DM, EY, IL
MATERIALS AND COLORS
A-6.1
Revision Schedule
374 1. 6
RAB
PO
TS
12" TREE374.98
"MPH"
"STOP"
WM
WM
WM
MH
YAW
EVI RD
YAWEVI RD
I
R
D
W
EV
YA
HCR
CONC
PAD
CONC WALK
EOP
EOP
CONC
WALK
FLC' 8
SIG
BOX
ELEC
VAULT
PG&E
BOX
ELECBOX
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
BLDG COR367.60
BLDG COR
367.60
D Y H
D Y H
FENCE ON LI NE
WALL 0
.86' OUT
WALL 1
.2' IN
WALL 0
.2' OUT
WALL 0
.1' O UT
OH OH
SS"6
6" SS
6" SS
8" W
8" W
8" W
W"01
W"01
W"01
DS"42
DS"42
24"
SD
15" SD
15" SD
Job #:
Sheet
Drawn by:
Scale:
Date:WINCHESTER MEMORY CARE /
ASSISTED LIVING
15860 - 15894 WINCHESTER BLVD., LOS GATOS, CA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESUBMITTAL #4 : APRIL 4, 2022
COPYRIGHT © 2022
SWENSON BUILDER
Revisions:
20-9215
APRIL 01, 2021
Consultant:
AS NOTEDPLANNING REVIEW NO. 21 1724
DM, EY, IL
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY
A-7.1
9876
5432
1 N
Revision Schedule
From: Joseph Gemignani
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 6:47 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: Diego Mora <[email protected]>
Subject: 15860 Winchester Blvd
Hi Jennifer and Diego,
I reviewed the development proposal for the site at 15860 Winchester Blvd and I absolutely love it. I think it is a beautiful looking project and fits in nicely to the character of Los Gatos. This is 100 percent better than the office development proposal for this same site proposed two or three years ago.
I hope it receives a positive review from you and the Planning Commission as well.
This is one of the best projects I’ve seen in quite some time.
Joseph
EXHIBIT 14
From: Samira Shokrgozar
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Winchester Assisted Living/Memory Care Facility
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Jennifer,
I am writing to express my displeasure at the height of the story poles at 15860 Winchester Blvd. I live on which is across from this address on the other side of Winchester. This new building cuts into our serene mountain view which we cherish and is a huge reason we bought this home (I have taken pictures which I can email over).
Additionally, I worry about all the increased traffic this will cause. We have 2 young children who often play on our quiet cul de sac and I can imagine all the extra cars that will now start turning on our street or parking on our street because of this development.
Also, I can imagine that with this type of building we will constantly be hearing emergency and trash vehicles on a daily basis. With young children, getting a sound sleep is crucial.
Please let me know if this is the right place to voice my concerns or if I should be emailing someone else.
Thank you,
Samira Fishwick
From: Lauren Roseman
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Council <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Written comments for Nov 1st Town Council Meeting
EXTERNAL SENDER
Attached are my comments in regards to the proposed development of 15980 Winchester Blvd. Please confirm they will be added to the public comments on this project.
Thanks,
Lauren Roseman
October 25, 2022
Lauren Roseman
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed development of 15890 Winchester Blvd.
While I welcome the project in general, the scale and size are concerning. The previous proposal entailed a 2-story office building with a maximum height of 31 ft, according to plan documents. The current proposal is a 3-story building that reaches 39 feet at the top of the roofline facing Winchester Blvd and 50 feet at the rear of the building. This is significantly higher than any other building in the area, including the 2-story building housing the Palo Alto Medical Foundation at 15720 Winchester Blvd. The height is out of scale and size with the neighborhood where nothing appears to reach more than two stories.
Please consider modifying the height of the building to be consistent with the rest of the area along Winchester Blvd.
Kind regards,
Lauren Roseman
From: Joseph Gemignani
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: 15860 Winchester
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Jennifer,
I want to express my support for the project at 15860 Winchester Blvd. This is the first project I’m actually excited about for this location. Other proposals for this site, over the years, did not fit well with the adjacent neighborhood.
I think the architecture is absolutely beautiful and would be a welcomed addition to the town. I would hope the City does not change the architecture such as removing the tile roof.
I think this is the best proposal I have seen for our town in the last four years. I also totally support a project that helps or seniors.
Thanks for reading my letter,
Joseph
From: A KUMAR
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re 15860-15894 Winchester @Shelbourne Proposed Project [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Greetings,
As previously communicated the proposed structure needs ample parking space both for their Staff and guests as currently we have a major parking space limitation on our residential properties within the vicinity of this proposed building
. Currently there are 2 vehicles, a white truck with Furniture for over 10 days on Winchester across from this project and a red truck that the owner and employee for this project removes its steering when parked from evening on overnite . Is this the kind of activity that we should be looking forward to on our residential streets .No assurance of security patrol will work . unless only permitted parking is adopted on our streets and no overnight parking on residential streets . This is a major security issue .Our LGMS police already have their hand full .
Please give Careful consideration on Exterior illumination and lights emitting from windows , no imposing views into our backyards privacy .
Hopefully vehicle entrance is limited from Shelburne and possibly a turn signal lane from winchester and University to Shelburne ,
Thanks
Adesh Kumar
Resident since 1984
1 August 2023
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
Dear Chair Barnett and Commission Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed Winchester Memory Care/Assisted Living facility at 15860 Winchester Blvd. The opinions contained in this letter are strictly my own and are not intended to represent the views of community groups I participate in.
I believe the increasing population of older adults in Los Gatos and their associated needs would be well served by expansion of memory care and assisted living resources for our residents. Assuming the Planning Commission finds that the proposed facility meets the Town’s standards, I would encourage members to support this proposal for the benefit of our older adults with special needs.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Picraux
S. Tom Picraux
Los Gatos, CA 95032
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/9/2023
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: August 8, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone, Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on Property Zoned O. Located at 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way. APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project.
Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 15 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at http://www.losgatosca.gov/15860WinchesterBoulevard)
Previously received with August 9, 2023 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings
4. Draft Conditions of Approval for Architecture and Site, Variance, and Lot Merger ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21- 010, M-22-008, V-21-003, and ND-22-001
August 8, 2023
EXHIBITS (continued):
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
6. Project Description
7. Letter of Justification
8. Market Study
9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report
10. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Arbor Resources
11. Town's Consulting Arborist Peer Review by Monarch Consulting Arborists
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Development Plans
14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2023 Received with this Addendum Report:
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
From: Georgina Van Horn
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 5:27 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Mtg Wed. Aug. 9
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission,
This email is concerning the Architecture and Site Applcatiom S-21-008 15860 Winchester Blvd. I live at . one of the two closest townhouses at the .
The building proposed for the site is enormous! It comes almost to our wall that separates the two properties. It would overwhelm the entire area south of Daves Ave. and a main entrance into town. Winchester Blvd. from Lark is lined with trees to Daves. From that point all the buildings are low and mostly behind trees.
We at the have worked to keep us looking like a woodsy area because of the parks right across the street from us on University Ave. Also to keep our small town feel.
My townhouse door faces the huge side of the two to three story building. They would be looking into my upstairs three bedroom windows and I would be able to see into their windows.
The town has a 40% coverage. They are asking for 50%. Looking at the front of the building it looks like it takes the whole lot. We should be able to see that it only covers 40%! I ask you to please consider these many factors. Having a building that size would not only impact this whole area but also many lives.
Thank you for all your work for our town.
Sincerely,
Georgina Van Horn
EXHIBIT 15
From: Demian Raspall
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; Jennifer Armer <[email protected]> Cc: Dave Weigand; Karen Vincent
Subject: Swenson's Development Proposal for 15860 Winchester Boulevard [S-21-008, U-21-010, V-21- 003, M-22-008]
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Members of the Conceptual Design Advisory Committee, I am the serving president of the University Oaks Homeowners Association. Our community is located directly adjacent to the proposed development by Swenson.
On behalf of our homeowners, I kindly request the attached pdf letter to be included in the packet for the CDAC meeting, and thoughtfully considered when reviewing Swenson's application.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Demian Raspall
on behalf of University Oaks Homeowners.
Ref: Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008
University Oaks Condominium Association
707 University Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
August 7 th 2023
Via electronic mail
Ref: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
Dear Members of the Conceptual Design Advisory Committee, We would like to share our concerns regarding the proposed project on the adjacent parcels to our community. We believe this project, as presented, is not a good fit for our town. This situation is amplified by the developer's lack of interest in being a good neighbor.
Lack of communication
● Swenson has been developing this project for the last few years. However, the last communication we had with them was in October 2020 when they shared their preliminary design and we provided our initial feedback. ● For more than 30 months Swenson refined the project without seeking any feedback from our community.
● 2 weeks ago, in the midst of confusion with the hearing dates, they reached out to schedule a meeting with us. We held that meeting on August 2nd. ● Swenson shared, for the first time with us, their project plans in the application. Their general tone was “ this project is finalized, you can voice your concerns at the public hearing ”.
● As far as we know, Swenson has not reached out to other members of the community either.
We are extremely disappointed with the way Swenson has treated us. Following our initial feedback in 2020 we have never been approached again. We have serious concerns with the design but we were never given an opportunity to discuss with them. They clearly had no interest in getting our input on their design.
Size of the building facing our community
● The proposed building is massive in size and has a very tall facade facing our University Oaks community.
● The buffer area between our community and Swenson’s building is insufficient to provide visual screening and sound abatement.
● Swenson argues they kept only 2 stories facing our property but, in reality, because of the steep grade it is really a 3 story structure.
● Project is not designed with the neighborhood context or surrounding environment in mind, like the existing scale and character of surrounding structures. This area would be better suited with the established character of the area of single and two story residential and non-residential structures.
Additional concerns raised by members of our community include ● Density
● Parking/Traffic
● Bulk/Massing/Height
● Tree removal
● Visibility/Privacy
● Artificial Light Encroachment/Shadow Effect of Building We would have liked an opportunity to sit with the developer, discuss our concerns and be given an opportunity to explore alternatives that can make their building compatible with our needs . Unfortunately, Swenson has avoided contact with our community and downplayed the size and impact of their project, with us and with the community at large, by avoiding outreach.
It is not only disappointing but it also sets a very bad precedent as to how land development could be conducted in our town .
We understand it is the responsibility of our community to provide for senior housing, we also understand there is a reasonable standard of what needs to be provided and this project exceeds this standard significantly in respect to density, height, bulk, and overall compatibility within the surrounding community. Had we been given an opportunity to discuss with the developer and attempt to unlock that middle ground, we could be approaching This Commission with different feedback.
We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns and look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Yours truly,
Residents of University Oaks Homeowners Association.
From: Suzanne Rollin
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:47 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; Jennifer Armer <[email protected]> Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed project for redevelopment located at 15860 Winchester Blvd. adjacent to the where I have lived for over 25 years.
I recently attended a meeting of our homeowners association with a representative of Swenson and I have reviewed the presentation of their plans online. I wish to express my concerns:
The size of the proposed building relative to other buildings and residences on Winchester Blvd. is enormous. In addition, Swenson is asking for usage of 50% of the land vs. 40%. Swenson is also asking for a height variance in excess of 35 feet. The effect of the massive size of the proposed building, its height and 10 foot setback from the wall of our property will place our homes in a cavern. In addition, the proposed building will have residential units with windows that will look directly into some of our homes. Swenson’s drawings and video of the proposed building do not illustrate what their building will look like next to our complex, resulting in a less than accurate illustration of the project.
It appears that Swenson is relying on a 2016 Traffic Operation Analysis that is very out of date. There is very heavy traffic on Winchester Blvd., particularly on weekends. The recent addition of the bike lanes has also affected traffic. My understanding is that in addition to the residents, there will be 24 employees at the building per shift, in addition to the traffic generated by deliveries and residents coming and going.
I am also concerned that the proposed building does not negatively impact the two very large and old oak trees (Large Protected Trees) on our property.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Rollin
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Eric Hulser
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to 15860 Winchester Blvd
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Jennifer,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Blvd. I apologize if there is another email I should send this to. This is the formal document I am submitting, and I will be presenting some additional slides tomorrow in-person at the council meeting.
Thank you,
Eric Hulser
Dear Council Members,
My name is Eric Hulser, I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Ashley Abercrombie Hulser, as well as my fellow homeowners in the located at . We are the nearest
neighbors to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Boulevard and are writing in strong opposition of this project plan’s approval. They have submitted to the planning committee variance requests that go far above what is an acceptable adjustment and I intend to show plainly why these should be rejected.
Zoning Requirements
Firstly, this property is zoned for Office use. I understand that they have been granted a conditional use permit to build an assisted living facility - and we have aligned with them on that. However, these are no longer offices, these are going to be residential units - units with living rooms and bedrooms and courtyards for their residents, with units directly facing our homes in our property. Based on the project plans, this building aligns to the definition of an R-M zone, which defines requirements for assisted living facilities with courtyards as this project is proposing - as such, we should hold the building requirements to the same standard. For instance, in zoning for an Office, the height limit is 35 feet and the setback requirements from a side wall are 10 feet, which is what this plan is built toward. But in an R-M zone, there are specific callouts for buildings with living and bedroom windows facing a side wall, as this building will have.
In that case the setback requirement is 20 feet, not 10. In addition, any parts of these buildings that are not over cellar parking should then have a 30 foot height limit as opposed to 35 feet. This may be zoned as an office, but they are not building an office, they are building a multi-family residential assisted living building, they cannot treat it as an office.
Variance Requests
Going then into the requests, the height variance that is being requested here is to exceed 35 feet - much of this building goes as high as 50 feet above the finished grade.
This is not a slight variance, depending on the zoning requirement we set that is 15-20 feet above the height limit for our community. The net result of this is a building that is far larger than anything else on this street, and a size that has caused various other issues with this project already.
Image References
This view is on page 32 of the Project Plan submitted to the city. You can clearly see where they are claiming the Maximum Allowed Height, and it is called out as being above the natural grade - that is not the measurement, the finished grade is clearly lower and should be what is used per our zoning requirements.
This is a more accurate representation of this page and the variance request according to the R-M requirements, assuming this finished grade to be where the garage parking is located (so still 35’ in the back).
Similarly this is the view presented on page 43 of their project plan document, this would be the theoretical view from our property. However, again, this is a misrepresentation as this vantage point would only be achievable if you were behind our homes - it is rendered as though our property does not exist.
The second render clearly shows a height limit and attempts to portray that the building is underneath it in its entirety - going as far as completely omitting the building behind it as though it does not exist, and does not even align with the first image..
Overall, this rendering is blatantly false as that is not the height limit as shown below.
This view found on page 51 however gives the same vantage point, without the trees and walls from the render, which clearly shows the finished grade going well below the natural grade that they are claiming to be the height limit in the previous image - though their height limit line does adjust accordingly which shows they are aware of the discrepancy. Here, they conveniently do not include the variance area shading - they show it in yellow on their diagram, however do not fill it in, leading to a misrepresentation again that there is no variance area..
If we fill in the variance properly against the roofline (as per the zoning requirement which calls out the height being measured to the grade directly beneath that point) then we get a very different picture than the above renderings provided by the developer. Again, I would like to stress these are residential units not office rooms - those are living quarters coming out to a patio on that bottom floor, there is no cellar parking for this building, and thus should have a height limit of 30’.
From the rear however is where you truly see the size of this building and the insane amount above the height limit it is.
This roofline goes to 50’ above the finished grade, that is 15-20’ above the height limit, for a large percentage of this project.
In addition, when viewed from above, you can also see the 10’ setback limit, based on the other renders that show the redline being 10’ from the side wall. This whole building is 10’ too close to the side - given the fact that these are living patios and quarters for residents, it should be 20’ away.
These are a lot of variances that go well above the intended limits. In addition to these, this is a very large lot and yet still the developer is proposing to go over that as well using 28,436 square feet of their 56,889 square feet, above the limit by 10%. This is a massive project and it seems unfathomable to grant these requests given their size, impact and gross delta above the norm.
Netting Requirements + Public Opposition
Moving beyond the zoning limitations, we have already seen two variances granted for this project in addition to its conditional use permit - the first to avoid using netting to mark out the building lines and the second to avoid putting up additional flags when the builder failed to do it properly in the beginning. The reason they were unable to properly net this project is directly related to its size. It is so far above the limit that it created an unsafe condition for them to net. If they simply built a building to code then this would not have been an issue.
I would also like to call out that I was at the town hall meeting in April when the second variance was granted. I raised the point that this project is not garnering the appropriate attention within the community to raise awareness about the size and scope to drive a
proper opposition to it. The actions since seem to align with an attempt to thwart or dissuade this opposition. The poles that exist remain in a derelict state - the poles are leaning over, the flags are deteriorated. The developer was granted the second variance by the council citing the reasoning that it would take too long to fix due to the rains, erecting billboards would be faster. The hearing was in April, the billboards did not appear until late June or early July, I do not recall exactly when because the are so innocuous that it did not draw my attention, which was their explicit purpose and I was even looking for them. For someone not familiar with the project or area, simply driving down Winchester Boulevard to their home, they would likely not know it is there - let alone see the QR code to go view the movie.
In addition, the billboard had the incorrect date for the hearing (or we had the incorrect cards) however as of July 14th when we received our cards for the hearing, and up until the day of on the town’s agenda, this hearing was stated for July 27th, not August 9th.
Whether deliberate or accidental, or due to the length of time for the billboards to be erected, this undoubtedly created confusion for those who were following along to communicate their opposition.
Renderings
This leads me to the next point on the renderings. We met with the developer on August 2nd and brought up multiple objections to these views. Many of them do not properly show the building in context. These angles show vantage points that would be well farther removed from the side of the building they claim to represent, particularly where our community is concerned. The size and proximity of the building would not really allow for it because as stated, it is too tall and too close to show an accurate depiction from their side wall - it is virtually on top of our property. We will include videos from our community showing the true vantage point, and have asked for updates from the developer to show more of the building within proper scope and context of the community. Their video from their billboard does show a bit more, but none of the plans that are included on the towns website include that, so unless someone noticed this
signage and actively slowed themselves down to access that QR code link, they would not have seen it.
Traffic Operations Analysis
In addition to the variances, the size of this project will have a very large impact on traffic in the Los Gatos Community. As with numerous aspects of this project proposal, the traffic operations analysis that is being presented is outdated. This document references the “results of the intersection LOS analysis from the 2016 approved office development transportation study” and the fact that they claim there will not be a substantial change in impact to not perform an updated analysis. In addition the Site Access and Circulation analysis that accounts for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists was conducted on October 13th 2020. Given that this section is outlining the driveway site requirements and how to ensure a safe vantage point for vehicles to see cyclists, this needs to be revisited now that Winchester Boulevard has a new dedicated bike lane that was not present at the time of the initial study.
Beyond those oversights, we believe the trip estimation number provided needs to be revisited as well. The developer sites usage of ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition as their source for trip estimation which was published in 2017. The Eleventh Edition of this manual was published in 2021 with more updated multimodal trip generation data and specifically calls out changes to the Assisted Living (254) and Congregate Care Retirement Community (255) rates in their Updates to the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition summary. These would have a direct impact on the estimations. The other objection we have with this calculation is that it only factors in the residential units - the number of beds and units within the facility and that due to the nature of the residents, there is likely to be less travel impact.
However, later in the same document they reference that the VTA would treat an Assisted Care facility more akin to a hospital. This is due to the staff working there and trips that will be generated as far as loading, unloading of supplies as well as visitors to the residents in the community. These trips will happen at all ours of the day, as it also states (however does not factor into the calculation) there will be as many as 24 employees per shift, which will need 24 hour staffing, which can generate upwards of 144 trips that are unaccounted for alone (24 employees x 3 shifts x 2 trips). There is no mention of just how many additional ancillary trips there may be, however given the amount of times loading and unloading are called out within
this document, it seems to be a valid assumption that there will be frequent occurrences - considerably more than an office in today’s hybrid work environment.
