Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

100. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, holidays excluded. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Developer shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours.

Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town.
101. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eightyfive (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twentyfive (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
102. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permits, the Developer’s design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.

OTHER PERMITS:
103. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition.

Evidence of West Sanitation District’s decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
104. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs one (1) acre or more which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than one (1) acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Developer is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request. 105. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities)

Page 589 ends

shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 106. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every Developer or their design consultant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements.
107. REGULATED PROJECT: The project is classified as a Regulated Project per Provision C.3.b.ii. and is required to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment onsite in accordance with Provisions C.3.c. and C.3.d.. 108. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following measures:
a) Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b) Minimize impervious surface areas.
c) Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d) Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e) Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
109. BIORETENTION SYSTEM: The bioretention system(s) shall be designed to have a surface area no smaller than what is required to accommodate a 5 inches/hour stormwater runoff surface loading rate, infiltrate runoff through bioretention soil media at a minimum of 5 inches per hour, and maximize infiltration to the native soil during the life of the project.

The soil media for bioretention system(s) shall be designed to sustain healthy, vigorous plant growth and maximize stormwater runoff retention and pollutant removal.

Bioretention soil media that meets the minimum specifications set forth in Attachment L of Order No. R2-2009-0074, dated November 28, 2011, shall be used. 110. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook.
111. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Developer shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos in which the Developer agrees to maintain the vegetated areas along the project’s Street Name frontage located within the public right-of-way. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permits. 112. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one (1) acre. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide

Page 590 ends

erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed forty-eight (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.
113. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
114. 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) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust-free. b) All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site.
c) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

Page 591 ends

d) As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt-track-out onto adjacent public roads.
f) All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. g) All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR (6367). i) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
115. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble-ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation.
116. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 117. STORMWATER DISCHARGE: New buildings, such as food service facilities and/or multi-family residential complexes or subdivisions, shall provide a covered or enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Areas around trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system. Any drains installed in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas serving food service facilities shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The Developer shall contact the local permitting authority and/or sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and discharge requirements.
118. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to

Page 592 ends

vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If stormwater treatment facilities are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. Alternatively, the facility(ies) may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property and/or right-of-way line(s) if the responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how facilities, improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s right-of-way (driveway approach, curb and gutter, etc.) and/or the adjacent property will not be adversely affected.

No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL. 119. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by the Town’s Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and an electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 120. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains. 121. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. 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 penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.

GENERAL:
122. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Prior to the issuance of an encroachment, or grading or building permit, the Developer shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.
123. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase; reclamation, landscape, and grading, shall be issued simultaneously.
124. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
125. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

Page 593 ends

126. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet A-0.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.19 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. 1. In other than residential buildings which require the installation of fire sprinklers for all new buildings according to the California Residential Code, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures.
127. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet A-0.0) A manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in Group R-2, R-2.1, R-2.2 occupancies. 128. NEW FIRE HYDRANT: (As shown on Sheet LS-1.0 and LS-2.0) Provide fire hydrants at locations to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.

Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a hydrant flow of 1,000 GPM at minimum 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. Required fire flow shall be provided for new fire hydrant. 129. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS: (As shown on Sheet A-1.9) Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. 130. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED FOR BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. Distances of up to 300 feet are approved. 131. TIMING OF INSTALLATION: When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4.
132. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS GATE REQUIREMENTS: (As noted on Sheet A-2.0) Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and,

Page 594 ends

when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. Contact www.knoxbox.com to order key switch for gate. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506. 133. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties).

FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow. [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard.]
134. REQUIRED SECONDARY FIRE DEPT. ACCESS: (As shown on Sheet C-2.1) Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.

Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5.

Page 595 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION – August 9, 2023

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010
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 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 per Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code. Reasonable extensions of time not exceeding one year may be granted upon application, and can be granted if approved by the deciding body prior to the expiration date. Therefore, it is recommended that applications for a time extension be filed with the Community Development Department at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval.

3. LAPSE FOR DISCONTINUANCE: If the activity for which the Conditional Use Permit has been granted is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to Section

29.20.340 of the Zoning Ordinance.

4. USE: The approved use is for an assisted living and memory care facility.

5. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY: A Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained prior to commencement of use.

6. BUSINESS LICENSE: A business license is required from the Town of Los Gatos Finance Department prior to commencement of use.

7. 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

Page 596 ends

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.

8. COMPLIANCE MEMEMORANDUM: 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.

Building Division

9. A comprehensive plan review has not been completed for this CUP modification under consideration by the Development Review Committee and compliance with applicable codes have not been verified.