Overall at minimum we would request this study to be redone with the latest data and sources as we cannot rely on an impact study performed over seven years ago based on data derived in 2017. Given the importance and focus that the city is placing on traffic, getting an updated and accurate assessment seems critical. Just in April at the town hall I joined, I saw constituent after constituent implore the council to improve the safety of our intersections after a young mother passed away after being hit right up the road by a vehicle on Blossom Hill. Any project that would see a net increase in our traffic so substantially should be heavily scrutinized in order to ensure we are keeping our community safe, and the reason we would see such a high increase with this project is directly correlated to its size, which is only enabled by granting these variance requests.
Protected Trees
The final point we would like to bring to the council’s attention is the consideration of the two large oaks that exist on our property. The arborist study that the developer presented only assesses the impact to the trees directly on their property, however the construction of this new building - and the height of it - will likely have an impact on the trees in our community as well, given the obstruction to the sun and the potential shock impact to their root system as they sit less than 15 feet away from the adjoining property.
These oaks would be defined as protected under the town’s Large Protected Tree definition as they are over Oaks over 24 inches in diameter. Any project that we undertake within our community we consult the arborist for to ensure no impact to these oaks, at minimum we would request the developer conduct an updated study to understand the impact to them and adjust any plans according to the findings.
Conclusion
Taken all together, we believe that the best course of action would be for the council to simply deny this project the variance requests they are seeking, and would deeply implore the members to vote as such. We have already supported the conditional use to build an assisted
living facility - let’s simply require the building to be built properly according to our zoning requirements.
Approving these requests, and thus allowing this project to go forward despite the many limitations it breaks would seem grossly outside of the town’s principles as well as set a precedent for other such massive developments in the future.
Denying these requests however would help (1) our town maintain the overall aesthetic and profile we’re striving for, (2) ensure that traffic stays within moderation per the property size, (3) provide a building of appropriate size, scale and presentation for the community to properly consider and (4) ensure no undue risk to the natural environment that we’re so proud of within our community.
We implore you to vote against the granting of these variance requests and the approval of this project as is all together.
Sincerely,
Ashley & Eric Hulser
Los Gatos, CA
8 August 2023
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
Subject: Winchester Memory Care/Assisted Living Facility Planning Commission 8/9/2023 Agenda Item #3
Dear Chair Barnett and Commission Members,
I am writing to clarify and correct my letter of August 1, 2023 regarding the proposed Winchester Memory Care/Assisted Living Facility. I am in support of the facility as originally approved by the Planning Commission. The new proposal has greatly expanded the size of the original proposal which I do not support. While I support additional assisted living and memory care options in Los Gatos, I cannot support the newly proposed expansion of the Winchester facility on 15860 Winchester Blvd. The opinions contained in this letter are strictly my own.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Picraux
S. Tom Picraux
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Bryan Mekechuk
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday.
This email is to advise you, and the Planning Commission, that I will submit a detailed letter setting forth my thoughts on the proposed development at 15860 Winchester Boulevard.
I fully understand and support Staff’s recommendation of “Denial” for Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001.
You will receive a detailed letter from me tomorrow, and I will attend the meeting tomorrow evening.
Best regards,
Bryan
--
Bryan Mekechuk
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/9/2023
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: August 9, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone, Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on Property Zoned O. Located at 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way. APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project.
Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 16 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 9, 2023.
The Staff Report inadvertently omitted reference to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) review of preliminary plans for the proposed project, which occurred on June 10, 2020.
The agenda and link to the staff report are available online here:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06102020-1692.
The meeting minutes are available here:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06102020-1692 ATTACHMENT 3
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21- 010, M-22-008, V-21-003, and ND-22-001
August 9, 2023
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at http://www.losgatosca.gov/15860WinchesterBoulevard)
Previously received with August 9, 2023 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings
4. Draft Conditions of Approval for Architecture and Site, Variance, and Lot Merger
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
6. Project Description
7. Letter of Justification
8. Market Study
9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report
10. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Arbor Resources
11. Town's Consulting Arborist Peer Review by Monarch Consulting Arborists
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Development Plans
14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2023 Previously received with the August 9, 2023 Addendum Report:
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
Received with this Desk Item Report:
16. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 9, 2023.
August 9, 2023 Los Gatos Planning Commision Public Comments – Swenson Project (Agenda Item #3) 1 Dear Planning Commission,
As a planner, I understand the importance of early and consistent engagement with affected neighbors of any new development project. This engagement allows neighbors to express their concerns to the project team and be part of the design process to ensure a project that is compatible and, most importantly, welcomed by the neighborhood.
As a planner and an affected neighbor, I am disappointed in the applicant and Town staff's lack of engagement, public outreach, and collaboration on this project.
Here are some points to consider in your deliberations:
1. The applicant only conducted one neighbor meeting, August 2nd (last Wednesday) with my community on this version of the project.
2. Town staff received no public comments on the draft IS/MND because they failed to notice the neighborhood adequately.
3. The applicant installed non-compliant story poles before receiving an exception and did not attempt to install the approved alternatives before receiving a second exception for the now-installed on-site project boards and video simulation (which no longer works as of writing this letter).
4. The project’s Town webpage is cumbersome and lacks timely information like upload/revision date, making navigating the project application packet challenging, even for someone like me.
5. Town staff’s project oversight is lacking and biased towards the applicant; sending an earlier (July 26, 2023) public hearing notice when the on-site boards states an August 9th hearing date is one example.
6. In Section G of staff’s report, there is no mention of how the project does not meet the following 2020 General Plan Land Use Element policies (not an exhaustive list) : LU-1.1,
1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 6.1 through 6.10, 7.2 through 7.4, 9.1, 9.9, 10.4
7. In Section G, Town staff references the 2040 General Plan in certain instances, but the application was submitted in 2021 and should only be subject to the 2020 General Plan.
8. The applicant does not provide any information about the facility’s operations in the application, mostly because they have yet to idenfity a potential operator.
9. Town staff relies on the applicant-provided market study, which are solely intended to determine project financial feasibility and return on investment (ROI), to make required CUP findings.
10. Project design makes heavy assumptions about the facility's operations such as required number of units/beds, parking spaces, etc. without an identified operator or regulations for such facilities.
EXHIBIT 16 Page 457
August 9, 2023 Los Gatos Planning Commision Public Comments – Swenson Project (Agenda Item #3) 2 11. Assisted living facilities are regulated and licensed by the state. Still, no information in the application packet confirms this facility would meet regulatory requirements (market study makes vague statements such as “this market study assumes competent management will be in place” and “proper adherence to state regulations is assumed.”)
12. This facility “is targeting at the high-end of the private pay marketplace” per the market study(page 35, PDF page 136); not what a reasonable person would consider affordable housing.
13. Project proposes senior housing, which would make this project not a pure commercial use but moreso a mixed-use development, which has additional Code requirements such as parking for each proposed use.
14. Variance findings cannot be made because the property does not have unique or extraordinary circumstances; the height and lot coverage exceedances are a pure disregard for Town development standards to make the project profitable
15. Applicant was aware, especially in light of the previous project’s administrative record of proceedings, of the property’s challenges to development and what a project that fits the neighborhood context would look like comparatively
16. Project does not fit within the neighborhood context of the surrounding community and does not conform to O Zone development standards
17. My community has always been available to discuss and collaborate with the applicant, but the applicant has made little effort to do so with us and other neighbors.
18. Town staff should of required more neighbor outreach from the early stages of this projects as a requirement before setting this project for hearing.
19. The applicant’s August 2nd meeting was in vain; I do not realistically believe the applicant will make any changes to the projects based on my community’s feedback this late in the process
20. I support the proposed assisted living use, but not the project as-designed.
In sum, I hope the above points will help you determine that this project should be recommended for denial not just based on staff’s inability to make the required Variance findings, but for two other reasons: (1) general lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and (2) a general lack of engagement, outreach, and collaboration with affected neighbors.
I look forward to continued engagement, outreach, and collaborative work with Swenson for a much-needed uses in our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Dylan Parker,
From: James Parker
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Swenson Public Comments
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
I have an additional question - why wasn't the staff report, meeting minutes, and public comments received for the June 2020 CDAC meeting not included in the packet? It is part of the administrative record of proceedings for the project and PC should be made aware of the CDAC's feedback and directions provided early on in the Town's review process in light of public comments received. I am hopeful this was an oversight and will be quickly corrected.
Please consider this email as additional public comments to forward as a desk item for the Wednesday PC hearing.
-Dylan Parker
From: James Parker
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Swenson Public Comments
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
I have another supplemental public comment for today's Desk Item report (see below):
In my opinion, the project traffic analysis is inaccurate in many aspects:
1. Only weekday local traffic counts when weekend traffic should be taken into consideration. For example, Winchester and University become parking lots during peak summer beach cut through traffic. I have noticed this year alone (2023) that cut through traffic has increase dramatically both in volume and duration.
2. Traffic report does not reflect the reconfiguration of Winchester Boulevard conducted in late 2022, most notably the reduction of one northbound lane of travel and introduction of two buffered bike lanes on both sides. In my observations, I have noticed that this new configuration has increased traffic volumes during peak travel times (and during the hellacious beach traffic mentioned above).
3. Local traffic counts were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most people were not commuting or otherwise generating VMTs. The consultant instead uses a questionable tactic of adjusting the counts upward to match total volumes from a 2016 study conducted for the previous office building project. Perhaps more counts should of been conducted in 2023 to more accurately reflect current commute patterns in light of the COVID pandemic restrictions expiring or otherwise not being an determining factor of artificially lowering the counts.
This list could go on, but I am stopping at three points since I think is is quite evident with these comments, and the ones previously provided, that staff really was not reviewing these documents and or managing the application packet as thoroughly as I would expect as a fellow planner. All the items I have commented on thus I would customarily flag and comment to my applicants in the intial completeness (or what the Town calls deficiencies) review so they may correct before the project goes to hearing.
It also begs the question of who was peer reviewing these documents on the Town's behalf? It is commonplace for this size of project to have Town consultants do so, at the applicant's expense, to provide an unbiased third party opinion.
-Dylan Parker
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
August 9, 2023
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
Architecture and Site Application S-21-008,
Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010,
Variance Application V-21-003,
Subdivision Application M-22-008, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001d
We support Staff’s recommendation of “Denial” for the applications noted above and request that the Planning Commission deny the applications.
For context, we own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the corner of Winchester and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed development. We have owned since 1997. Also, we own a dwelling at in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years – we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. Attached to this letter are six (6) individual letters that we have written regarding this property since 2017.
As evidenced by these letters, the various and changing Applicants to develop this landmark property on Winchester Boulevard have created an immense amount of work by others to identify the problems and errors in the applications. This effort has been undertaken by residents in the Los Gatos community, Town Staff, the Planning Commission, and Town Council. The issues identified in the six letters that we have written have not been addressed by the Applicant.
In this application, Mr. Jessie Bristow of Swenson Builders is requesting approval for demolition of four residential buildings and associated detached structures, construction of an assisted living and memory care facility, variance from the maximum height and lot coverage for the zone, merger of four lots into one, and removal of large protected trees.
Swenson Builders has refused to work on the issues and communicate with the community. Specifically, there has been no neighborhood outreach. While the Town does not require applicants to communicate with the community, community outreach is a leading practice promoted by planning commissions in most jurisdictions so applicants can understand and address community concerns prior to public hearings.
Immediately after the public hearing in the Town Council meeting on April 4, 2023 regarding the Applicant’s request for a Story Pole Policy exemption, I met with Mr. Bristow, gave him my personal contact information, and asked him to convene a neighborhood meeting that the residents of Via Sereno could attend. He indicated that I live in Monte Sereno, not Los Gatos, and input from a neighboring jurisdiction is not required. Jesse acknowledged my request then ignored me.
August 9, 2023 Page 2
Regarding the findings that must be made to approve the individual applications1 associated regarding the proposed development at 15860 Winchester Boulevard, please note the following:
Outdated and Stale Plans and Reports
First, please note that the findings by Staff are based on outdated and stale plans. Please refer to all dates in the documents, plans and reports. For example, the Winchester Memory Care Assisted Living sheets are dated April 1, 2021 and the Existing Conditions are dated November 1, 2021.
The letters from the Applicant are dated from December 13, 2021 and the latest revision date is August 2, 2022. The conditions and statements in the letters should be current, not stale (e.g., traffic conditions, bicycle conditions, neighborhood outreach and communications, etc.
The traffic study referred to by the Applicant, and relied on by Staff in the findings, is noted under the caption, “Transportation Element”. This traffic study is inaccurate and outdated. See also Traffic Study by TJKM.
Several of the required findings to support these applications are included in the Town’s Consulting Architect Report by Cannon Design Group. This report is dated May 4, 2021 and is stale. The photographs and renderings do not include the Class IV bike lanes, which are an important and valuable feature of Winchester Boulevard. Findings should cannot be based on outdated reports.
High Pressure Natural Gas Pipeline under Winchester Boulevard Since we live on Winchester Boulevard, we receive confidential communications regarding Pacific Gas & Electric’s high pressure natural gas transmission pipeline that feeds the Town of Los Gatos is under the Northbound lane of Winchester Boulevard. This high pressure natural gas transmission line is similar to the transmission line that exploded in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, killing eight people.
Please refer to the map published by Pacific Gas & Electric below. 1 Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001.
August 9, 2023 Page 3
On sheet A-2.0, the Water Boiler, Generator and Electrical Room will be 25 feet from the property line. The underground excavation for the underground garage will go further West from the finished wall. The location of Pacific Gas & Electric’s high pressure natural gas transmission line is not noted on any of the plans (due to the confidential nature of such transmission lines).
The smaller the setback, the closer excavation will be to the underground transmission line. The Applicant should propose a setback that will include a safety factor that corresponds to the increased risk of disturbing the existing high pressure natural gas transmission line. The front setback proposed in the prior application was 35 to 44 feet along Winchester Boulevard – this should be considered as the underground setback as well.
Homeless Individual on Shelburne Way
The Town understands and estimates that there are an estimated 18 to 20 permanent homeless individuals that reside in Los Gatos. The Town has funded initiatives to help these individuals. At the same time, the Town has invested in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) consulting work.
Since we often walk on Shelburne Way, we have observed the permanent homeless person that lives in her car at the South West corner of Shelburne Way and University Avenue.
Previously, the Town approved a 30,070 sq ft, two-story office building and the Applicant proposes a 81,633 sq ft three-story facility. The larger the building at 15860 Winchester Boulevard, the more excavation and concrete will be needed. The volume of trucks and length of construction time will increase dramatically.
Consideration should be given to how the increase in size will affect this homeless individual.
Traffic Study by TJKM
The Traffic Impact Analysis Report by TJKM dated March 25, 2022 cannot be used for any findings to support these applications because it is wrong and outdated.
This report does not acknowledge or consider the effect of the existing Class IV bike lanes on Winchester Boulevard (see 3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities). Further, Table 4 refers to intersection control as “Signal” at Winchester Boulevard & Shelburne Way, and University Avenue & Shelburne Way. These signals do not exist.
Figure 6 is wrong.
Vehicle traffic timing and patterns associated with an assisted living and memory care facility, which operates 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, are materially different than traffic patterns associated with an office building. Both our mothers spend their final years in assisted living facilities and we observed the visitor patterns to the aging patients. Many of those visits are on weekends and during meal times. The children and grandchildren of aging patients visit often on weekends.
Although “beach traffic” is at its worst on Saturdays, it is significant on Sundays. Any traffic studies used in findings to support the applications must analyze and quantify the effect of staff and visitor traffic to 15860 Winchester relative to beach traffic. The traffic studies used do not consider such traffic patterns. [rest of this page left blank]
August 9, 2023 Page 4
As recommended by Staff, we ask that the Planning Commission deny the applications related to 15860 Winchester Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Attachments
01/19/17 Letter to Planning Commission
01/24/17 Letter to Planning Commission – ADDENDUM
01/30/17 Letter to Doug Rich, Valley Oak Partners, LLC
10/14/17 Letter to Town Council
10/17/17 Letter to Town Council
10/22/22 Letter to Town Council
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 19, 2017
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
We own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the corner of Winchester and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed development. We have owned since 1997. In addition, we own a dwelling at in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years and we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. We were invited to, and attended the information session hosted by the applicant, then reviewed the story poles in December and January, and went through the complete application as filed with the Town of Los Gatos.
After reviewing all information available and based on living opposite the property, in our opinion the proposed development does not meet the required findings in order to be approved by the Planning Commission. Specifically, the proposed project does not meet the Commercial Design Guidelines regarding mass and scale.
Concerns
First, and foremost, one of the most desirable attributes of Los Gatos is its setting – Los Gatos is a small town that is framed by beautiful hillsides on each side of Los Gatos Creek. The town prides itself on maintaining its character and has approved developments that are consistent with its character and setting. Importantly, the Town of Los Gatos (and Monte Sereno) have managed the development of the surrounding hillsides to preserve their natural beauty for the enjoyment of everyone.
The Town of Los Gatos established Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to manage the development of the hillsides around Los Gatos. The Planning Commission has invested significant time and resources to implement and maintain those guidelines, including the size and visibility of
January 19, 2017 Page 2
structures and even lighting at night (consider 15680 Gum Tree Lane). The Planning Commission has been extremely diligent in protecting our hillsides.
Winchester Boulevard is one of the major arteries into Los Gatos and one has excellent views of the hillsides when going South on Winchester into Los Gatos.
The proposed development will box in that view and establish a precedent for building height of future developments along Winchester Boulevard. Specifically, the proposed application is to build to the maximum allowed height of 35 feet.
The Office Professional zone starts at the Southernmost part of the proposed development and continues North along Winchester to half way between Farley Road West and Pleasant View Avenue. The full block between Shelburne Way and Farley Road West may still be developed.
Underscoring the precedent that this proposed building will establish, the applicant has even included another two story building on the North side of Shelburne Way – see the sketch on sheet IM1.2.
Although set back from Winchester, the face of the building is a monolithic wall, broken with two open glass rooms looking down onto Winchester. While perhaps breaking the lines, these two features serve to block the views of the hillsides even more as these features are higher than the majority of the roofline.
The applicant stated in their covering letter, “Large glass openings complete the design while providing plenty of natural light and views of the hills to the east.” The applicant acknowledges the views and, by providing those views for their tenants, the proposed structure will blocking the views for everyone else.
While the application is consistent with the general plan and zoning and may follow the ‘letter of the law’, the application does not follow the ‘spirit of the law’ as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos. For example, it is desirable to have a transition to building heights and other dimensions at the perimeter of a zone and individual properties. Said differently, the general plan and zoning is not an algorithm – hence the need and role for a Planning Commission to review proposed developments, encourage community outreach and hold public hearings.
Approving the application with the maximum height will block views of the Los Gatos hillsides, which the Town of Los Gatos has committed to preserve.
Denying the application as submitted should not be a surprise to a developer in Los Gatos.
Developers are encouraged to engage neighbors and other stakeholders prior to submitting their application to the Planning Commission.
The applicant hosted an information session on September 12, 2016. I attended that presentation and, with the others in the room, I found it difficult to understand the scale and scope as no cross sections or elevations were presented – it was somewhat abstract. Since then, the applicant has added additional information to their application (e.g., the sketch referred to earlier with the two story building on the North side of Shelburne Way.
At that meeting, I asked a number of questions and outlined four major concerns: (1) size and mass of the proposed structure; (2) traffic turning left into and left out of the at-grade parking from/to Winchester Boulevard; (3) traffic turning left from Winchester Boulevard onto Shelburne
January 19, 2017 Page 3
Way for access into the underground parking; and (4) the loss of privacy related to a balcony at the North side of the proposed building on Shelburne Way.
Given that I articulated these issues, I expected the applicant to follow up with me, one way or another, since they requested my name and contact information from all attendees at the information session.
Since the meeting, I did not receive any further communications from the applicant. Upon reviewing the application as submitted to the Town of Los Gatos, none of my concerns were addressed whatsoever. Clearly, the information session was a perfunctory ‘check the box’ step in their application.
Considerations for Applicant
To support this application, which we would like to do, we offer the following for the applicant to consider:
1. Move the building East by approximately 10 feet and lower the maximum height above grade, as measured from Winchester Boulevard, to 25 feet. This will continue to allow views of the iconic hillsides on the East side of Los Gatos.
2. Integrate sustainability elements in the design. For example, consider future mounts for solar photovoltaic panels and even stationary storage (vs. generator back up). In their review of the conceptual plans on January 13, 2016, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee commented, “LEED certification would be preferred.” The applicant ignored this comment and has not outlined their reasons for doing so. Other applications in the Town of Los Gatos pursue various levels of LEED certification (e.g., Silver or Gold).
3. Protect the Coastal Oak trees on the property that are being saved. This would be accomplished by moving the building East and, to some extent, making the building length shorter (not as far North to the Coastal Oak on Shelburne Way).
4. Prohibit vehicles from turning left when entering or exiting the at grade parking.
Given the opportunity, we will meet with the applicant to review proposed alternatives and provide feedback.
* * * * * * *
It is in everyone’s best interest to see the site developed in such a way as to add value to the developers, the surrounding neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 24, 2017
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
For ADDENDUM
We are providing additional information to our letter dated January 19, 2017. In doing so, we reiterate the following:
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. We do admire the style of the building.
To summarize this letter, we believe that the Planning Commission should CONTINUE the applications to a later date so the applicant can:
1. Provide information as requested (e.g., additional cross sections and elevations) and answer questions the applicant is unable to answer during the meeting.
2. Meet with interested members of the community and present information to them and receive their feedback (i.e., additional community outreach).
3. Update the Transportation Impact Analysis to include traffic flows to/from Daves Avenue Elementary School via Bruce Avenue.
If the Planning Commission must make a decision on January 25 then we ask that the Planning Commission DENY the applications.
Increase Community Outreach
Unfortunately, as with the North 40, the Planning Commission (and Council) probably recognize now that the public really doesn’t get involved until story poles are put in place. Until then, many members of the community are reticent to review the plans in detail and focus on the proposed development.
The only outreach in the community for this project was a meeting held on September 12, 2016. Two signs were erected when the story poles went up in December 2016, which is when the community really became aware of the project.
We are disappointed with the limited community outreach associated with this application. It was misleading to have the applicant’s structural engineer at the meeting on September 12, 2016 and then see the applicant imply this person attended as a member of the community. Regardless of the intent, the financial interest should be disclosed to be transparent to staff and the Planning Commission.
January 24, 2017 Page 2
On a positive note, the applicant did follow up with residents only immediately adjacent to the project, which they promised to do at the September 12 meeting.
We are offering to attend any future meetings and provide feedback to the applicant, and we believe others in the community may attend such meetings as well (similar to Alberto Way).
Provide Cross Sections and Elevations
During our review of the application, we found the single East/West and North/South cross sections to be inadequate to understand the application. In addition, we believe the maximum height of the building was stated incorrectly by the applicant as the highest point of the roof was noted at 414 ft whereas the actual highest point is almost 416 ft.
Further, the applicant shows the reference elevation for the 35 ft maximum building height in the North West corner of the project as 382 ft (see A2.0), and is 6-1/2 ft further West than most of the building.
That may be fine for that part of the building – the reference elevation for the Southern portion of the building should be on the existing grade of the driveway, which is approximately 375 ft.
The reference elevation at the East side of the proposed building should be 372 ft. resulting in a maximum height of 407 ft. The applicant has picked a “high point” and carried the absolute maximum height across the property resulting in the proposed building exceeding the maximum allowable height for Office Professional.
The elevations shown on A4.0 are difficult to understand as the land is sloped and the reference points are not clear. The structure on the roof, behind the parapet, in the South East corner rises significantly above the line of the raised seam steel roof, which is shown on A2.0 to be 35 ft above grade.
Please refer to the attached sketches identifying the eight cross sections and elevations that we would like to see. For clarity, the reference elevations should be labeled on each drawing.
Perform Transportation Impact Analysis
Traffic studies are an estimate and are a starting point for any analysis. After reviewing the transportation impact analysis completed by Hexagon Transportation Studies, Inc., we identified significant gaps in the analysis and I spoke with the author of the report on Friday, January 19, 2017.
While the author acknowledged our concerns, he stood by the conclusions (as one would expect).
The major gap in the analysis was understanding the traffic flows generated by Daves Avenue Elementary School. The traffic flows at the T intersection of Bruce Avenue and Winchester Boulevard, just steps South and across the street from the proposed development were not identified whatsoever in the analysis (see diagram below, taken from Figure 1 Site Locations and Study Intersections).
January 24, 2017 Page 3
Although the Town of Los Gatos specifically requested that the impact on Daves Avenue be considered in the transportation impact analysis, the intent was probably to understand the impact on drop-off and pick-up at Daves Avenue Elementary School. The report included the following:
The map below shows the streets in the vicinity; many drivers use Bruce Avenue when dropping off and picking up students at Daves Avenue Elementary School:
January 24, 2017 Page 4
Failing to identify and analyze the traffic flows into and out of Bruce Avenue at Winchester damage the credibility of the analysis and conclusions of the entire report. Anyone familiar with the area understands the traffic routes surrounding drop-off (AM) and pick-up times (PM).
In addition, other student activities after school generate PM traffic by parents, teachers and staff, and others. Further, it is difficult to establish traffic patterns related to Daves Avenue Elementary School with only one data point (March 2016).
Restrict Entrance/Exit to At Grade Parking from Winchester Boulevard The transportation impact analysis reviewed the Winchester entrance/exit to the at grade parking and states, “Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. The speed limit on Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way is 25 mph.” Very few vehicles follow the posted speed limit on Winchester Boulevard. If actual vehicle speeds were only 25 mph then the recommendations regarding the entrance/exit could be plausible – in reality, vehicles are generally accelerating after the Blossom Hill/North Santa Cruz intersection and are going more than 30 mph where the entrance/exit would be located.
Fortunately, since there is a vehicle speed indicator for Northbound traffic on Winchester Boulevard, it would be easy to sample vehicle speeds to see how fast vehicles are actually going.
Allowing vehicles to turn left into or turn left out of the at-grade parking will be dangerous and an accident will occur. Prohibiting such left turns should be a condition of any proposed development.
In 2016, Traffic Flows are Dynamic, based on Smart Phone Apps The data sources used by the traffic consultants and their methodology and analysis software completely ignores the increasing use of smart phone apps, including Waze, Google Maps and Apple Maps. These apps have changed the dynamic of traffic flows by moving traffic to alternative routes quickly when arteries are delayed, congested or blocked. These new technologies, which are increasingly available, affordable and functional, have been recognized by California lawmakers in establishing new laws regarding the use while driving, Unfortunately, the transportation analysis industry has failed to include the impact of these new technologies in their analyses. Hexagon (the traffic consulting firm) should have included a proviso and warning in their report stating that the use of smart phone apps has not been considered in their analysis or conclusions, which may cause material errors.
As the Planning Commission knows, minor delays in common traffic patterns are immediately recognized by smart phone apps; drivers going through Los Gatos as well as drivers living in Los Gatos rely on changing their route to save a small amount of time (because it takes little such effort). Smart phone apps that re-route traffic can make dramatic changes in traffic volumes quickly.
Although a peer review of the transportation impact analysis may have been completed, since the traffic study industry is based on traditional (obsolete) driver behavior, it is not surprising that this transportation impact analysis is fatally flawed by not considering driving patterns and routes influenced by smart phone apps.
Mitigated Negative Declaration – This Project Has a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista EMC Planning Group Inc. prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2016 for this project. This Monterey-based organization concluded that under “1. Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?” there would be Less Than Significant Impact. We
January 24, 2017 Page 5
disagree with this conclusion as the analysis fails to consider pedestrian traffic and a significant amount of other traffic on Winchester Boulevard, which now varies due to smart phone apps as described.
Statement of Reasons to Support Findings (page 2 of November 2016 report) a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The scenic vista toward the Santa Cruz Mountains is already partially obscured under existing conditions and the proposed buildings would only affect a brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester Boulevard, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on a scenic vista.
Winchester runs North / South, not East / West … let’s turn to what is this conclusion based on.
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (page 17)
a. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (general plan EIR) identifies southward views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town. Due to the heavily-wooded nature of the Town, these views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the Town’s major north-south running streets.
There are limited distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains looking southward from Winchester Boulevard, but most currently available views of the mountains are perceivable when looking across Winchester Boulevard away from the project site and thus would not be obstructed by project development. Potential views of the ridgelines across the project site are mostly obstructed by existing development or tree cover along Winchester Boulevard. The mountains are briefly visible across the project site at the corner of Shelburne Avenue. The existing house at that corner is about 18 feet tall with a gable roof and is set back from Winchester Boulevard by about 30 feet and Shelburne Avenue by about 40 feet. The proposed project building would be approximately 20 feet closer to Shelburne Avenue and almost twice as tall. The proposed project would eliminate the brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester Boulevard. The project proposes to maintain several existing trees along Winchester Boulevard and to plant new trees lining the street frontage where trees are proposed for removal. The tree planting would preserve comparable views to those existing on Winchester Boulevard.
The proposed project would slightly reduce views of the mountains, but would not result in significant impacts to any designated scenic vistas as identified in the general plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
The authors of the report equate the views of trees that block the mountains (as stated above) as identical to a two-story building blocking views of the mountains. We disagree strongly.
The authors should consider pedestrians walking on the West side of Winchester Boulevard. The Town of Los Gatos promotes and motivates pedestrian activity – anything that make walking less pleasant, such as blocking and eliminating views of the mountains, should be evaluated negatively.
For drivers, the authors believe there is only a brief view. Coming from Monterey, the authors may not be familiar with traffic issues Southbound on Winchester Boulevard. The Planning Commission knows that, increasingly, there are lengthy traffic delays Southbound on Winchester Boulevard, especially in the summer with beach traffic and with smart phone apps promoting alternative routes including using Winchester Boulevard to avoid congestion on Highway 17. By lowering the building height, anyone caught in traffic when driving Southbound on Winchester will have (more than a fleeting) opportunity to enjoy a view of the mountains (especially on beautiful sunny days that are prime beach traffic days).
January 24, 2017 Page 6
Everyone driving East on Via Sereno will lose the view of the mountains when stopped at the corner of Via Sereno and Winchester. The view from that corner of Via Sereno is not “brief.” Overall, we disagree with the author’s conclusion that there is Less than Significant Impact and request the Planning Commission find the impact as “Potentially Significant Impact”. Mitigating this impact may be achieved by lowering the height of the building.
Provide Buffer to Residential Areas
Although the applicant claims that there is a 78 ft buffer on the South side of the site, the “at grade” parking structure is, in reality, just under a one-story structure (the cross sections requested previously in this letter will illustrate this). When viewed from the South, the proposed building is massive as it is more than 35 ft height above the existing grade.
Policy LU-6.3 states, “Protect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential uses by assuring that buffers are developed and maintained.”
For a project such as this, some type of tiered buffer would be more appropriate under Policy LU-6.3.
Sustainability as a Condition for Approval
Other than related to bicycles, the applicant has not volunteered to incorporate any sustainable elements beyond which are required by Title 24. Ignoring sustainability of this project is underscored by the applicant’s avoiding the comment by the Conceptual Advisory Development Committee regarding applying for LEED certification (see memorandum dated January 6, 2016).
The windows and orientation of the building will result in significant solar heat gain from the Western sun, which is apparent from SP4.0. The project design does not prevent solar heat gain, which will result in higher energy consumption for the life of the building. Occupants will have high operating costs and require additional equipment, such as moveable window blinds, that will adversely affect the benefits of the west-facing windows while detracting from the building appearance.
Applying for LEED certification will require the applicant to consider all aspects of building design and construction, including resource consumption (e.g., energy and water), durability and environmental impact.
For such a development in one of the most travelled gateways into Los Gatos, LEED certification should be a requirement by the Planning Committee.
* * * * * * *
As stated previously, we believe it is in everyone’s best interest to see an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos so that it adds value to the developers, the surrounding neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos.
If this application is continued, we will meet with the applicant and discuss all items set forth in this letter.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 30, 2017
Mr. Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Mr. Rich:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
Request for Information
We met on September 12, 2016 at the neighbor information session that you hosted at Los Gatos Lodge.
Since then, you should have received copies of letters dated January 19, 2017 and January 24, 2017, and heard my public testimony on January 25, 2017.
The Planning Commission gave you specific directions to consult with neighbors and I have offered to provide you with feedback. To start, I ask you to:
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors.
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos.
3. Provide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showing the building perimeter and tallest points (as defined by the Town of Los Gatos codes).
4. Update the story poles with a contrasting color for any revisions to the building perimeter and profile.
5. Prepare a LEED checklist identifying the LEED points that this project would generate.
Each of these items are described below.
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors
Please let me know when you would like to meet with your neighbors. Several people have asked me when the next meeting will be (they know that your project is on the March 22, 2017 Planning Commission agenda).
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos At the January 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting many people, including Commissioner Hudes and Mr. Paulson, felt your proposed building heights and building planes were confusing. I was puzzled by the reference on A2.0 of 382 ft with other elevations along the same building perimeter of 376 ft, which could result in a maximum building height of 411 ft at that plane (not 414 or 416 ft).
Since that meeting, I read the relevant Town of Los Gatos codes and noted the following:
January 30, 2017 Page 2
Sec. 29.60.105. – Height. The maximum height of any principal building in an O or office zone is thirtyfive (35) feet, and of any accessory building is fifteen (15) feet.
One must refer to the definition of height to see how it is measured (emphasis added):
Sec. 29.10.020. – Definitions.
Height means the height of all structures, excluding fences, shall be determined by the plumb vertical distance from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower profile, to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall, parapet, mansard, or other point directly above that grade. For portions of a structure located directly above a cellar, the height measurement for that portion of the structure shall be measured as the plumb vertical distance from the existing natural grade to the uppermost point of the structure directly over that point in the existing natural grade. No point of the roof or other structural element within the exterior perimeter of the structure shall extend beyond the plane established by the maximum height plane except as allowed by section 29.10.090.
Grade, (natural) means the lowest point of ground elevation of undisturbed soil as measured from a known fixed reference height benchmark or as a height referenced from sea level.
Grade, (finished) means the lowest point of ground elevation of the finished surface of the ground after any construction or grading activities (including, but not limited to cut and fill of existing slopes) as measured from a known fixed reference height benchmark or as a height referenced from sea level.
Additional sections are as follows:
Sec. 29.10.090. – Height restriction, exception.
Towers, spires, elevator and mechanical penthouses, cupolas, wireless telecommunication antennas, similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances which are not used for human activity or storage may be higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone. The use of tower elements or similar structures to provide higher ceiling heights for habitable space shall be deemed as a use intended for human activity and is therefore not exempt from the maximum height restrictions of a zone.
Sec. 29.40.045. - Height determination on sloping lots.
Where the slope of a lot (measured in the general direction of the lot lines) is greater than one (1) foot rise or fall in seven (7) feet of horizontal distance from the street elevation at the property line, building height is limited to a plane parallel to the surface of the ground unaltered by grading (including excavation) for the building in question. The plane is at an elevation set by the rules of each zone.
Building height is measured vertically from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof (slope one (1) in twelve (12) or less), or the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof.
After reviewing the height requirements and definitions, please incorporate the heights referenced from sea level in future diagrams for clarity within and across sheets in your application.
3. Provide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showing the building perimeter and tallest points
Based on the Town of Los Gatos codes, please provide elevations (cross sections) of the natural grade that will be under the highest points of the roof and parking structure, showing the elevation of the natural grade above sea level. If you (or your architect) are using BIM (Building Informational Modeling)
January 30, 2017 Page 3
software then this information should be easily and readily available. I use ArchiCAD and can “fly through” buildings and cut cross sections at any point. The shadow study diagrams on SP4.0 appear to be generated with BIM software.
Then, after you revise your building (if you choose to do so), based on the Town of Los Gatos codes, please provide elevations (cross sections) through the highest points of the roof and parking structure, showing the elevations of the roof relative to sea level.
In advance of the public meeting, please provide the eight cross sections that were requested in our letter to the Planning Commission dated January 24, 2017. Then, at the neighbor meeting you could present and explain the cross sections to help everyone attending to understand your proposal.
4. Update the story poles with a contrasting color for any revisions to the building perimeter and profile After the wind and rain that we experienced recently, the story poles have sagged and are not indicative of the proposed project. If you revise the building structure and profile (e.g., location, heights, exterior features) then please update the story poles to reflect the changes. It would be very helpful to use a contrasting color, such as blue, to highlight the changes and make it easy and fast to understand.
5. Prepare a LEED checklist identifying the LEED points that this project would receive During the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Hanssen asked you about pursuing LEED certification to which you responded that you represented that the project would pursue “LEED equivalent,” going through all the steps except actual certification.
Commissioner Kane suggested that you could “score” your project without the actual, and costly, certification process. You responded that you would complete a LEED checklist. Your architectural firm, T Square Studio, has two LEED AP accredited architects and one of those, Chris Roberts, obtained LEED Gold certification for the NoHo III Office Building.
Presenting how your proposed building would score by using the LEED checklist would certainly demonstrate (by its score) your level of commitment to sustainability for this project.
Please complete the LEED checklist, even if only a first draft, so the neighbors can understand the sustainability elements of this project. The LEED checklist and corresponding score should be updated prior to approval by the Planning Commission and when applying for your building permit. * * * * * * *
Please contact me by telephone ) or email regarding any part of this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
cc Jocelyn Puga, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 14, 2017
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
My wife, Jo-Anne Sinclair, and I own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the corner of Winchester and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed development. We have owned since 1997. In addition, we own a dwelling at in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years and we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. Further, the development should not block views of the Los Gatos hillsides, which the Town of Los Gatos is committed to preserve.
To date, I have attended information sessions hosted by the applicant, reviewed the story poles erected on the site, reviewed the complete application as filed with the Town of Los Gatos, attended all Planning Commission meetings where the application was on the agenda, and testified in public hearings.
The Planning Commission is extremely diligent when reviewing applications and seeks ways to approve proposed developments that will fit with Los Gatos. After an extensive and thorough review of the application in two meetings, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the application.
I ask the Town Council to deny the appeal. This letter sets forth the reasons why I believe the appeal should be denied.
Basis of Appeal
In the appeal, the applicant claims (emphasis added):
As part of the motion for continuance at the January 25th hearing, Planning Commission requested that the applicant “consider architectural tweaks to lesson [sic] the perception of the height or consider reducing the height of the building” and to “consider moving the building back.” All of these requested revisions were made and appropriately demonstrated at the subsequent hearing.
Furthermore, the presentation demonstrated that existing views are substantially impacted by existing perimeter trees that are being retained by the project, and that the architectural changes to roof lines and building height were strategically located to address all areas not encumbered by existing trees.
October 14, 2017 Page 2
Although the applicant stated that all these requested revisions were made in the plans submitted for the April 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant failed to state that they made one [egregious] change – creating a corner office with broad glass showing the spectacular views of the Los Gatos hillsides and impinging on the privacy of the existing adjacent residential properties.1 The applicant says that they complied with the architectural tweaks yet the applicant changed the South East corner of the proposed building at the last minute.
The appeal should be denied based on that misrepresentation alone.
Building Height is Understated
The applicant stated in their application covering letter (received by Town of Los Gatos Planning Division dated December 5, 2016), “Large glass openings complete the design while providing plenty of natural light and views of the hills to the east.” The applicant acknowledged the importance and value of those views and, by providing those views for their tenants, the proposed structure will block the views for everyone else.
I raised the issue with the building height in the Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 2017. 2 After that meeting, I sent a letter to the applicant dated January 30, 2017 (attached). I hand delivered copies of the letter to the Town of Los Gatos showing that copies were for Jocelyn Puga and the Planning Commission. I understand that this letter was stamped and in the Town of Los Gatos file but it was never provided to the Planning Commission or Town Council.