10. PERMITS. No work requiring Building Permits can commence without issuance of any required Building Permits. Building Permit plan review, including review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Parks and Public Works Department, will be part of any required Building Permit application process.

11. ACCESSIBILITY. In addition to all new work complying with the Code for accessibility, when existing buildings are altered or remodeled, they must be made accessible to persons with physical disabilities in accordance with the CBC Section 11B-202, “Existing buildings and facilities”.

Page 597 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 598 ends

Page 599 ends

Page 600 ends

August 31, 2023
Jennifer Armer
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Response to Appellant’s Basis of Appeal dated August 21, 2023 Dear Jennifer Armer,
Please find below our responses (in bold) to the appellant’s Basis of Appeal they provided to the Town of Los Gatos regarding our project located at 15860 Winchester Blvd. S-21-008, U21-010, V-21-003, and M-22-008:

1. Town Staff were unable to make the required findings for the height and lot coverage variances and recommended denial.
a. Staff could make the findings for one variance and support the project. Staff could not make the findings for both variances and requested the Planning Commission to evaluate supporting both variances based on applicant’s effort to minimize the impacts of the height variance.

2. The project design, not site constraints, were the driving factor for the variance request. a. To have a functional facility based on the permitted use and viability for operation, the proposed project needs adequate units to afford the required state services and support space. Additionally, due to the nature of use, the project needs to maintain safe and functional access, and cannot be stepped with the terrain as would a residential facility. The layout serves to meet ADA and California Accessibility requirements.

3. Project site is already developed with several buildings and driveway areas; topography has already been altered to accommodate the development. a. We are unsure what point the appellant is trying to make with this comment.

4. Site topography does not present a special circumstance; other properties in the vicinity have similar topography and their development pattern “steps down with the slope.” a. The special circumstance is presented due to the proposed use. If the project minimized, the facility would be too small to be a viable operation. The project has made every attempt to meet conforming standards along the addressed ATTACHMENT 7

Page 601 ends

site frontage of Winchester Blvd, which we feel is the premier frontage and elevation which has the most visibility along the corridor.

5. Planning Commission only considered the site’s topography with respect to the purported loss of proposed RHNA housing Units if the variance request was denied. a. Regional Housing Numbers Allocation (RHNA) was one of multiple considerations for approving the variance with regards to topography. The Planning Commission took into account the proposed use and functionality challenges of the commercial facility as one structure. Individual buildings such as townhomes are easier to accommodate sloping conditions, but the required services and functionality of the proposed use necessitates one building.

6. Planning Commission failed to consider the granting of the variances requested constitutes a granting of special privilege to exceed the O zone height and lot coverage minimums.
a. The granting of the Lot Coverage variance was in line with the outlook of the Town’s General Plan, and the approval of the variance was utilized by the town’s own mechanisms in place. The height variance was granted not as a special privilege but viewed as difficult circumstance for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed project made every effort to minimize the impacts of the height variance request. The proposed site grading is actually lower than the existing site grade today, in an effort to compress the building lower and minimize the visual impact of its height to the surrounding neighbors. What the appellant visual sees from their home, would be the same view regardless of the granted height variance, due to their narrow-bound window view. The Planning Commission also considered the unrealistic height standard of 35 feet to be limiting in the ability provide any type of new residential use, regardless of facility type.

7. Planning Commission failed to consider that granting of the variances could result in precedent setting behavior where similar projects within the O zone may seek similar height and lot coverage exceedances.
a. The Planning Commission did consider that the granting of the two variances as precedent. The commission was adamant that they review projects on a caseby-case basis and felt that the approval would not set precedent.

8. Planning Commission erroneously granted these variances based solely on the loss of housing units would occur if the project was required to conform to the O zone development standards as codified.
a. The Planning Commission considered multiple factors to grant the variances.