In that letter to the applicant, I described my concerns regarding the building height in detail and requested cross sections showing elevations/heights above sea level so everyone, especially the staff and Planning Commission, could understand the building height. Based on my review of the project site and my review of the actual land survey as submitted by the applicant, and the applicant’s decision to ignore my letter of January 30, 2017, I believe the applicant understated what the actual height of the building would be (references relative to sea level make elevations simple and easily comparable).
During my testimony on April 26, 2017 I referred to my letter (which the Planning Commission did not receive) and explained the issue.3 Commissioner Hudes asked a question regarding why I thought the building height may exceed the height requirements. I answered the question by referring to the elevations on the tree inventory sheets so the Planning Commission could understand the elevations. 4 * * * * * * *
Again, I ask that the Town Council support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
1 April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 lines 14 to 24, and page 39 lines 12 to 16. 2 January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 61 line 13 through page 62 line 3. 3 April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 line 24 through page 37 line 15. 4 Ibid, page 39 line17 through page 40 line 14.
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 17, 2017
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
This follows my letter dated October 14, 2017 where I reiterated my concern regarding the applicant understating the building height. With Attachment 18 added, the building height can be estimated with cross sections included in the applicant’s original application.
Town Council should deny the appeal based on the height of the building. First, the building exceeds the maximum height allowed in Office zone, which is 35 ft. above natural grade. Second, even if the building complied with the maximum allowed height, the building blocks the views of the Los Gatos hillsides – those very hillsides that the Town is committed to preserve.
Regarding the building height, the applicant selected the highest point on the sidewalk to use as a reference point (383.84 ft.) and that reference point is used on the sheet “Reduced Building Heights”. This sheet includes a note stating (emphasis added), “Building height as shown measured from sidewalk grade; building height measurement of project complies with Town Code.” Sec. 29.10.020 states, “Height means the height of all structures, excluding fences, shall be determined by the plumb vertical distance from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower profile, to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall, parapet, mansard, or other point directly above that grade.”
The elevations of the natural grade are show as discrete points on the sheet “Building Shift Eliminated 2 Additional Trees Along Rear & Saved 1 Additional Tree Along Winchester”. The maximum building height at any point may only be 35 ft. higher than any of those point elevations. The natural grade under the roof peak is 375 ft.
Starting from the sidewalk (383.84 ft.) the applicant shows the roof peak as 32 ft. 2 inches higher, or at an elevation of 416 ft. The elevation of the natural grade under the roof peak is 375 ft., resulting in a building height of 41 ft. This is 6 ft. higher than allowed by Los Gatos.
Again, I ask that the Town Council support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 30, 2022
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: Story Pole Exemption – 15860 Winchester Boulevard
Based on filings by the applicant, Town Council should deny the application for a story pole exemption.
Story poles indicate that an application has been submitted and is under consideration by the Town. Only after the applicant has filed accurate information reflecting existing and planned conditions at the site should Town Council consider, and accept, a request for a story pole exemption.
The applicant (1) omitted any reference, depiction or reference to the Class IV bike lanes from the drawings, renderings and photographs of the existing site and plans; (2) the traffic studies included in the application on the Town’s website do not acknowledge or consider the effect of the existing Class IV bike lanes; and (3) the traffic study in Appendix F shows a traffic signal, which does not exist, controlling the Winchester/Shelbourne intersection. A brief, cursory review of the materials of the Town’s website identified these deficiencies.
While one may advocate that having plans that omit existing conditions and traffic studies that do not consider Class IV bike lanes and have wrong traffic signals will not have a material effect on a request for a story pole exemption, Town Council should consider the precedent they are setting and the message they are sending to applicants, Town Staff, the Planning Commission, citizens and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the duty of care and accuracy required by the Town in filings on proposed developments.
Of material importance is that the staff report refers to “… variance from the maximum height and lot coverage for the zone ...” yet sheets A-4.2 and A-4.3 do not show any “Variance Area” in yellow while sheets A-3.2 and A-3.3 of identical elevations in the application highlight variance areas in yellow. This is misleading.
The application that was denied by the Planning Commission in 2017 and subsequently approved on appeal to Town Council had a two-story 30,070 sq ft office building with 128 parking spaces (87 below grade and 41 at grade). The front setback was 35 to 44 feet along Winchester. The proposed three-story building is 81,633 sq ft with 54 parking spaces (49 below grade and 5 at grade). The front setback is the minimum allowed, 25 feet, along Winchester.
The change in the project is staggering.
We ask that the Town Council deny the request for exemption until the applicant has prepared and filed documents that reflect existing conditions and include the variance locations on the plans.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Jeffrey Barnett, Chair
Steve Raspe, Vice Chair
Susan Burnett
Kylie Clark
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BARNETT: We’ll now move on to Item 3 on the
agenda, which is a request for approval of demolition of one existing office and four residential buildings,
construction of an assisted living and memory care
facility, Variances for the maximum height and lot coverage of the zone, merger of four lots into one, and removal of large protected trees on property zone O located at 15860- 15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way. The APNs are 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit
Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003,
Subdivision Application N-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001.
Staff has noted that an additional study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project, and stuff has recommended denial of the
application. We’ll hear from Ms. Armer on that issue. The property owner is Green Valley Corporation, dba Swenson.
May I see a show of hands from Commissioners who
have visited the property? It’s unanimous, and are there any disclosures?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I have one. In my law practice I at one time
represented University Oaks Condominium Association, which has submitted opposition to the proposed project, as well as some of its members. Per staff in my office the last work was performed in 2008, but I believe there may have been other services closer to my retirement in 2020. I’ve given the matter significant thought and I believe that I can act without prejudice in this matter.
Having said that, Ms. Armer, you will be giving
the Staff Report tonight?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, thank you. Good evening,
Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners.
The item before you this evening is a proposal
for a new assisted living facility at the corner of
Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way. As just stated by the Chair, the request includes demolition of the existing buildings, a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use, a Variance from the maximum height limit of 35’, a Variance from the maximum lot coverage of 40%, and merger of the four lots into one, including also removal of large
protected trees.
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared as part of the required CEQA environmental review.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The proposed project would create a new threestory assisted living and memory care facility consisting of 107 assisted living units and 18 memory care units with 54 parking spaces, most of which would be provided in a below-grade parking garage with access off of Shelburne Way.
As part of the process a Story Pole Exception was
granted by Town Council, which required larger signage, and a video simulation is available online. The project
complies with zoning with the exception of the two
Variances previously mentioned for heights up to 50’ and lot coverage of 50%. The proposed use is permitted if
approved through a Conditional Use Permit.
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed and was
in support of the building design with no recommended
changes.
Environmental review, as I stated, was an Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The appendices did include transportation and arborist reports among other reports.
Some of you will remember the previous office
project that was approved on the site in 2017. The proposed project does take into consideration the feedback and
conditions that were applied to that project as well as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
feedback received from the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) meeting in 2020 in designing this project.
In addition, the Applicant has worked with Staff
to provide required information and modify their proposal to address Staff comments and reduce the extent of the
variance request for height. Staff does not recommend
approval of the Variances currently requested, but if
Planning Commission finds merit in the request we would point you towards the required findings in Exhibit 3 and Draft Conditions of Approval in Exhibits 4 and 5.
Public comments were received and provided to you
in the Staff Report in an addendum and in a Desk Item. They have been a mix of supportive comments and concerns about the proposed project.
This evening we have Town Staff from Planning and
Public Works as well as the Town’s Transportation
Consultant, the Town’s Environmental Consultant, and the Town Attorney all available to support your discussion.
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but we’d be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you very much, Ms. Armer.
Do Commissioners have questions? Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have a
quick question. I know that this is part of the policy and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
not something we would be changing or anything, but what is the reasoning for the 40%-50% lot coverage? I felt like that’s so little of the lot. What’s expected to be done with the rest of it, if that makes sense?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question.
This is an interesting situation where the Office land use designation in the General Plan actually does list maximum lot coverage of 50%, but in this case the zoning is more restrictive for the Office zone; it is 40%. In general, the other areas of the lot are used for landscaping, access, driveways, and required setbacks. As you can see, that is what is proposed in this site for the area that isn’t
considered lot coverage.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: And is the reasoning for the
limitation just massing overall?
JENNIFER ARMER: Generally in zoning, yes, but
that has to do with making sure that there is a certain amount of spacing between buildings, and green space, and other kinds of open space in terms of the feel of the
community.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: We recently went through
the process of updating our General Plan, and the land use
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
portion of that as well as community design are on hold as the 2020 plan for the time being. My recollection is in the 2020 General Plan the highest height we have for any zone is 45’, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And is there any building
on Winchester Boulevard that’s more than 35’?
JENNIFER ARMER: We do have some buildings that
exceed that. I’m trying to remember what the height of the Netflix building is. I don't know that number off the top of my head, but I believe that is the tallest building in that area.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But Netflix was a Planned
Development at the northern part of Winchester?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Vice Chair Raspe.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and thank
you, Ms. Armer, for your excellent presentation. Two quick questions.
First, I think you indicated we are getting 107
proposed assisted living units, and then 18 units for
memory care, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Do some or all of these count
toward our housing numbers for the Town?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. The proposed project
is considered Commercial in terms of the use on an Office zone, however, because of the way that these units are
proposed with individual kitchens I believe, based on
current State law we do believe that the 107 would count towards our housing production required by the Town’s
Housing Element.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, and one follow up
question, if I may, Chair? I noticed some of the comments referenced driving studies and I think indicated that
perhaps we had relied on an older dated study. Can you
respond to that?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. If there are more
detailed questions in the future, we do have the
consultants who prepared the 2021 study, but the study that was the basis for the environmental review and our analysis of the project was conducted in 2021, not the 2016. The 2016 report was mentioned because it was previously
conducted for development on the site, but that was the basis for the previous office proposal approval.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Thanks so much.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I have two questions.
When I looked at Exhibit 1 it was dated 2022, and
that’s the current traffic study that was brought to our attention in the addendum. The addendum comment in summary was that the 2022 report used was based on a 2016 ITE
versus when there was a 2021 ITE guideline available. Can you comment on that?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. I
actually will pass that off to Mike Vroman, our Senior
Traffic Engineer who is with us on Zoom. Mike, if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself and answer that question if you are able, or pass it on to our consultants from TJKM; that’s up to you.
MIKE VROMAN: Good evening, Commissioners. The
report looked at the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the 10th edition, which I believe was replaced by the 11th edition in the fall of 2021, so at the time of report I believe it was current; it was the 10th edition. Now there is a new one, but TJKM did a quick analysis earlier today and the 11th edition actually has a reduction in the AM. In the 10th edition there were 16 trips into the site, 10 trips out, for a total of 26 trips in the morning peak hour. In the PM peak hour there were 13 in and 22 out, for a total of 35, compared to the 11th edition ITE Trip Generation Manual
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
there are 14 in the AM going in and 10 coming out, for a total of 24, so there is a net reduction of two fewer trips based on the ITE 11th edition, and in the PM it’s 12 in, 20 out, and 32 total, so that’s actually a reduction of three, so materially it doesn’t make any difference at all in the analysis report. If anything, it might reduce it a very slight amount, because there are slightly fewer trips both in the AM and the PM, but once again, that was the current edition at the time the report was done. Now we’re using the 11th edition.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I have one other
question for Staff. Ms. Armer, you said you believe that the 107 units would be counted toward the RHNA numbers.
Either through further explanation, or perhaps the Town Attorney could clarify if they actually will. The reason I pursue this question is it seems to me that when we are considering a senior community, not in the distant past the answer was no, that they did not count toward our RHNA, so I want to be absolutely sure rather than maybe.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question and
the opportunity to clarify. Yes, we are counting these
towards our RHNA allocation. They are actually currently listed as pending project units in the Draft Housing
Element and we do expect to be able to count them.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Over the last few years this has been a question
as to whether this type of unit does get counted, but the most recent information that we have received is that they would. The Town Attorney is available on Zoom in case she’d like to add something to this.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct. I do recall
that there was also a discussion as to whether or not the Town could impose its below market rate (BMR) requirement on these residential units, and I recall that we concluded that the Town could not do that.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. One of the
letters was wondering should this area be changed and zoned from an Office zone to an RN zone based on the fact that it’s no longer office space but residential? It was brought up in one of the comments from a neighbor.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. The
use that is being considered here is allowed with a
Conditional Use Permit. Whether this lot is zoned Office or if it’s zoned Multi-Family, there are actually, I believe, at least five different zones in which this is allowed, but in all cases it requires a Conditional Use Permit, so a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
change in zoning does not actually affect the use, the
process for approving this use on this site.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions? There will be
further opportunity later. Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I have a follow
up question for the Town Attorney. I was wondering if you could say why the Town is unable to impose the BMR
requirements on this?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’d have to get back to the
Commission with that information, because it was research that we did about a year ago and I don’t remember the
details about the BMR requirement, but I can provide that to the Commission in the future.
JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I could add
that I believe that that was based on the fact that this is not considered a Residential use, it is considered
Commercial, and the BMR requirement is based on Residential uses. We can confirm that if needed, but that is my memory of those conversations.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. I think we’re
ready to open the public portion of the public hearing and give the Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
for up to five minutes. We have a card from the Applicant, Mr. Bristow.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Good evening, my name is Jessie
Bristow of Swenson Builders; I’m the Development Project Manager for this project. Along with me is my colleague David Meades, who is our Senior VP of Architecture, and he’s here for any questions after the presentation.
First of all, I do want to say thank you for
allowing us to be here tonight. I just want to thank Staff for getting us to this point.
On this slide I’d just like to highlight that we
reached out to the Town Council, University Oaks neighbors, and we went to the CDAC when we first thought about this project in 2020, and asked the same question of all three parties. We asked would you prefer a mixed-use or 100%
apartment project, or would you prefer a senior care
facility, and the consensus was a senior care facility; and the University Oaks residents actually expressed that they didn’t want to be next to an apartment building, so that’s the direction we took. The CDAC also said that they would like to see Mediterranean architecture. There was other outreach, but I can go into detail later.
I want to highlight we first submitted in April
2021 after all the feedback that we got. We were deemed
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
complete in July 2022 and all of that, as Staff said, was making adjustments to the project to try to make it as
conforming as possible.
We already discussed the reason we’re going for
that 50% lot coverage Variance; that is the General Plan.
The General Plan is a progressive document, it’s what you want to see your town build out to in the next 15-20 years, and it is a better efficiency of the site for our proposed use.
The height request, we do have a sloping lot and
so it makes this challenging for our project to meet this height at 35 feet. If you look at the building at the top of plate, not including the mansard roof, the building is actually trying to meet as much as possible. On the
frontage of Winchester we are, but on Shelburne we’re not; and we can highlight that later. We also have the mansard roof to shield mechanical equipment and solar equipment.
When we first presented this project we had three
wings, and all three wings were three stories, and the
south wing that was closest to the University Oaks
neighbors was three stories, and after meeting with them they asked can you step it down, can you scoot it back, and can you provide more vegetation? So we went from three
stories to 20 stories and we lost about ten units on that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
floor, actually I think it was 15, and we went from a 10- foot setback to 15-foot setback, and we added vegetation; we made sure there would be plenty of that for privacy on both sides.
In here, this is in the plan set, the highlighted
yellow is the area and Variance that we’re asking for, and there’s a blue line—it’s in the plans, I apologize, it’s hard to see on the screen. Originally we had the back of the building on the top floor where those umbrellas area, those actually went all the way back, so we stepped in that building and we went from a double corridor to a single corridor and we lost ten units there. So we really tried to step in the building to try to meet this Variance as much as possible; we know we’re not meeting it all the way, but we did make a concerted effort.
Just quickly, if I could highlight, this is the
south elevation for University Oaks. On the left side, that frontage of that two-story building on the building top place, not including the mansard roof, is now 23’. All the way back is 33’, so if we eliminate the mansard roof and expose the equipment this project is conforming of what would be next to the neighbors.
One thing I really want to highlight, there was a
comment in the University Oaks letter that says there’s no
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
middle ground, that the developer isn’t providing a middle ground, and I think that’s the confusion. This project is the middle ground. We’re proposing something that we think is low intensive use, the users are self-contained and they have everything they need. They’re of an older age; they’re not going to be disturbing. There are less traffic impacts as discussed, and we’re really trying to propose a project that the Town can be proud of and is higher end.
The alternative is SB 6 or AB 2011. Those went
into effect in July 2023, and anything that is zoned Office or Commercial can be 100% residential. So based on where Los Gatos is in the metropolitan area of Santa Clara you can build up to 60 units per acre. We have 1.31 acres, so that’s 78 units; round it up to 80. That’s not including a density bonus where we can get a 50% increase; that would be 120 units, and when you apply a density bonus you can break the height.
So we would pursue another path if we don’t have
this option. We would build something bigger, we would
build something taller, we would build bigger apartment units that would be more impactful, and the neighbors
specifically said they didn’t want to be next to an
apartment unit.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
With that, those are the final points I’d like to
make. I appreciate your time and I can answer any
questions.
CHAIR BARNETT: Can you stand by for questions
for Commissioners, which I’m sure we’ll have? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: We have a good number of
letters of opposition. There are a few in support, but I would say the preponderance are letters of opposition from the very neighbors that you said that you’ve spoken to, so I was wondering if you could comment on what kind of
discussions you had and why are we seeing this much
opposition?
I will preface, after doing this for a number of
years, that it is very common with large developments that at the very end after people realize that it might be
approved that people will be making comments, but since you just met with them in August, what was discussed with them at that meeting and what was the outcome of that? Because here we’re sitting with all these letters of we don’t want this.
JESSIE BRISTOW: I think the frustration with the
neighbors is that we met with them at the end of 2020, and from then we started to design our project, and that’s when
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
we submitted to Staff. So we met with them initially before the CDAC. We met with them with that proposal and they said could you step it in, step it back? And that’s what we did.
Now, if they approve of that we wanted to keep
moving forward with the Town and Planning Staff and make sure we can keep our application going and still be able to hopefully meet the standards of what the neighbors
expected.
We had an individual meeting with one member of
the University Oaks with Staff on the call where after we submitted our first submittal they basically went through line-by-line what they did not like about the project, so it just felt kind of regardless of what we did they weren’t going to be happy with the project. There are some letters that say we would be okay with a one-story building or a two-story building. Well, the section that is next to them is two stories, but still it’s the other part of the
project to have a functional facility I think they’re going to find challenging.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Did you share with them in
this most recent meeting that the part of the building that is closest to them is actually two stories?
JESSIE BRISTOW: Yes. It has been a long road,
and when we originally were going to come to the Planning
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Commission in October or November of 2002, and when we put up those story poles we didn’t get any feedback regarding those story poles. I understand that there was an
expectation to have more outreach, but again, no one
reached out to us, and so we went over the completed
package with what we were proposing and I said just wanted to let you guys know we’re going to the Planning
Commission, did you have any questions, any concerns?
I think some people that live farther south on
University Oaks away from the project aren’t as concerned about it, but I think people that live a little bit closer in their development are very concerned about it, and
rightfully so; we are going to be neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: A follow up question. The
specific comment about people looking into windows, you mentioned that you had increased the setback and there
would be screening trees, so is there a way that you are able to demonstrate to them that… Is it going to be
possible for people to look into each other’s windows?
JESSIE BRISTOW: I think as much as any neighbor
in a two-story home if you’re next to your neighbor, but people have landscaping, people have trees, people have blinds, and mind you, the average age in these facilities are 83, so even if they do want to look out the window I’m
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
not sure if they’re going to be able to see very far, but again, there can be privacy effects that can calm some
people’s nerves.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And you’re committed to
putting in those privacy screenings like plantings and that kind of thing to make sure that there aren’t people looking into each other’s windows?
JESSIE BRISTOW: Yes, absolutely. I believe the
request was to have evergreen trees so when the seasons change they are still full. If there’s a need to add
lattices or something of that nature along the separation wall, I think we could adjust our landscaping plan.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions for Mr. Bristow?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A couple of questions.
Although we’ve received a number of comments and concerns from University Oaks, we also received concerns from other neighbors. Can you describe the extent of your neighborhood outreach in talking to not just University Oaks, but to the broader neighborhood about the project?