They discussed topography, functionality of the proposed use, quality of architecture, the appropriateness of the site location in a transitional neighbor and corridor, and overall need for assisted living, as well as overall housing

Page 602 ends

needs. The Planning Commission also discussed the benefit of having this type of facility in the Town of Los Gatos and the opportunities it provides for community members that are aging into their senior years.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jessie Bristow
Development Project Manager
Swenson
831-706-8672
[email protected]

Page 603 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 604 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 605 ends

Page 606 ends

Page 607 ends

Page 608 ends

Page 609 ends

Page 610 ends

Page 611 ends

Page 612 ends

Page 613 ends

Zoning Uses
Office Zone
The following uses are permitted in O zone:
● Offices, administrative, professional, medical,
dental and optical laboratories associated with
a professional use, real estate, insurance,
stocks and bonds, and other similar offices
characterized by absence of retail sales.
● Retail sales by a pharmacy within a medical
building
Residential Multi-family Zone
The following uses are permitted in a R-M zone:
● Single-family dwelling
● Two-family dwelling
● Small family day care home
● Residential care facility, small family home
● Multiple Family Dwellings and Condominiums

Page 9 ends

Page 614 ends

Page 615 ends

Page 616 ends

Page 617 ends

Page 618 ends

Page 619 ends

Page 620 ends

Page 621 ends

Page 622 ends

Page 623 ends

Page 624 ends

Page 625 ends

Page 626 ends

85% oppose a height variance
82% oppose a lot variance
85% worry traffic is an issue
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 22

Page 627 ends

41% live in the immediate area
32% would’ve joined an information session if offered by the Applicant 7% were invited to an information session by the Applicant 0% believe their input was considered
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 23

Page 628 ends

34% aware of the story poles from 2022
38% thought project on hold or abandoned
21% aware of video exemption to poles
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 24

Page 629 ends

13% saw the video prior to the survey
57% believe video misrepresents height
50% aware building exceeds the height limit
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 25

Page 630 ends

Page 631 ends

“This building is way too big for the
current area. It is out of scale and not
be fitting the neighborhood. The other
size will just create more traffic and
parking issues as well as ruining the
view of the neighborhood.”
“I attended the Planning Commission
meeting that approved the variance
and felt the comments of myself and
fellow neighbors to the construction
site were totally ignored and our
concerns not addressed.”
“Comes right up to front doors
of University Oaks
Condos…they’ll see into our
bedrooms and we’ll see into
theirs.”
“The height variance is a big deal. This
community does so much to maintain the
character of the community…trees and etc. Why
would they bend on this. I am opposed to this
variance. The other thing that concerns me is
the traffic flow disruption, extra parking on
street, environmental impact for trees and
wildlife.”
“Such a dense structure is not supported by the
recently narrowed Winchester Blvd. This project has
inadequate driveway and parking space and will add
too much traffic, which is already extremely heavy
on Winchester Blvd during school hours, commute
hours and on weekends. The development poses
numerous traffic safety hazards for elementary school
children and the broader community.”
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 27

Page 632 ends

“They make the height limit to keep Los
Gatos a town and not a city - it should
be followed.”
“This will also add a lot of traffic. As is,
we can’t get to town during summer as
Winchester traffic is horrible.”
“It sets a precedence that
affect the integrity of our
neighborhood for future
construction and it is way out
of place for the area.”
“The Eichlers in Via Sereno are ‘inside-out’
designs with lots of floor to ceiling glass in all
rooms including bedrooms and bathrooms. A
tall building will allow a view of those private
areas from windows and balconies. This is an
unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of those
houses.”
“Essentially disappears from the story post to be
a massive project that is under represented in
the video. Furthermore, none of it was
socialized with neighbors like myself. It’s evident
from the story poles that this massive building
will block the entire hillside and ridge line which
is currently visible from Winchester.”
Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 Page 28

Page 633 ends

Page 634 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 635 ends

From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Survey Underway
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer/Joel,
I am letting you know that there is a digital survey being conducted to provide data to Town Council for their meeting next week.

The survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions.

Also, the survey gathers data on the video rendering of the proposed project. I know that the story pole regulations being reviewed to determine how to change the requirements.

The survey is “in production” so it cannot be changed, and it will cloud the results if you were to explore/surf through the production survey.

There is a non-production version that is identical to the production survey.

Here is a link to the non-production digital survey.

Please try using the non-production survey and explore the different routes through it. Answer questions one way and follow them through and submit the survey. Then, start again and answer the questions differently so you can see how the questions change. There are no results with the nonproduction survey. It will give you a better understanding of how to interpret the results of the digital survey that is currently in production and gathering responses.

Also, feel free to share the link to the non-production survey with others so you can evaluate its usefulness and validity.

If you have any questions, I’d be pleased to answer them.

Best,
Bryan
--
Bryan Mekechuk

Page 636 ends

From:

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:15 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Eric Hulser'
Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Note to Town Council [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good morning Jennifer,
Please include the attached statement in the packet for the appeal.

More to follow but wanted to get this stand-alone item to you.

Best,
Bryan
--
Bryan Mekechuk

Page 637 ends

Digital Survey Description Page 1
Digital Survey
Note to Town Council
To gather data from residents on the proposed development, a digital survey was created for the proposed development and a link to the digital survey was posted on NextDoor on Monday, September 11, 2023. The notice on NextDoor was:

Hello Neighbors,
You may have wondered about the status of the project on Winchester Boulevard at Shelbourne Way. There is a digital survey to canvass local opinion and provide information to Town Council. Here is the link to the digital survey:
https://form.typeform.com/to/LB8L7BuG
The Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the project on August 9, 2023 and that decision is being appealed and will go in front of Los Gatos Town Council on Tuesday, September 19.

As background, a two-story 30,070 sq ft building was approved in 2017. The current building proposed is three stories and 81,633 sq ft. Here a link to the proposed development on the Town’s web site:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W
While it may appear to be a good use of the land, there is a very similar facility that is almost completed on Blossom Hill Road. You may have seen the construction site just on the east side of Highway 17. It is a senior living/memory care facility as well. There will be two very similar facilities less than 0.7 miles apart. This is a link to The Grove At Los Gatos:
https://groveseniorliving.com/
I encourage everyone interested to complete the survey. The survey is open to all people in our community and asks the frequency of travel on Winchester Boulevard.

Thank you for considering the survey.

As well, links to the survey were emailed to residents and neighbors in the area.

The digital survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions.

To understand the results of the survey, it would be helpful to have seen the survey questions, including the flow and design of the survey. It would be beneficial to explore the digital survey yet it would not be appropriate to use the “production version.” Since the survey is in production it cannot be changed, and it will cloud the results if you were to explore/surf through the production survey.

We therefore created a non-production version that is identical to the production survey.

Here is a link to the non-production digital survey.

Page 638 ends

Digital Survey Description Page 2
https://form.typeform.com/to/AQ3g8wOC
Please try using the non-production survey and explore different routes through it. Answer questions one way and follow them through and submit the survey. Then, start again and answer the questions differently so you can see how the questions change. There are no results with the non-production survey. It will give you a better understanding of how to interpret the results of the digital survey in production and gathering responses.

Also, the survey gathers data on the video rendering of the proposed project. Town Council will be reviewing story pole regulations in the future to determine if, and how, to change the requirements. You will see data from residents regarding their views on video renderings of proposed developments.

Page 639 ends

From:

More to follow but wanted to get this stand-alone item to you.

Best,
Bryan
--
Bryan Mekechuk

Page 640 ends

Thank you for considering the survey.

As well, links to the survey were emailed to residents and neighbors in the area.

The digital survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions.

We therefore created a non-production version that is identical to the production survey.

Here is a link to the non-production digital survey.

Page 641 ends

Page 642 ends

From:

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Eric Hulser'
Subject: Survey Results - Unredacted
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Atached are the survey results.

We are redac�ng the results to remove personally iden�fiable informa�on and will send you the redacted survey results shortly.
--
Bryan Mekechuk

Page 643 ends

Page 644 ends

Page 645 ends

Page 646 ends

Page 647 ends

Page 648 ends

Page 649 ends

Page 650 ends

Page 651 ends

Page 652 ends

Page 653 ends

Page 654 ends

Page 655 ends

Page 656 ends

Page 657 ends

Page 658 ends

Page 659 ends

Page 660 ends

Page 661 ends

Page 662 ends

Page 663 ends

Page 664 ends

Page 665 ends

Page 666 ends

Page 667 ends

Page 668 ends

Page 669 ends

Page 670 ends

Page 671 ends

Page 672 ends

Page 673 ends

Page 674 ends

Page 675 ends

Page 676 ends

Page 677 ends

Page 678 ends

Page 679 ends

Page 680 ends

Page 681 ends

Page 682 ends

Page 683 ends

Page 684 ends

Page 685 ends

Page 686 ends

Page 687 ends

Page 688 ends

Page 689 ends

Page 690 ends

Page 691 ends

Page 692 ends

Page 693 ends

Page 694 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 695 ends

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 University Oaks townhome community at 700 Winchester Boulevard. We are the nearest neighbors to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Boulevard and I stand in strong opposition of its approval.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
To begin with, as with numerous aspects of this proposal, the traffic operations analysis is outdated.

The document references that “based on the results of the intersection LOS analysis from the 2016 approved office development transportation study, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service.” We moved into our townhome in 2019 and there has been regular and considerable increases in traffic congestion year over year in the area - particularly on the weekends as people attempt to avoid the