JESSIE BRISTOW: I think directly across
Winchester is actually an office building; I think Stanford had a medical office out there right across the street, so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
they didn’t have any concerns. There was no communication, so we assumed that was okay. Directly next to us is a
veterinarian and we reached out to them, and they were
excited to see a new change. They are backed up to an older portion of the property. We didn’t have any communication with anyone directly across on the corner. We did have
communication from the adjacent neighbor, who I think
you’re all familiar with, and he expressed his concerns and that he would only support our project if it were the same size as the original office that was approved in 2017. That was the extent of our outreach for the neighbors.
CHAIR BARNETT: Something further, Commissioner
Janoff?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I could just follow up.
Just to confirm, you did not do any outreach to the
neighbors? Not the business across the street, but the
neighbors next to that and on the other corners, on the northern (inaudible)?
JESSIE BRISTOW: No, we didn’t. We spoke with the
Senior Services Commission, the Los Gatos Recreation, and Los Gatos-Saratoga Senior Services.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right, but not the people
who would be directly impacted by looking at the building in their daily lives, right?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JESSIE BRISTOW: Right. We were specifically told
to reach out to University Oaks.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Another question on a
different topic. You mentioned a couple of times that you would meet the height requirements without the mansard
roof. What would you do if you didn’t have the mansard
roof?
JESSIE BRISTOW: That’s the thing; I think the
architecture that we were requested to pursue, that it
calls for that type of architecture. If we had a true roof and not the mansard rood it would be much taller. It just would be kind of out of balance, unfortunately, and it
would take a lot of articulation away from the structure.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions? Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for your
presentation and coming here tonight. I do have two
questions.
This whole application is coming right in between
our General Plan situation, so which General Plan were you working off of essentially for a majority of this project? Even though I know the 2020 is what applies, but briefly we thought that the 2021 was there.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JESSIE BRISTOW: At the time I believe we just
had the 2020 information. We were deemed complete in 2022 and I don’t believe the 2040 process had those draft
documents ready, so we were sticking with what we knew.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then my
second question is just related to the information on your last slide. First of all, have you been involved in any other projects where you have gone through these other
routes, and would you maybe be able to elaborate a little bit more on what these development alternatives would look like?
JESSIE BRISTOW: I have not personally submitted
an SB 6 or AB 2011. They did just go into effect, but we were aware of them, that they were passing a law for 2023.
I have submitted an application for Builder’s Remedy; that is also another option we that we could pursue, but again, it’s not something that we want to pursue.
When it comes to these two laws, the AB 2011 does
require 15% affordable, so that would part of the project as well, but again, to get a density bonus you have to have that affordability anyway. I think for efficiency’s sake and maybe cost we probably wouldn’t do a basement, it would probably be a project that would be a podium. Right now I think the average size of our units are 400 square feet to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
700 square feet is the biggest, so to have an apartment in Los Gatos most likely it would make sense to have two
bedrooms, so even though the units would be 120 units
versus 125 for the current proposed project, you could have 120 units of at least two people, so that would mean more parking challenges, more traffic challenges. AB 2011 and SB 6, I believe, are ministerial, so we would not come to the Planning Commission to get approval.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: May I follow up?
CHAIR BARNETT: Please do, Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: This might be a question
for Staff, so if you don’t know, that’s fine. With regard to going through those pathways, do you know what the
parking minimum looks like for that, or would you not have to follow that?
JESSIE BRISTOW: I think the State law
supersedes. I think it’s one space per unit. I think it depends on the size.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: We can follow up and ask
the Town Attorney. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Anyone else at this time?
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I wanted to ask
about affordability. What income level are you targeting,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and are there any affordable units incorporated, or did you consider incorporating affordable units?
JESSIE BRISTOW: The challenge with these
facilities, and again, this is based on the knowledge I know from the operators that we work on, at Swenson we’re not targeting a certain group, but again, we’re trying to provide a high-end facility for the Town of Los Gatos.
When it comes to the affordability, the challenge
of that is these facilities have a requirement that in
order for them to be licensed they have to have three hot meals a day, there needs to be medication management,
they’re legally responsible for the people onsite, so there are a lot of factors as part of that certification and
there’s a fixed cost to that. It’s hard to subsidize a
fixed cost, and our operators have found that challenging, and so when it comes to municipalities that do have an in lieu option, that tends to be the solution.
CHAIR BARNETT: Did that answer your question?
Okay, Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Thank you
for coming tonight. A question on the traffic. It says that there would be 351 daily trips at the facility. So since it’s memory care and assisted living, is that 351 trips workers, nurses, or caregivers?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JESSIE BRISTOW: The majority of the trips will
be staff. The study that we referenced, I think it
referenced like 28 trips per peak hour in the AM and then for lunch and then the leaving. How we understand it from operators is there are three rounds, so you have your
morning shift, the mid shift, and then the night shift; you have to have someone onsite 24/7, and they’ve expressed there is probably about 14-18 staff members, and there
would be a doctor there, I think that would include the doctor, so you’re looking at about 19 people per shift.
The majority of these residents, the reason why
they’re there is either them or their partner need
assistance, so more often than not the cars that are there don’t move a lot, and not many of them actually own cars.
The memory care is contained, and memory care does require more staffing, so that’s why you’re only seeing about 18 memory care units and more assisted living; it’s a
different class, so memory care is more hands on.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Any further questions? I have one
for you, sir. A couple of the letters that were submitted by neighbors indicated that the meeting was not conducted in an open manner and that it was sort of a fait accompli that was presented to them. Can you give me some idea of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
how long the meeting lasted and was there a free exchange of ideas?
JESSIE BRISTOW: In our previous meetings I don’t
think everyone was there. Then this last final meeting, because it is a very real project that’s going to be heard, every member was there, so there were a lot of people and there were a few people that had never seen the project before and shared their initial concerns from seeing it at the very beginning and expecting further change, so I think last week when we spoke with the residents essentially the frustration is that the project was already deemed complete and that there wouldn’t be any further change. And the
reason why there wouldn’t be any further change is we were deemed complete and we’ve been trying to get to the
Planning Commission, so it wouldn’t make sense for us to try to adjust the project and go through that. Every time we change something all of the reports have to be updated, so it was our goal to get deemed complete and continue to move the project forward.
We were deemed complete in 2022, and since then I
don’t believe anyone had reached out to us; maybe one
resident, the one in particular that we had an individual meeting with along with Planning Staff, so I think the
frustration was that there was nothing further to be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
augmented on our project and our project is being proposed as such.
CHAIR BARNETT: I see. Thank you for that, and if
there are no further questions from Commissioners, thank you very much.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Appreciate it. We now have a
request for an opportunity to speak from Joseph Gimagioni (phonetic). Please come forward.
JOSEPH GIMAGIONI: I would only come up here if
I’m in favor of a project, and I’ve seen many proposals for this particular site over the years, there have been three or four, and actually I didn’t like any of them, but when I saw this one I went this is a beautiful project, and I’m glad the Town Architect must agree.
I think the architecture is timeless, I think it
will fit in with Los Gatos from a historical perspective, yet it does have the pizzazz that is kind of forward
looking too. I just think it’s beautiful.
What worries me is I’ve heard things about taking
off the roof, and I would not be in favor of if you took off the roof. It would just start looking like so many
buildings in the Bay Area and across the country as I
travel that are just flat, boxy looking buildings. People
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
are starting to get really feed up with that. We’re getting tired of this boxy look. Please do not take off the roof part of it. I think that’s actually a pretty component of the building itself.
Along with that, is there any way we can have a
height limitation—I’m not an architect so I don’t know the word—that would just consider the wall part that I think is called the plane, and not include roof articulation?
Because what I’m afraid of is builders are just going to build up. Let’s say you say it’s 35’. They’re going to
build up to the 35’ and just forget about the roof, get as much square footage as they can, so is there any way
somebody can kind of look at that and say don’t include the roof articulation?
Otherwise, please don’t change this project just
for a few feet, and keep the roof; I think it makes the project look a lot better. So that’s about all I can say.
And if you can address the height and exclude maybe the roof portion, if someone could look at that.
CHAIR BARNETT: Before you go, we have questions
from the Commissioners potentially. I don’t see any. Can I ask you for your address?
JOSEPH GIMAGIONI: Yes, 4860 National Avenue. I’m
in San Jose, but if I look across the street it’s Los
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Gatos, so that one whole side is Los Gatos and our side is San Jose; I’m not sure why. It’s right near Carlton and National.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Our next speaker will
be Chris Sullivan.
CHRIS SULLIVAN: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m
Chris Sullivan and I’m the property manager for Park Hill View Apartments. It’s between University and Santa Cruz Avenue, right where we go into Blossom Hill.
Right now it is very interesting that we learn
that there is a slope involved with the proposed building.
What you may not know is that Park Hill View has a pump that drains off the water table that comes down off Bruce Avenue and that whole sector of property above us across the street from Santa Cruz Avenue. We even had an event during this atmospheric river that we all experienced where a sinkhole presented itself, and you could check the Water Department because they came out and looked at it. Rushing water was coming down in between us and the condominium that is our next door neighbor, and created a sinkhole, and the water was raging coming through there.
So I have two concerns: One, about maybe
shoehorning this project into the corner. I’m curious if anybody has done any studies on the land as far as the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
water table and where that runs. Number two, I have 30
units in our apartment complex and our parking is
exhausted. My tenants walk from Bruce up the street and all along University Avenue just to find a parking space, even down by the auto body stores down there.
Putting a complex that has 107 people and then
the 18 people and then the employees that go with it, even with underground parking you’re going to have a problem. I don't know if you guys have been on the weekends on
Winchester to Santa Cruz Avenue and University; it’s a
parking lot. From 10:00am to 2:30 in the afternoon it’s a parking lot. Our people even struggle when we have the City of Lights that comes on in the wintertime. We can’t even get in and out of our parking garage, because the traffic is backed up almost all the way to Lark Avenue, so we
really have an issue here that I think we may be premature in wanting to do it.
We love the concept, but no one has talked to us
about the impact that this is going to have, not to mention the construction. If you’re going to cut all that and do the civil and all the sewer and all the water, it’s going to be a mess for awhile for everybody that lives in the area, and we don’t want that to happen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We hope you guys don’t pass this in its form now,
because it’s not going to work for us. Thanks. Any
questions?
CHAIR BARNETT: Oh, yes. Mr. Sullivan, thanks for
standing by. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do have a question. Thank
you for coming and speaking tonight. Since you’re
representing this community, what sort of development would have less of an impact for you in this location, or would any development have an impact?
CHRIS SULLIVAN: It’s a complicated answer,
because you’ve got an auto shop, and veterinarian facility, then you’re got four homes, and then you’ve got trees there that need to stay being trees. Something that a contractor could come up with, or someone to purchase the property that would build homes that would be consistent with the neighborhood look of the area I think would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So you’re saying that you
would want single-family homes to go in there?
CHRIS SULLIVAN: Something to that effect.
Duplexes would be fine, but residential, not commercial.
You start going in the commercial and we start getting
scared, because oh my, what’s going to happen next? But I would say something like duplexes, residential.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So how would that address
the parking issue for you?
CHRIS SULLIVAN: Well, you wouldn’t have 107
people. I heard it’s called residential, but it’s
commercial. Do each one of these 107 units have kitchens? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry; we’re not
answering questions.
CHRIS SULLIVAN: Because I’m curious about that.
CHAIR BARNETT: The developer will have another
opportunity to speak and he can address that.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions for Mr. Sullivan?
If not, thank you, sir. Next would be Mary McCloy. Could you please come forward?
MARY McCLOY: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank
you very much. My name is Mary McCloy and I live at 698 North Santa Cruz Avenue at Park Hill View Apartments, where Mr. Sullivan also lives. There are about 40 of us there at Park Hill View. We’re two doors down from the proposed
construction. We live next door to University Oaks; we’re the next building down.
I attended the Planning Commission a few weeks
ago when there was a mix up on dates to talk about this property, but I’d never been to a Planning Commission
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
meeting before, and I want you to know how impressed I am with the way this commission handles its business.
I’ve been a resident of Los Gatos for almost 30
years living in the same place. I walk by the proposed
construction site often and have been concerned since the signage went up describing the building of the assisted care and memory care structure. These are my concerns.
The signage in the QR code video describing the
building and what it would look like, it seemed like a
chalet type structure with no other buildings around and multiple trees with an unobstructed view of the Santa Cruz Mountains. In reality this is an existing neighborhood with homes and small businesses that fit the style of current architecture that are mostly one-story or two stories.
Winchester is a very busy traffic corridor, not a
nice quiet street with cars occasionally passing by, and often is quite crowded at commute times and on summer
weekends, and especially at times for school. We’ve got Daves School up the street right across the street from where this construction is, and Bruce is quite congested at the beginning and end of the school day. This is not a
quiet site for an assisted living facility.
The proposed building takes up many lots and
trees and is three stories tall. This is way out of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
proportion for this neighborhood of homes and trees. The proposed building exceeds the height size and limit size and would set a precedent for the future development of the same types of larger structures in our neighborhood. There are regulations for a reason: to keep our community in some type of uniformity and the same type of character of our neighborhoods.
We need housing for older adults. I think I can
qualify for that. But not here on this street taking up the height and space of this proposed building. It is out of place in our neighborhood. Places like the Belmont Village on Union Street in Los Gatos found an empty lot in a
neighborhood for its location. Other places like Belmont Village on South Winchester found an existing neighborhood where their building fit fine. We do need assisted living, we do need memory care units, but we just don’t need one located on this property.
I just have another side. When I heard this
gentleman speak about talking to neighbors, I have no
knowledge of any meeting, no flyers. This is the first I ever heard that there were meetings of people that live in the neighborhood. At least where we live there was nothing proposed. All the signage went up and it said it was
tonight.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR BARNETT: You’re out of time, but
Commissioners may have questions for you. And thank you for your comments so far. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Hi, thank you for coming. I
just have the same question as the last speaker. Just what type of development would you be supportive of seeing here? MARY McCLOY: I would see something on a much
smaller scale, kind of like that office building, the one that was going to go up there before; it kind of fit and they weren’t taking down everything around it to make it.
They weren’t really changing the whole look of the area; it was something that fit in. This just does not fit in.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions? I don’t see any.
Thank you very much for coming tonight and for your
comments. Do we have anyone on Zoom, Ms. Armer?
JENNIFER ARMER: We do, thank you. We’ve got at
least a couple of people who have raised their hands to speak on Zoom, so we will start with Georgina. You should be able to unmute yourself.
GEORGINA VAN HORN: I’m Georgina Van Horn at 706
Winchester Boulevard here at the University Oaks.
First of all, I knew there was going to be a
building at that site. My concern is this building that’s proposed is absolutely enormous. It comes almost to our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wall that separates the two properties. It will overwhelm this area, as the speaker just said.
Winchester is a way into town from Lark, from 85,
and it becomes North Santa Cruz right here at this point, so it will drastically affect this area. It would also
affect me personally. I am one of the two closest
townhouses to the property, and our front doors are not on Winchester; the two closest are not on Winchester. They would be facing a whole side of the property, our front doors. They’re townhouses, they’re two stories, so again I am concerned about looking and seeing into those windows seeing into mine.
When I walk over to my window here, I’m upstairs,
and I look out and I see the poles, the flags have been gone, and I have to look and raise my head so far to see the top of those poles, and the thing is I know how close they will be to us.
We just have a little driveway here in front of
our two townhouses that are the closest, because it’s not a regular driveway, it doesn’t even go through to University, and then we have just a small like 2’ of dirt with some bushes and a few trees, and then almost here past the wall there will be this absolutely gigantic building.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We’ve tried here at the University Oaks to keep
the woodsy feel of our town, and the fact that just across University there are two big parks, and this building does not fit with our small town feel.
As I say, I know there will be a building there,
but first of all, we need more room here with our front doors and not to have this wall, and just maybe you can picture your house, where you front door is, if it’s two stories, and you have this building so close to you it
would drastically impact your house.
CHAIR BARNETT: You’re out of time; I apologize
for that. There may be question for you from the
Commissioners. I’m looking; I don’t see any. Thank you for participating tonight. We have another Zoom caller?
JENNIFER ARMER: We do; we still have two hands
raised. The next is Dillon. You should be able to unmute and speak.
DILLON PARKER: Dillon Parker, 702 Winchester
Boulevard, and I am also the person apparently the
Applicant has identified as the person that they met with that went line-by-line item, and is apparently disagreeable to any aspect of this project.
I just wanted to kind of start the conversation
by letting you know that I am also a planner for another
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
jurisdiction, so I’m acutely aware of what happens on your side of the dais.
I think one thing that’s particularly interesting
that the Applicant has brought up in this conversation is essentially their true intention. Now, the applicant would say that they’ve met with us extensively and they’ve met our concerns through modifying the project, but I want to point back toward the end of the conversation where
essentially they were saying this is a foregone conclusion, that if we don’t get what we want as designed with a
Variance that we’re going to apply for a Builder’s Remedy, we’re going to apply for an SB 6 or an AB 2011.
So I want you to consider that the true
intentions of the applicant were not to collaborate and outreach to the neighbors. The true intentions of the
Applicant are to build what they want, how they want, with complete disregard to not only our concerns, but to the Town’s concerns and to the Town’s development standards.
Now, switching gears, discussing in terms of the
Town’s Staff has noted that the use is commercial but it counts towards the RHNA allocation for affordable units, if you will, but the interesting component of that is this site is zoned Office. Office is considered a transitional zone from Commercial uses to Residential uses, so in other
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
words, the development standards are intended to minimize the development impacts of a Commercial use next to a
Residential use.
Now, the Town Staff’s statement, if you carry
that forward a little bit and say this is considered
housing but it’s a commercial use, then it would make
better sense to have development standards similar to the Multi-Residential zoning district where there are
additional requirements with regard to setback, distance between buildings, etc., so this sounds like kind of a
mixing of two development standards to get the benefit of the best.
CHAIR BARNETT: You are out of time. We did
receive your comments in writing, but I’ll ask at this time if Commissioners have questions for you. I do not see any, so thank you for your comments.
JENNIFER ARMER: Next up is Demian. You should be
able to unmute and speak.
DEMIAN RASPALL: Good evening, my name is Demian
Raspall at 713 University Avenue. I am also serving as the president of the HOA for University Oaks. I really
appreciate your time tending to our concerns on this
matter.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I acknowledge that we actually understand and
agree that the architecture on the building as well as the proposed (inaudible) that Swenson consulted with us and is bringing something that our community is agreeable to.
However, we disagree, as stated before, in two arguments.
One is that the building is too large, as it was
mentioned, and it is too close to our community, and it’s too tall on our community. It is true that it’s a two-story building, but as the pictures presented by Swenson showed, it’s actually a three-story building because of the slope when it is in front of, for example, Georgina’s house.
I want to use the majority of the time since
there is enough technical and detailed discussion on the merits of the project to actually address the points raised by the Commission, because I see that the Commission really cares about the outreach and how conversations went with our HOA. As is shown on Slide 2 I believe, it was very
clear that between basically June of 2021 until August 2023 there was no outreach of any kind, and that’s 26 months in which Swenson continued to develop and fine tune the
project, however, we were never invited to have any type of conversation.
One of the Commissioners asked about how the
meeting was conducted last week, and we were appreciative
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that Swenson reached out. It is our understanding that
Swenson reached out at the request of the Staff members. In fact, Mr. Bristow said, “We were told to reach out to
University Avenue,” so it didn’t even come from them, they were told to reach out to us, but as it was stated in our letter, this is a done deal, this is a done project. If you have any issues with the project you should come to this meeting and present the issues, because we are not going to change the project, and if you don’t like the project and if the Commission does not approve the project, then
they’re going to build something that you would like even less, and that is the attitude that the developer has had with us.
CHAIR BARNETT: Your time is up. I appreciate
your comments, and let’s see if Commissioners have
questions for you. I don’t see any, so thank you for
calling in and presenting your views. Anyone else on Zoom? JENNIFER ARMER: We don’t have any other hands
raised, so if anyone on Zoom would like to speak, please raise your hand now. I don’t see any more hands, Chair.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Oh, we do have a
speaker.
BRYAN MEKECHUK: Hi, Bryan Mekechuk, 17509 Via
Sereno, Monte Sereno.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I live directly across the street from the
proposed property, and I submitted quite a lengthy letter explaining my position and our family’s position. Several people on Via Sereno asked me to represent them, but I
can’t do that. I am an elected official in Monte Sereno; I’m the mayor, and I believe we are your single biggest partner with Los Gatos.
One thing that I really want to point out other
than the information in here, and I’ll read the line in the third paragraph that says, “My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an
attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos.” A number of the Commissioners have asked speakers what would you see there? We see a project similar to what was designed and approved by Town Council before. This
project is a multiple of the size of that. I would
wholeheartedly support a project that was of the size and nature of what was there before.
To deal with the applicant—and I don’t say this
lightly—he’s being disingenuous in terms of outreach to the community. Disingenuous. I spoke with the gentleman, Mr.
Bristow, immediately after the Town Council meeting. I gave him my card and I said, “I would like to speak with you.
I’d like to understand the project and so you hear my
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
concern.” What did I hear from him? Crickets. Nothing. In fact, I felt dissed.
If you go down Winchester Boulevard you’ll see
the side of the building. The building will be massive. It won’t be at the back. I raise a number of points in here, including the outdated and stale plans and reports, the things that if you were to approve it you have to rely on those findings, and I don’t think that you can do that with those stale plans.
I mention the high-pressure natural gas
transmission line. That’s kind of a secret, because PG&E doesn’t say where their infrastructure is. The single
biggest high-pressure transmission natural gas pipeline going into Los Gatos is right by this.
CHAIR BARNETT: I’m sorry, I do have to interrupt
you since your time is up, but I’ll ask Commissioners if they have questions of you. And we do have your extensive communications to the Planning Commission and Staff in
advance, so that’s appreciated and is considered. Thank you. So Mr. Hulser, I believe you wanted to come forward and make a presentation.
ERIC HULSER: Yes, thank you. Good evening. Thank
you for listing to me. My name is Eric Hulser. I am the neighbor to Georgina, who you heard earlier, and I live at
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
708 Winchester Boulevard, the closest property to this
development.
I have a number of objections to this project. It
sounds like you guys have read a number of them already, but I wanted to focus my attention today on this part right here, the south-facing wall.
A lot of these renderings that have been
presented are very misleading to the Commission and public.
That is not a road; that is my driveway. Where that line is, that is our wall. This property scoots right up to the end of our property here. This would be the view that we would see coming out our front door if we were about 100 yards back and there were no buildings there. Again, these cars would be in our driveway. Oftentimes I hear that is presented as a two-story building. That may be true up at the Winchester side, but it quickly goes into a three-story building, and that is what we look at.
This is what you would see out of our windows. On
the left, that’s my daughter’s bedroom window; on the
right, that’s my bedroom window. If you were down in our living room you would not even be able to see the sky. So this is taking that same rendering that you just saw, but putting it in proper context. This is mapped up to the tent poles that are poorly approximating this project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
One of the reasons I think this is quite
misleading is because of the size and scale of this project they were unable to do proper netting; they were unable to do proper flags. Even the billboard that is up does not draw your attention the way it should.
This is also another misrepresentation. This is
showing that same Variance, and we are arguing that the roof should not be included, however, you can see here that the height line is drawn to the natural grade that is
closest to us, and if you look at the closest building
here, that would be what we look at; it’s saying the entire thing is below that line. As you go farther back, that’s the actual amount that would be over this variance; that is over 50 feet high for that central building, so that was not properly reflected in really any of the slides that the developer presented.
Again, if I remove that wall you can see pretty
clearly this is a three-story building that we stare at, not a two-story building as has been referenced multiple times. In addition, the yellow would be what is above the 35-foot limit. As has also been brought up, we would
recommend that this is not office space. Those are living rooms and those are bedrooms and they are right up against
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the wall in an RN that would be 20 feet back, not 10 feet back.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Stand by for
questions. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for submitting
this information and preparing these slides. I have two questions for you.
The first is the type of development that you
would want to see in this location and what sort of setback or screening would make you more comfortable with a
building being built here?
ERIC HULSER: As the developer mentioned, in 2020
we said we be okay with an assisted living facility. I
think we are still okay with that. We were given the choice of you get either apartment complexes or assisted living.
Given that choice, we choose assisted living. We don’t get much say in that choice. All I ask is that it be built
according to code.
As far as what goes there, it looks beautiful. I
have no objections to the look or feel of the project, but the size and scale and scope is immense, so what we would be okay with, or at least I personally would be okay with, is a building built according to code.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As far as the zoning, you’re asking setback
requirements. Again, this project is using up 50% versus 40%. You could take that wall back, you could cut down on that over-usage, and if you were to adhere to an RM, then that building, what we would see out of our front door, would be totally acceptable and the people who live there would have a building that would be built according to code for the residents of the building.
It may be said that it’s going to be a Commercial
project, but the people who live there will be people.
That’s not an office space. That’s people living in their homes, in their living rooms staring into mine.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: All right, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Are there any other
questions for the speaker? I don’t see any. Thank you very much for coming. We don’t have any other members of the public on Zoom or who have submitted cards, so we’ll now give the Applicant an additional three minutes to make a presentation. Thank you.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Thank you. I’ll try to address
the comments as much as possible.
For Mr. Sullivan, the comments regarding the cut
and the study done on the soil, we do have a geotechnical report. There are kitchens in the assisted living, there
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
are no kitchens in memory care for obvious reasons, and it’s zoned Office, so we can’t do single-family homes; we can’t do estates. I know people want a lesser impact use, but we’re dealing with what it’s zoned for.
Again, same with the next speaker, Mary McCloy.
One- or two-story single-family homes are not feasible for this site. We did reach out to Safe Routes to School. I’m sorry I forgot to mention that, but we did reach out to them early on in the process and they never got back to us, but basically our position was this would be less traffic trips than an office building, so we hope you’re in favor of something like this.
There was a discussion a little bit about the
office. I know it’s a smaller building, but in our opinion it is a higher impact use, and the office building was
proposing to remove 31 trees and our project is proposing to remove 29, if it makes any difference.
Regarding some of the comments from Mr. Parker on
how it’s a foregone conclusion, AB 2011 and SB 6 wasn’t a draft law until 2022, and we were deemed complete in 2022, so it was never our intention to go this route and just build multi-family if we don’t get our way. That wasn’t our intention, but as you know, the State does want more
housing and bigger projects, which I think is difficult for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
people to get used to, but we have to build vertically
because we’re also going to run out of land. With that
said, it’s something that is an option today, and again, we’re trying to build something of use that was the
direction we got originally in 2020.
I do understand Demian’s comments that they feel
it’s too large, too tall, too big. During the call I did not express that if you guys don’t like this we’re going to build something bigger, I did not express that; it is an option that we could go down. It wasn’t presented in that manner at that meeting, so I’d just like to clarify that.
Regarding Mr. Mekechuk’s comments, he said
sustainable building. This will be a LEED Silver building; it’s required by the General Plan. We’ll have solar and California Green Building standards.
Regarding outreach, if I recall correctly, Mr.
Mekechuk called me and left a voice mail, and I think we might have spoke on the phone once where he basically said essentially what he said today, I’ll support it if it stays within the height of the office building. And then at the story pole meeting when we did converse out back and it was clear that he was frustrated, and again, our project was already deemed complete, so there is nothing that I could
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
have adjusted at that time, so I do apologize for not
getting back to you, but it wasn’t in a malicious manner.
CHAIR BARNETT: You are out of time.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Yes, sorry. If you have any
questions.
CHAIR BARNETT: I’ll just see if Planning
Commissioners have any questions. Vice Chair Raspe.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, Chair. One quick
question following up to Mr. Hulser’s comments essentially indicating he would be satisfied with the project if it didn’t seek a Variance, if you were at the .40 lot coverage and the 35’ height limit throughout. My question to you is did you analyze the project in that sense, and is it
possible to do that project within those parameters?
JESSIE BRISTOW: By going 40% we lose a lot of
amenity space for the residents. Additionally, if we do 40% the design I think would actually shorten at the back. It wouldn’t shorten as far as the width in the proximity to the University Oaks neighbors, so 40% is nice, but again, I don’t think it’s going to accomplish what Eric spoke to, and he spoke to a conforming project, so the façade that he views. I do acknowledge it is close to his property. Even if you eliminate that roof and we just do some type of
mechanical equipment shielding on top, you’re still going
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to have that building conforming in height, so that twostory building that we have is conforming, and even if you dropped it lower, even if they wanted one-story at that point, looking past it you’re going to see a two-story
building, and again, you’re going to alter the balance of the building and how it looks overall.
Currently right now the top floor is, I want to
say, 30 units, so if the entire top floor goes away we
would have 30 units less, and that would be 30 units that would not be towards the regional housing numbers.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Follow up question, please.
Assuming just for the sake of argument 30 units less on the top floor, of course it would hurt the Town on our numbers.
Does it still remain a viable project for you and/or the developer?
JESSIE BRISTOW: When it comes to operations they
try to have over 100 units when it comes to the assisted living. The memory care, again, usually stays roughly that, so it would be substandard from an operating standpoint.
I’m sure there might be some operators that would be
interested, but the ones we’ve worked with and the one we have consulted, they are attracted to the project as it is proposed today.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR RASPE: I appreciate that. Thanks very
much.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions from
Commissioners? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My question is about the
height. My view of this is there is probably a trade-off; if you had less height you’re going to need more lot
coverage to provide the amenities that you want. Are there assisted living/memory care facilities out there that are only 35’ tall?
JESSIE BRISTOW: Yes, but they would have a very
low amount of units, and it gets to a point of is it worth even building the project? So there’s a balancing act
there.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, if there was more
land, let’s just say instead of 1.3 acres it was 2 acres or
2.5 acres?
JESSIE BRISTOW: Oh, yes, absolutely. If we had
two acres we could probably fit the whole building on two stories, but we don’t; we have a finite amount of land.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thanks.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions? I have a
question for you, sir. As I understand, to make the
Variances that are requested for height and lot coverage we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
have to determine that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify that deviation from the standard. Can you speak to that?
JESSIE BRISTOW: To have a functioning facility
the way we’ve designed it and with the topography, the
challenge is we’re trying to meet that height as much as possible on Winchester, but it’s because of the sloping lot and the way the code reads that it has to be a set height I believe averaged across the lot, it’s not at the frontage, and so because we have that sloping challenge we’re not able to meet that for this proposed project.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for those comments.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m confused by the height.
You say that it’s conforming without the mansard roof, but we’re not doing away with the roof just in case anybody out there thought that that was the direction you were going.
The question is to the developer. When I read these plans, which need a magnifying glass at best for us, I see a 39’ height for the lower portion of the building increasing to a 50’ height for the higher portions of the building. So could you explain how 39’ feet is conforming to 35’?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JESSIE BRISTOW: Would it be possible to see
slide 5 of the presentation? Thank you. The blue line you could probably see a little better, that is the average sloping height, so that is 35’ with the topography as you go down. So, yes, if you measure from the straight point up you have different heights at the depth of the back of the property, but when you read the building, that’s where
we’re trying to meet that height as much as possible. So the center of the building where you see just past the
garage, it peaks up just a little bit over, but that’s
because of the way the property slopes and we can’t have a slanted building.
Those are corridors, we have to have elevator
access, there are all these challenges, and if you try to move one elevator only and shorten it, then you’re going to have an access issue for basically what is a medical
facility, and so we have to have a central elevator point, and that’s essentially where the elevator house would be in the middle lane of the project.
If you look at the frontage on Winchester to the
right, you can see part of our mansard roof is just
floating under that blue line, but because the property slopes we’re having challenges meeting it, and even if you took off that top floor the mansard roof would still be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
impacting the height restriction, and so I think maybe the question is to Staff. I understood that the building top plate is what was being measured and the mansard roof would not be counted because it’s really just shielding
mechanical equipment, but maybe I’m incorrect.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would defer to Staff, but
it’s my understanding that it’s the actual top height of the structure, including the roof. Essentially what’s being obscured visually is the height of the building, and that’s why I’m confused when you say you’re meeting a 35’
requirement, when in fact there’s very little except a
little bit of the eave that’s on the Winchester side that looks like it might be below, and the balance of the
building looks like it’s well above the 35’. I would defer to Staff if that interpretation is not correct, but what I’m hearing you say is different from my understanding of how height requirements are calculated or read.
Number one, given that, would it be possible for
you to even meet the 35’ requirement? I understand that the slope of the lot will give us a higher height at the rear of the lot; that’s understood. We knew that before when it was the previous project and understood that, which is why we asked for the building to be shifted back as far as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
possible on the lot so you had a lower elevation at the front.
I don’t see any of this proposal meeting our 35’
requirement, let alone where it slopes to 50’. I understand that part, but I’m at a loss at how we could approve it this way when it’s nearly 100% above Town requirements.
JESSIE BRISTOW: In reference to where it is
conforming, it would be the two-story component that’s on the other side. This side is challenged, and so I think in order to meet it you would have to remove the top floor, which would be a challenge for us from an operational
standpoint, and it’s not something we really want to do.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Other questions?
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Does the slope allow for
more belowground parking than typically you would be able to have with less digging?
JESSIE BRISTOW: So that’s why we have a
basement. If you actually take the garage and call that the basement and treated that as the lowest point, we’d be
meeting the height. If that garage entrance point were your measuring stick, then we would be meeting the height, but the Town reads garages as part of the building, and even though it’s half in/half out, we’re being dinged for that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
So the office building actually did a bunch of
fill and had surface parking, and actually when we met with the neighbors their concern was all the cars were parked and their lights would be in their windows, so we actually enclosed the garage and we built on top of it.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other Commissioners? Vice Chair
Raspe.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Just a quick follow up
question. What are your floor plate heights?
JESSIE BRISTOW: They’re close to 10’.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Is that standard? Is it above
average? I guess my question is, is there any play there? JESSIE BRISTOW: For assisted living it’s
standard. I think the smallest you could go for residential is 8’, but it’s really tight, but for this type of facility close to 10’ is pretty standard.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Is that a requirement because
of its specific use, the medical equipment, or it’s just standard?
JESSIE BRISTOW: I’m going to consult with my
architect.
CHAIR BARNETT: State your name, please.
DAVID MEADS: David Meads with Swenson,
architect. The plate height would be 10’ floor-to-floor,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but then hanging it back down into that space would be the floor structure and a drop ceiling for mechanical and
whatnot, and so you’re looking at right around a 9’
ceiling, which is current market standards at this point.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: My question I guess, what I’m
trying to get at, is there a way to shrink the mass just by shrinking the floor plate?
DAVID MEADS: Oh, by dropping the floor plates?
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Yes.
DAVID MEADS: Right now that would put you kind
of subpar with what current market is offering. That’s more something you’d see back in the seventies and early
eighties with an 8’ ceiling height.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Okay. I just want to make sure
we’re examining all our options. I appreciate that.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions or comments? If
not, we don’t have anyone further on Zoom.
JENNIFER ARMER: We had closed the general public
comment, so once you are done with questions with the
Applicant, then that would be the end of comments.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that reminder. So
at this point we’ll close the public portion of the public meeting and ask Commissioners if they wish to comment, ask
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
questions of Staff, or present a motion? Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a question for
Staff. Under construction off of Blossom Hill is an
assisted living/memory care facility that we looked at a couple of years ago. What is the height of that? Do you have that information handy?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question.
Yes, that was able to comply with the required height
limits of 35’.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My recollection of the
hearing was it was easy; it met a need and there weren’t any Variances. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other question or comments?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. It’s a beautiful
building. The architecture is wonderful and I think the articulation of the building mass is well done, but in my opinion it’s just too high.
With regard to the neighborhood outreach, to go
from 30,000 square feet to 81,000 square feet is a huge jump without any conversation about what and why; we’re talking about the project that was previously approved as the office building compared to what we’re looking at now.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I really appreciate however that this is an
assisted living facility; I think that’s a need in town.
I’ve moved my mother to two different assisted living
facilities in the last several months. There is no need for a 9-10’ interior plate height. I’m in agreement with where Vice Chair Raspe is perhaps going in suggesting that the plate heights be reduced to get a little bit of relief on the overall height of the building, but if you can take it and we can get three stories in 35’, let’s get three
stories in 35’, and if you have to run to the back and we need more height in the back, I don’t have any issue with giving that height Variance.
Having said all of that, I actually don’t have an
issue with the Variance on the 40% or 50% lot coverage. In fact, I would say if you can get the height down you could have more lot coverage, because we want these units, but we want them to reasonably fit within the visual element of town, so I’m struggling with both requests for Variance; it’s like too much, too much. If you could have one, if you could get the height down to the 35’ and take the back
higher, I wouldn’t have any issue with that, but even
better to get the whole thing down even lower and take more lot coverage, but I’m not suggesting this be a roofless building. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I agree with Commissioner
Janoff. It’s a beautifully designed building.
I was on the Planning Commission when we heard
the office building. Because the office building wasn’t going to work out, they couldn’t find a tenant and we all know what has happened to the office market, so that’s not been a good scene.
When I was looking at this, I think the CDAC
didn’t put our minutes in there, but I recall the CDAC was generally favorable to the idea, but it’s a concept, it’s not a design. When I saw this the first thing I thought of was the height, and it’s not that it’s unreasonable to have a 50’ tall building in town, but is this the thing that we would do it for, and if this the right place to do it?
That’s why I asked the question at the beginning about the heights of buildings on Winchester. Way at the north end of town we have Netflix and that’s taller, but it’s at the very north end of town and it’s not approximated by lots and lots of single-family residential or the kind of units that you’ll see in the part of Winchester you’re on.
I think that the concept makes a lot of sense,
but what I’m hearing is that because of the requirements for an assisted living facility it has to be more than
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
really might be appropriate for the site. It’s 1.3 acres and it’s in a residential neighborhood with just single stories. The push back coming from residents is that it doesn’t fit well into the neighborhood.
Getting back to whether the project is approvable
or not, certainly the Town desires more housing units,
certainly there is a need for assisted living, we have an aging population, but this seems like it’s too much. I can imagine a scenario where if it met the height limit it
might be possible to see this fitting in, but then it
sounds like it won’t pencil out for the operators that need that, so maybe there is another site that would be more appropriate for assisted living, but as it stands right now I couldn’t make the findings for the Variance for the
height.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for those comments.
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I will share a
few of my thoughts. I think it’s really important to go into this with the mindset that opportunities like this don’t come up all the time and we only get one shot at this really, that probably whatever happens with this property is what it will look like for our entire lives, so I just think it’s really important to think about that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I’m hearing a lot of people saying that we need
this, but not here, that this is definitely something
important, but we need it somewhere else, but I believe we would hear that pretty much anywhere that we put it, and so the way I see it is it is being proposed here.
During my site visit I felt like it fit in pretty
well actually and the properties that it would be replacing aren’t any major loss or anything, which is great. The
slope to me is pretty unique, and so I would be able to make the finding that they’re facing unique topographical challenges.
Also I think it’s important to remember that more
height is more units, so to lower the height and lose 30 units, that is 30 people who would not have this place to go, and something important with an older adult living
community is that each of those units could mean an entire single-family home that’s opening up because somebody would otherwise be staying in their home because they didn’t have somewhere like this to go, because it is something that we’re lacking.
I also think the North Forty taught us an
important lesson about height, which is that 5’ can make a really big difference aesthetically in the sense that
essentially we kept the height so low that when they got to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the max they just flattened it and it looks horrible to many people—I kind of like it—but if we had allowed even 3- 5’ more they would have been able to do an aesthetically pleasing roof and it would look better without impeding people’s views more, so I also think when we talk about the height in numbers we need to think about what we’re really getting for what we might be losing.
I like Commissioner Janoff’s idea for more lot
coverage and less height; I think that would be something worth looking at.
Something else I wanted to mention is I’ve rarely
seen the Consulting Architect have no changes, so I think that says a lot about this project in that they’re at least doing it in the best way possible probably.
I’m personally in favor of the project. I think
that they did it really tastefully, I felt like it fit in well, and I think I would be able to make the findings
necessary to grant the two Variances.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Clark. Other Commissioners? Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to echo some of what
Commissioner Clark just said and what all the Commissioners have said so far.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
It is really well designed architecturally, and I
was also surprised to see no changes recommended. I do
think that the pictures that we’ve seen do a good job of showing what the building will actually look like, maybe not how it will really sit in the entire neighborhood—that requires a little bit more imagination—but I do think that it is really well designed and I do agree that the
topography provides a challenge.
I think that the reality is moving forward we
know that the State is going to continue to require us to allow for more density, and so I agree that if the height can be brought down a little tiny bit without compromising the integrity of the structure looking proportioned and nice, and we would not want the roof to be gone.
I do agree that having more lot coverage would be
ideal. This is a facility that 50% even just seems like not that much for a memory care or assisted living facility. I know outdoor and green spaces are important, and I
understand the neighbors want some barrier and buffer and allowance for a lot of vegetation, which I understand, but 50% or even a little bit more than that if we could figure out how to get the height down just like a tiny bit to
appease people, that this is something that I would be
comfortable with, and I do think, like Commissioner Clark
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
just said, because of the topography that I could make the findings to grant the Variances.
Lastly, I want to say that I think that we should
try really hard to come to a compromise and make this
project work, because similar to North Forty and there are just so many alternative pathways now for getting
development done, and I think this is a good place for this facility.
Maybe it is a little bit too high and maybe
that’s what Commissioner Hanssen was really just mentioning more than the type of facility it is, because I do think that the vet is there and it’s kind of a mix; it’s not
quite fully residential even though there are a lot of
people that live near there and it is near the school, but it’s also a little bit of business, so I think it’s a good location for this type of facility.
I do think that the neighbors said that they
would rather have something like this than apartments, and I do think that having an apartment complex would make a much larger impact with regard to traffic, with regard to the parking issues, with regard to just a lot of the noise, having people in and out in general.
I think that I really want this to work because
we don’t get a lot of opportunities to do this and we need
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to try to attempt to help with housing getting built in town for RHNA requirements and numbers, so I think that this is a really good opportunity and I hope that we can get somewhere, because we don’t want to be that place where developers are coming in and using Builder’s Remedy and stuff. We’ve talked about that here, we’ve talked about that when we’ve been in our General Plan meetings and our Housing Element meetings and all of that, and I know we really want to avoid going down that path, so I hope that we can come to a compromise.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I would hope
that the Planning Commission is not making a decision
tonight based on a fear of what a different project might look like. I think we need to evaluate this on its face value and its benefit to this area. Builder’s Remedies are going to happen, and these bills that builders are going to try to use are going to happen, but I don’t want to
compromise a project for fear that that would happen, so I just want to make that point.
The other thing I would like to add, again having
had more experience with senior communities than I ever really wanted to, independent living is not a part of this project. Independent living in my view would want to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
accommodate much more open space. When you are talking
about assisted living individuals, it’s people who don’t have a lot of mobility to start and then it gets worse.
Providing as many units as we can I think is a priority, so I wouldn’t want to lose 30 units. I would want the height reduced, but if you can put more units on the ground and take 50%-60% more land to do it, I’d like to know whether the developer would be open to rethinking the layout if we provide the opportunity to take up more space. I think
that’s a reasonable place to go.
I’m not going to suggest any reengineering or
architecting of this building, which is quite beautiful, as we’ve said, but I think it could be done—and this isn’t going to sound fair to the future residents perhaps—in not so luxurious a fashion. It can be a practical and
beautiful, caring, and welcoming environment. It doesn’t need to have 9’ ceilings, and you could have smaller
spaces. See how we could rethink the overall layout to get you the numbers you want, but in a more compact, maybe
lower slung configuration.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. Other
comments? Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. This is a
confusing one, because I think your project is beautiful. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
mean, it really is. I think the design architecture is
really great, the way the building moves, and it’s really what you want.
I’m having issues at where it is. Somehow I don’t
think it’s appropriate there coming into Los Gatos. I have a member over at the Terraces. There are a lot of
ambulances coming and going all the time; someone is coming in and going out. I mean there are a lot of transportation issues.
You’re by the school. You’re talking about 351
daily trips, a lot of traffic right in that area, and I know the peak numbers in the morning and the evening are lower than the office building before that was approved, but it just seems too big, too massive, too tall, and I don’t think it works there. If you can make a smaller
version of it, maybe it would work better for me, but I really think it is a beautiful project and I commend you for that, but coming into Los Gatos and seeing this massive project there, I just don’t think it’s right for Los Gatos, our General Plan, and what we’re trying to achieve for our town.
And it’s getting so hard now that we have to be
really cautious on what we move forward, because then you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
set a precedent for the next project and the next project, so it’s very complex and sort of difficult. Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would just like to
clarify one point. We hear each project de novo. These
project decisions are not setting a precedent. It should not be setting a precedent. Each site is unique, each set of plans is unique, and so I don’t want Commissioners to feel like approving this project sets an unfortunate
precedent. We hear each and every item on our agendas as a brand new, without precedent, item. So I just want to be clear that in my view the Planning Commission doesn’t set precedent with decisions, it considers each project on its own merits and makes a determination.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that reminder.
Commissioner Burnett and then Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I don’t think I was saying
that how you describe it, that a precedent is setting, I’m saying that it seems to open a door for more and more
people to come in, or more developers to bring in their projects for more density or intensity, just to clarify.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a quick response. We
know from the General Plan, we know from the Housing
Element, that we are going to be seeing more and more of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
these large developments, and as I think Commissioner Clark indicated, there are always going to be issues with these.
These are unique projects in terms of density and height and we’ll see more and more of those going forward, as we must if we’re going to meet our RHNA numbers. It’s
uncomfortable for the Town, it’s uncomfortable for the
residents, we understand that, but that’s the fact of
needing to create more housing in a pretty compact area such as Los Gatos, so I think we’re going to see more of these difficult decisions.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Thomas, you were
next, and then Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have a question for
Staff. I know that we are using the 2020 General Plan, I understand that, but what would have been the lot coverage for the 2040? I’m just wondering percentage-wise just
because that did go through some scrutiny and everything, so it might give an indicator of what some of the public might think about a change in lot coverage.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. I
can look that up, though as you said, at this time and
based on our evaluation the rules that do apply to this project is the 2020 Land Use Element, and so that is what
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
governs, but I can take a quick look and find that number for you.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then my
other question was a follow up to Commissioner Hanssen’s mention of the facility that’s being built on Blossom Hill.
Where is that?
JENNIFER ARMER: It’s 400 Blossom Hill Road. It’s
the construction that you see as you’re going north on
Highway 17 on the right; that is the project that she was referring to.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So the lot is bigger?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, it was a different
configuration.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And also topography-wise
it’s different, so okay.
JENNIFER ARMER: And I can answer your other
question as well. In the 2040 General Plan Land Use Element we actually switched. Instead of a lot coverage it was
floor area, and so the maximum height in the Office zone was still at 35’ and the FAR was 1.0.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Still open for
discussion. Commissioner Hanssen, you had your hand raised.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to echo what
Commissioner Janoff said earlier. I would certainly hope
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that no Planning Commission in the Town of Los Gatos or anywhere would bow to pressure from a developer to threaten SB 30 or any other law in California in terms of when we have a discretionary decision sitting in front of us and we have zoning codes to deal with that we would be intimidated by that, and I personally will not.
That being said, I did want to reiterate what I
said earlier, which is that when we saw this at CDAC back in 2020 I was in favor, and I still am in favor, of the idea of the senior assisted living project that’s here, but this comes with having to take pretty big Variances against our building standards, and as I said, I don’t know that we have much of any buildings in Los Gatos that are 50’, and we may have to go there for the Housing Element. I chaired the Housing Element and I’ve been sitting on the General Plan Committee for years. We may have to go there with the developers, but is this the building where we’re doing it for the first time, and is this the right location to do that?
I asked Staff about the property of the senior
facility that’s being constructed on Blossom Hill. That is sort of down in a hole, it’s next to an apartment building complex, but as you’re driving down there were other
commercial buildings in that area, so that was an easy
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
thing because there weren’t a lot of impacts to the nearby neighbors, they weren’t going to be looking at people’s windows looking at them.
I’ll go back also to what Commissioner Janoff
said. I think that it would be a good idea if we can try to make this project work, because if you compare it to the alternatives for residential, this is going to be less
impact to traffic, because people will be spending more time in their units versus a traditional apartment
building, and I personally would be willing to go there on trading off the lot coverage for the height, because I
think the height is a big deal and people do value their views of the surrounding mountains and all that, and like I said, we haven’t been going there with 50’ heights.
CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Janoff, and
Commissioner Thomas afterwards.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just to clarify that the
way I read the plans the 50’ height is only because the back side of the lot drops off, and that affords the
opportunity for more units, so that’s a unique feature of the topography. I think calling it a 50’ height building is probably not accurate. I mean, it is.
But my question overall is I guess what I’m
hearing are some votes in favor of approving this as is,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and some votes in favor of asking the Applicant if they would be willing to go back and reconsider more lot
coverage for a reduced height. Can we ask the Applicant? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. If
you have a specific question for the Applicant, the Chair could choose to open just for a specific question.
CHAIR BARNETT: I would be amenable to opening
the public hearing just for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So to just clarify what
that question would be, and it’s generally a yes or no
question, would the Applicant be willing to go back and reconsider their plans, keeping the senior facility as
envisioned but with a larger footprint and a reduced height to get it under the 35’, would they be willing to consider that?
CHAIR BARNETT: Does the representative of
Swenson want to deal with that question?
JESSIE BRISTOW: Good evening, Jessie Bristow,
Swenson Builders. I was discussing with my colleague about where maybe we could fit some of that lot coverage if we were granted additional space. There are two portions, the north wing and the south wing, but unfortunately that’s where we have our C-3, which is our storm water control, so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that would be a significant redesign and I’m not sure if we’d actually be able to capture all that water runoff.
In discussing potentially the height, at this
juncture I don't know if we could accommodate the 35’ a hundred percent. The first floor has all the amenities, it has a full kitchen, so dropping that plate would be really challenging, because that’s where everyone would exist, so to speak, when they’re not in the room. But the second
floor and the third floor we believe we could drop that floor plate about a foot. I know it’s not much, but that would go from the highest point 2’ lower, and then we might be able to adjust the mansard roof by 0.5’. Again, I know it’s not much, but that’s 2.5’ potential reduction just speaking on it off the cuff today. Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the
clarification. Other questions or comments? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Do you feel like your
question was answered?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: No. Thank you for asking.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I kind of have a follow up
question to that, because I understand that you can’t say yes, we could totally move a few things around and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
reconfigure, but I think the question was would you
consider do that?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The essence of the question
is would the Applicant be interested in a continuance on the part of the Planning Commission to allow them to try to achieve some of the objectives the Planning Commission has obviously voiced?
CHAIR BARNETT: The public portion has been
extended.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Thank you. Jessie Bristow,
again. Unfortunately at this time I don’t have authority to say that we can do that, but essentially losing that whole floor would be 30 units, and that would be a challenge for us. They are valuable units to us and to the Town, so that would be difficult at this juncture.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So I’m hearing the answer
is no. Thank you.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Sorry.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Vice Chair Raspe.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I’m going to
join in some respects with my fellow commissioners and
depart in others.
First of all, I’ll join in saying this town needs
assisted living facilities, as I think all cities in our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
country. We’re an aging population; we need these. We also need significant numbers to reach our RHNA allocations, and this project satisfied both those goals.
Some Commissioners have indicated that they think
it’s a difficult location. I would argue to the contrary. I think one of the speakers on Zoom indicated that these
facilities should be placed in transitional zones. To me, this feels like a transitional zone. You’re coming down Winchester and it’s changing, you’re coming into town, and it feels like a great location for exactly this type of facility. You’re going to have, I imagine, rescue units coming here from time to time. Winchester is exactly the type of street you want those types of vehicles and
facilities to use as opposed to quieter residential
streets.
So for me the location, the type of project, the
number of units all make sense for a variety of reasons, and as everybody agrees, the architecture is beautiful.
Now, there are a couple of things I don’t love about this project.
First of all, I think the public outreach was
probably not handled as well as it could have been, and I would hope that on a going forward basis the developer and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the neighbors would develop a more insightful, helpful
discourse.
The height for me is the most problematic, and
it’s the most problematic on the Winchester side, not on the downslope side. I agree this is a unique lot situation, although I guess technically it’s four lots, but the
falling away of the street creates the 50’ issue, so I
think it’s less of an issue more so on the Winchester side.
I’m very happy to hear that by my calculations
we’ve captured perhaps 2.5’ of reduction in height just in our discussion here tonight by reducing one floor plate and the roof alignment, so while I would have hoped for, again, a better discourse at the first instance and a smaller
building currently, I’m satisfied with what we’ve discussed here tonight and I would be willing to allow this project to go as we’ve discussed tonight with the minor changes we’ve discussed.
CHAIR BARNETT: Sounds like a possible motion,
but we’ll see what Commissioner Clark has.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree. I just
want to add that I would appreciate it if my fellow
commissioners can really consider approving this project. I feel like this is about the best we’re going to get. Like Vice Chair Raspe said, it’s in a transitional zone, which
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
81 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
is exactly where you might want a project like this to go, because its zoning is more Commercial but it will have
people living in it, and the location makes a lot of sense to me.
I think when people are saying it’s too tall, or
this isn’t what we want in Los Gatos, I would like to hear that taken one step further as to what is so bad about it being however many feet too tall versus us getting more units, or getting this much needed older adult assisted living, and I feel like we’ve been needing something like this for a long time and we have it right here before us, and I don’t feel like the reasons that we are finding to deny it outweigh the benefits of this project that is
sitting in front of us, and so those are my thoughts.
CHAIR BARNETT: And we appreciate those. Other
comments? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I like where
Vice Chair Raspe is going with his potential motion
perhaps, and I do appreciate the quick calculations and willingness to drop the 2.5’, and I agree with Commissioner Janoff about the backside down Shelburne height is not as much of a concern as the Winchester side, and especially for part of that because of the neighbors that live there.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
82 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I do want to follow up and say that I also want
to echo what Commissioners Hanssen and Janoff said about we’re not a town and we’re definitely not a Commission
that… I do not feel like I can be bullied by developers with the threats of these State laws that are coming down and with Builder’s Remedy and everything. I know that
sometimes residents, like everyone here is working and
doing a job, and the reason that we know about these
possibilities is because we have volunteered our time and energy to being here, and I know that I talk to a lot of residents that don’t know about these possibilities, and I know that people don’t want us to become a town that is known for those things to possibly happen because of any situation.
My comments more are related to the fact that I
want the public to know that we’re not in a place where we can just say we don’t want buildings to be built in town anymore and we don’t want development to happen anymore.
That time is gone, and I know that it’s upsetting to a lot of people, so I hope that we can agree to all participate in the process to cooperate, and our job as the Commission is not to be bullied by developers but to try to meet
everyone’s needs, the community’s needs, our RHNA goals, all of our everything, and so I do think that, as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
83 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Commissioner Clark said, this is a really great opportunity for us to meet a lot of our goals and appease a lot of the concerns with the neighbors, and I really think that it could be a great project for our community, and so I hope that we can try to come to an agreement tonight also.
CHAIR BARNETT: We’ve had a lot of discussion.
Perhaps we should have a motion and see how that goes. Do we have a motion from the Commissioners on this Item 3? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just have a question I
guess about some of the motion. So Vice Chair Raspe, you are thinking that if we say you can drop 2.5’ that’s what you want to meet? Do we want to say you have to meet the 35’ at least for the very front of the building along
Winchester? I’m curious to see what kind of conditions we would suggest putting on this before we go through with the motion.
CHAIR BARNETT: My comment is that we should get
a motion on the table and then discuss it. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’ll defer to the motion
maker.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll pop in. This is Gabrielle
Whelan, Town Attorney. I recommend confirming with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
84 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Applicant that they can accept a condition that would
reduce the structure by 2.5’, and I recommend that the
Applicant specify exactly where that reduction would occur.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that input, and
we’ll ask for the response.
JESSIE BRISTOW: Thank you. Jessie Bristow,
Swenson Builders, again.
So to clarify, we can drop 1’ on the second
floor, we can drop 1’ on the third floor, and then we can drop 0.5’ on the mansard roof, so it would be the 2.5’.
CHAIR BARNETT: Does that satisfy the concern of
the Town Attorney?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: All right, so Vice Chair Raspe.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Okay, let me try. I move that
we approve the demolition of one existing office and four residential buildings for the construction of an assisted living and memory care facility, Variance for maximum
height and lot coverage of the zone, merger of four lots into one, and removal of large protected trees on property zoned O located 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way, APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040,
Architecture and Site Applications S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
85 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated
Negative Declaration ND-22-001.
I can make the required findings for CEQA that an
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project, that it has been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program to mitigate potential impacts.
I can make the finding that the project meets the
objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code except for the height and lot coverage Variance requested.
I make the finding for the demolition of existing
structures as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code.
I can make the required findings for granting of
a Variance Application as required by 29.20.070 of the Town Code for granting a Variance Application specifically that because of the special circumstances applicable to the
property, including its topography.
I can make the required findings for a
Conditional Use Permit as required by 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
86 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I can make the required findings to deny a
Subdivision Application as required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
I can make the finding that the proposed building
is consistent with applicable provisions of the Commercial Design Guidelines.
I can make the finding as required by Section
29.20.150 of the Town Code that consideration in review of an Architecture and Site Application were all made in
reviewing this project.
The motion is subject to the following
alterations as to the plans submitted by the Applicant in that the second floor and third floors will each be reduced by 1’ each in floor plate height, and that the roof will be reduced 6” such that the overall height of the project will be reduced by 2.5’.
JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I just wanted
to clarify the findings for the lot merger as slightly
unique. It’s that none of the findings for denial can be made. I just wanted to clarify for the record that that was your intent.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: The motion is modified to
reflect so.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
87 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. We’ll look for a
second. Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second the motion.
CHAIR BARNETT: Any discussion on the motion?
JENNIFER ARMER: First, Chair, just additional
clarification that the motion does include the Conditions of Approval in Attachments 3 and 4 and the plans provided.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: So amended.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: So now we’ll move on to
discussion. We’ve had quite a bit already, and we may know the general feelings of the Commissioners, but I’ll give you another opportunity, should you wish.
I just want to add that I think the concerns of
the neighbors are serious in consideration. I think the building does have a very large presence; I was somewhat overwhelmed when I saw it. I considered the fact that the architectural consultant, Mr. Cannon, did not actually make a determination of neighborhood compatibility, which he usually does, but I’ve been persuaded by my fellow
commissioners that the project overall meets appropriate needs for the community, and RHNA needs, in addition to serving the aging population of our town, and so I am going to support the motion. Commissioner Thomas.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
88 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I know it’s only 6” for the
roof, but can we include in the motion that the Town
Consulting Architect approves that everything will still be within balance with the changes proposed, or would that require a whole new thing?
CHAIR BARNETT: That’s a proposed amendment to
the motion.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, let’s see what she
says.
JENNIFER ARMER: I could provide clarification;
it sounded like a question for Staff.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
JENNIFER ARMER: That is something that could be
provided, but on a building of this size I don’t expect that that will significantly modify the appearance of the roof. One of the things that we do look at for this
particular roof is that it is screening the mechanical
equipment and 6” is unlikely to make a significant change to how well that is screened, though the mechanical
equipment is still going to be the same height, which is part of the height of the building.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, then that’s fine with
me. I just want to make sure we’re not messing up the…too much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
89 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
My other question was if we wanted to just ensure
that there is significant screening. In the pictures we got it didn’t really seem like it, but making sure that in the Conditions of Approval that they specified it to be an
evergreen screen for the neighbors.
CHAIR BARNETT: We’ll ask the maker of the
motion.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Question for Staff. Is that
part of the submitted plans? Was it evergreen screening? JENNIFER ARMER: I would have to take a look at
what the species are in the landscape plan. We could
specify.
VICE CHAIR RASPE: If not, the Conditions of
Approval would be appropriate evergreen screening.
JENNIFER ARMER: On the south elevation in
particular?
VICE CHAIR RASPE: Correct, yes.
CHAIR BARNETT: Other discussion? If not, I’ll
call the question and ask for a raising of hands for those who are in support of the motion.
JENNIFER ARMER: I’m sorry, Chair. We did just
add a condition for evergreen screening along the south side. I wanted to make sure the seconder accepted.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2023
Item #3, 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard
and 17484 Shelburne Way
90 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you.
CHAIR BARNETT: So now we’ll proceed and ask
those in favor of the motion to raise their hand. And those opposed? So it passes 5-2. Are there appeal rights on this matter?
JENNIFER ARMER: There is, thank you, Chair. The
decision of the Commission can be appealed to Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section
29.10.020 within ten days on forms available online with fees paid. Final deadline is 4:00pm on the tenth day.
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that.
(END)
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
August 25, 2023
Jessie Bristow, Swenson Builders
740 Front Street, Suite 315
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Via Email
RE: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way Architecture and Site Application S-21-008
Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010
Variance Application V21-003
Subdivision Application M-22-008
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001
Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone, Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on Property Zoned O. APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project. Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson.
At its meeting of August 23, 2023, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the meeting minutes from August 9, 2023, confirming any additional or modified conditions of approval for the project.
The conditions of approval, including the additional conditions of approval for the project shown in the underlined font, are attached to this letter. However, these conditions of approval will not be considered final until the Town Council considers and makes a determination on the appeal of this decision.
If you have any questions, I can be contacted by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
\\TLG-File\data\DEV\PC\PC ACTION Letters\2023 Follow up Ltrs\08-09-2023 [15860 Winchester Blvd - Item #3; Approved].docx
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION – August 9, 2023
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way Architecture and Site Application S-21-008
Variance Application V-21-003
Subdivision Application M-22-008
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001
Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone, Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on Property Zoned O. APN 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC, or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section
29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. HEIGHT REDUCTION: The building height shall be reduced through plate height reductions of one foot each for second and third floors, and roof height reduction of an additional 6 inches.
4. SCREENING TREES: Trees planted along the south property line for screening shall be evergreen.
5. SIGN PERMIT: A Sign Permit from the Los Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to any changes to existing signs or installation of new signs.
6. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
7. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
8. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans.
10. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report and Arborist’s Peer Review for the
project, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
11. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
12. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped.
13. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan, including landscape and irrigation plans and calculations, shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town’s consultant prior to issuance of building permits. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.
14. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT: Any new or modified roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened and painted to match the roof material prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
15. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application.
16. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense.
Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation.
Per Government Code Section 66474.9, Applicant’s indemnification obligation with respect to any Challenge concerning a subdivision (tentative, parcel, or final map application or approval) shall be limited to actions brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37, unless such time period is extended for any reason.
The Town shall promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
17. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum, in compliance with standard Town practice, shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit detailing how the conditions of approval will be addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MITIGATION MEASURE CONDITIONS:
18. Mitigation Measure IV-1: A pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within a 250-foot buffer around the project site boundaries, if feasible, not more than three days prior to site disturbance during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st). If site disturbance commences outside the breeding season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds is not required. Survey results shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. If active nests of migratory birds are not detected within approximately 250 feet of the project site, further mitigation is not required. If nesting birds are detected, the applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure IV-2.
19. Mitigation Measure IV-2: If nesting raptors or other migratory birds are detected on or adjacent to the site during the survey, an appropriate construction-free buffer shall be established around all active nests. Actual size of buffer would be determined by the project biologist, and would depend on species, topography, and type of activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. Typical buffers are 25 feet for non-raptors and up to 250 feet for raptors. The project buffer shall be monitored periodically by the project biologist to ensure compliance. After the nesting is completed, as determined by the biologist, the buffer shall no longer be required. Buffers shall remain in place for the duration of the breeding season or until a qualified biologist has confirmed that all chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents. Proof of compliance with this Mitigation Measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to recommencing construction within the buffer area.
20. Mitigation Measure IV-3: The applicant shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance and a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the Town for the removal of any on-site trees that qualify as a protected tree. If the trees proposed for removal are found to be in good condition, and the tree removal permit is granted primarily for the convenience of the applicant, then the full cost and responsibility of such removal shall be borne by the applicant including planting of replacement trees.
Where replanting is impractical or infeasible, the property owner may pay an in-lieu fee in an amount approved by the Town Council. New trees planted on site shall have a trunk diameter of more than 1.5 inches. The above noted requirements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department.
21. Mitigation Measure IV-4: The project applicant shall comply with all recommendations included in the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project by Arborist Resources (2021) to ensure that tree protection measures are incorporated into the project design and construction. Recommended tree protection measures include, but are not limited to, establishing tree protection zones (TPZs) and setbacks for each protected tree; installing tree protection fencing around each TPZ which would include warning signs stating, “WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025”; avoiding damaging or cutting roots with a diameter of two or more inches; avoiding the use of herbicides; establishing staging, cleanout areas, and all routes of access beyond unpaved areas beneath tree canopies; and
conducting a site meeting with the general contractor and project arborist several weeks or months prior to demolition for the purpose of reviewing all tree protection measures. All relevant recommendations included in the Arborist Report shall be noted on project Improvement Plans. Compliance with the recommended tree protection measures shall be monitored by the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department and a qualified arborist.
22. Mitigation Measure V-1: If historic or archeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The Town shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Town and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
23. Mitigation Measure V-2: If human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, all work shall be halted immediately within 200 feet, and a professional archeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist shall notify the Contra Costa County Coroner (per §7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the applicant does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the lead agency, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the Town’s satisfaction.
24. Mitigation Measure VII-1: The project applicant shall include all relevant 2019 CBSC standards, as recommended by the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (2021) on all project improvement plans to ensure that the recommended standards for development of foundations, subsurface improvements, etc. are incorporated into the project design and construction. All project improvement plans shall be reviewed by a licensed engineer and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and the Town’s Engineer.
25. Mitigation Measure VIII-1: The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department:
• The proposed project shall be designed such that the project is built all-electric, and natural gas infrastructure shall be prohibited on-site; and • A minimum 10 electric vehicle (EV) capable parking spaces shall be included on-site, consistent with the Tier 2 CALGreen standards.
26. Mitigation Measure IX-1: Following demolition and prior to issuance of a grading permit, a sampling grid shall be superimposed across the site and discrete shallow samples shall be collected. The samples shall be tested for organochlorine pesticides to determine whether Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) are exceeded in any samples. The applicant shall submit a report to the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval that includes, but is not limited to, sampling activities performed, relevant ESLs for identified contaminants, summary of contaminated concentrations, and locations where ESLs are exceeded, if any. If ESLs are exceeded in onsite soils, the impacted areas shall be removed and properly disposed of under oversight by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) prior to issuance of a grading permit; and proof of remediation under SCCDEH oversight shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department prior to grading. For larger quantities of soils that are non-hazardous, subject to approval by the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department, such soils may generally be placed under interior roads, parking areas, or buildings during normal grading operations, and verification of proper handling and disposal.
27. Mitigation Measure IX-2: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete an asbestos and lead survey. The completed asbestos and lead survey shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and approval. If asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials shall not be required. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work plan to the Town for review and approval. The Town has the right to defer the work plan to the SCCDEH for additional review. Materials containing more than
one (1) percent asbestos that is friable are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one (1) percent friable asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD Section 11-2-303.
28. Mitigation Measure XIII-1: Prior to approval of demolition permits the following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department:
• Operational and Situational Controls:
o All work on-site shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM weekends and Holidays, pursuant to the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Ordinance.
o All exterior stationary equipment shall be kept at least 100 feet from neighboring property lines unless acoustically shielded.
o Material deliveries shall not be allowed on Sundays or Federal Holidays. o Cranes shall be located at least 100 feet from any neighboring property line with the exception of cranes or lifts necessary to dismantle scaffolding. o Material movement along the east and south sides of the site shall be minimized. o Stockpiles shall be located adjacent to neighbors as much as possible to help shield people from on-site noise generation.
o Music shall not be audible off-site.
o Dirt berming and stockpiling materials shall occur whenever possible to reduce noise to sensitive receptor locations.
o Mobile equipment such as haul trucks, and concrete trucks, shall be kept off of local streets near residences as much as possible.
o Vehicle paths shall be graded smooth as rough roads and paths can cause significant noise and vibration from trucks (particularly empty trucks) rolling over rough surfaces. Loud bangs and ground-borne vibration can occur. • Interior Work:
o For interior work, the windows of the interior spaces facing neighbors where work is being performed shall be kept closed while work is proceeding. o Noise generating equipment indoors shall be located within the building to use building elements as noise screens.
• Equipment:
o Earth Removal: Use scrapers as much as possible for earth removal, rather than the noisier loaders and hauling trucks.
o Backfilling: Use a backhoe for backfilling, as it is quieter than either dozers or loaders.
o Ground Preparation: Use a motor grader rather than a bulldozer for final grading.
Wheeled heavy equipment is less noisy than track equipment. Use wheeled equipment rather than track equipment whenever possible, with the exception of work within the vibration distances shown in Table IV of the Noise Assessment Study. The soil conditions at the site indicate that wheeled equipment may generate higher levels of ground vibration than tracked equipment. Small, rubber tracked equipment, such as skid steers, would produce the lowest levels of noise and vibration
o Building Construction: Nail guns shall be used where possible as they are less noisy than manual hammering.
o Generators and Compressors: Use generators, compressors and pumps that are housed in acoustical enclosures rather than weather enclosures or none at all. o Use temporary power service from the utility company in lieu of generators wherever possible.
o All stationary equipment shall be rated no higher than 85 dBA at 25 feet under the equipment’s most noisy condition.
o Circular saws, miter/chop saws and radial arm saws shall be used no closer than 50 feet from any residential property line unless the saw is screened from view by any and all residences using an air-tight screen material of at least two pounds per sf surface weight, such as three-quarter-inch plywood.
o Use electrically powered tools rather than pneumatic tools whenever possible. o Mitigation of the construction phase noise at the site can be accomplished by using quiet or "new technology" equipment.
o The greatest potential for noise abatement of current equipment shall be the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers. o All internal combustion engines used at the project site shall be equipped with a type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. o All equipment shall be in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines, drive-trains and other components. Worn, loose or unbalanced parts or components shall be maintained or replaced to minimize noise and vibration.
o Use wheeled equipment rather than tracked equipment whenever possible. o Use the lowest vibration inducing equipment when within the distance limits shown in Table IV of the Noise Assessment Study. Small grading and earth moving equipment, such as “Bobcat” size equipment shall be used. • Noise Complaint Management:
o The project applicant shall designate a noise complaint officer. The officer shall be available at all times during construction hours by both telephone and email. Signs shall be posted at site entries.
o Notify, in writing, all residential and noise sensitive commercial neighbors within 300 feet of the site of construction. The notification shall contain the name, phone number, and email address of the noise complaint officer. A flyer may be placed at the doors of the residences.
o A log of all complaints shall be maintained. The logs shall contain the name and address of the complainant, the date and time of the complaint, the nature/description of the noise source, a description of the remediation attempt or the reason remediation could not be attempted.
29. Mitigation Measure XVII-1: The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department:
• A minimum of one long term and three short term bicycle parking spaces shall be included on-site, consistent with the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines; and • A new crosswalk shall be installed to cross Shelburne Way at Winchester Boulevard.
The crosswalk shall meet the standards of the Town of Los Gatos.
30. Mitigation Measure XVII-3: The following requirement shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department:
• Red curbs shall be implemented adjacent to both sides of the project driveways to prohibit parking and ensure adequate sight distance.
Building Division
29. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of each individual existing structure. A separate Building Permit is required for the construction of the new multi-story, multi-family dwelling structure.
30. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2023, are the 2022 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.
31. LOCALLY ADOPTED REACH CODES: This project will be subject to the all-electric construction requirements as well as the Multifamily dwelling residential parking requirements pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code as modified in Chapter 6, Article XII of the Town Code.
32. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be included in full in the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
33. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
34. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
35. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building Department. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and site plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
36. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
b. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. All non-road diesel construction equipment shall at a minimum meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112.
c. Developer shall designate an on-site field supervisor to provide written notification of construction schedule to adjacent residential property owners and tenants at least one week prior to commencement of demolition and one week prior to commencement of grading with a request that all windows remain closed during demolition, site grading,
excavation, and building construction activities in order to minimize exposure to NOx and PM10. The on-site field supervisor shall monitor construction emission levels within five feet of the property line of the adjacent residences for NOx and PM10 using the appropriate air quality and/or particulate monitor.
37. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
38. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations. a. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans.
Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items:
b. Building pad elevation
c. Finish floor elevation
d. Foundation corner locations
e. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
39. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
40. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site.
41. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure, where parking is provided for the public as clients, guests or employees, shall provide handicap accessible parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances.
42. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
43. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies.
44. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
45. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
46. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department: (408) 918-3479 f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
47. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
48. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
49. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website.
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS:
50. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the
Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit.
51. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Developer or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
52. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.
53. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer.
Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of any grading or building permits or the recordation of a map. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer. a) Winchester Blvd: New curb, gutter, minimum 5-foot detached sidewalk, minimum 4- foot park strip, pavement, street lights, tie-in paving, signing striping, and 2-inch grind and overlay along the eastern half of Winchester Boulevard. b) Shelburne Way: New curb, gutter, minimum 5-foot detached sidewalk, minimum 4-foot park strip, half-street pavement reconstruction along the southern half of the roadway, 2-inch grind and overlay along the northern half of the roadway, signing, and striping c) Bicycle lane: The project shall re-stripe Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage plus necessary conform transition for adding bicycle lanes. The roadway shall be resurfaced prior to striping. d) Pedestrian crosswalk: The project shall provide a corner bulb-out and a striped pedestrian crosswalk crossing Shelburne Way at Winchester Boulevard as directed by Town Engineer.
e) Class IV bike lanes along Winchester Boulevard frontage and Class III bike lanes along Shelburne Way frontages per the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. f) Street lights: A new Town standard street light shall be installed on Winchester Boulevard at the corner of Shelburne Way along the project frontage. A new Town standard street light shall be installed on Shelburne Way along the project frontage
replacing an existing PG&E street light across the project site. The developer shall coordinate with PG&E for the removal and installation.
54. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without inspection.
55. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction.
GRADING PERMIT CONDITIONS:
56. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the commencement of plan check review.
57. GRADING PERMIT FEES: All fees associated with the grading permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
58. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by the respective deciding body, the grading permit application (with grading plans and associated required materials and plan check fees) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Developer’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint.
59. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Developer’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.
60. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Developer.
61. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Developer shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town.
62. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
63. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items:
a) Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b) Toe and top of cut and fill slopes.
64. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the general contractor shall:
a) Along with the Developer, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters;
b) Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.
65. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process.
SUBDIVISIONS/MAPS:
66. GENERAL: The Developer shall comply with all Town, County, State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to this land division. No other proposed development is included in this particular application of the lot merger. Issuance of a lot merger will acknowledge the Town’s acceptance of the parcel as legally created in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Any subsequent development will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Town Development Standards and Codes.
67. LOT MERGER: A Lot Merger shall be recorded. Two (2) copies of the legal description for exterior boundary of the merged parcel and a map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than ninety (90) days old and the appropriate fee. The documents shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
68. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior the issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation.
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGY:
69. SOILS REPORT: One electronic copy (PDF) of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
70. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations,
retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans.
71. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to Town approval of a development application, the Developer’s engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical and geological investigation for review by the Town’s consultant, with costs borne by the Developer, and subsequent approval by the Town. The Developer’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments.
Approval of the Developer’s soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by submitting a Plan Review Letter prior to issuance of grading or building permit(s).
72. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Developer’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the designlevel geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the Developer’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of occupancy is granted.
73. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation by Cornerstone Earth Group dated February 10, 2021, and any subsequently required report or addendum.
Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Developer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS:
74. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Developer shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section 24.40.020. The Developer shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% performance and 100% labor and materials prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permit. The Developer shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. An electronic copy (PDF) of the executed agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permit.
UTILITIES:
75. WATER METER: The existing water meters, currently located within the Winchester Blvd right-of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the public right-of-way line. The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
76. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line, within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town.
77. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department will not sign off on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate of Occupancy until all required improvements within the Town’s right-of-way have been completed and approved by the Town.
78. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES: Projects which propose work within the Town’s rightof-way, including but not limited to pavement restoration, street widening, construction of curb, gutter and/or sidewalk, right-of-way dedication, etc., will be evaluated by Staff to determine its potential for the implementation of Green Infrastructure measures and associated improvements.
79. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall be required to improve the project’s public frontage (right-of-way line to centerline and/or to limits per the direction of the Town Engineer) to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), signs, pavement, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, storm drain facilities, traffic signal(s), street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
80. GREEN BICYCLE FACILITIES: The Developer shall install green bike lanes and bike boxes in directions of improved streets and intersections as directed by the Town Engineer. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
81. ADA COMPLIANCE: The Developer shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as directed by the Town.
82. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE: Water from the underground parking garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The Developer or their representative shall design a floor drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the sanitary sewer system. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not permitted.
83. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed subject to the following requirements:
a) The Town standard “T” trench detail shall be used.
b) A Town-approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used. c) All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to minimize the impacted area of the roadway.
d) The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of three (3) inches, meet Town standards, or shall match the existing thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5-inches of one-half (½) inch medium asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of threequarter (¾) inch medium asphalt. e) The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place. f) A cape seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending their assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the cape seal shall extend the full width of the street and shall extend five (5) feet beyond the longitudinal limits of trenching. Cape seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering Construction Inspector prior to placement. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of cape seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the Inspector before occupancy.
84. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install a minimum of two (2) Town standard commercial driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
85. CURB RAMPS: The Developer shall construct two (2) curb ramps in compliance with ADA Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
86. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080,
26.10.065, and 29.40.030.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION:
87. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (TRAFFIC): The Developer shall construct improvements including and may not be limited to signage, striping, curb/gutter/sidewalk, ADA ramps, pedestrian crosswalk and street lights at project frontage as directed by the Town Engineer.
Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
88. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHTS): The Developer shall replace existing street light fixture with LED light fixture and re-paint existing street light pole. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
89. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT): Traffic improvements may be required as determined by traffic study. Construct off-site improvements as required. Plans shall be prepared by the Developer’s design consultants and submitted to the Town Engineer for approval prior to construction. The Developer is required to designate necessary right-ofway for the required widening. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
90. STREET LIGHT INSPECTION FEES: The Developer shall pay $1,000.00 for the Town’s inspection of street lights. The fees shall be due at time of building permit application.
91. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM): The Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Los Gatos approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. The TDM shall include the measures such as bicycle facility provisions, shower facilities, local shuttle service, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentive, designated car share parking, and other measures that may be required by the Town Engineer to obtain a goal of a 15% vehicle trip reduction. The TDM shall also include a TDM Coordinator and identify the requirement for an annual TDM effectiveness report to the Town of Los Gatos. A Townwide shuttle program fee may be required based on TDM findings.
92. BICYCLE FACILITIES: Bicycle facilities including, but may not be limited to, bike lanes and bike boxes will be provided in all directions and approaches of improved streets and intersections as directed by Town Engineer.
93. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in accordance with the Town’s traffic impact policy.
94. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the issuance of any building/grading permits, the Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect, and the fee shall be paid before issuance of any grading or building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project is $304,571.72.
95. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets without written approval from the Town Engineer.
96. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a) Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b) Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.
c) Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation.
97. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit.
98. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with specification of dates and hours of operation.
99. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit, the Developer or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control.
Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris.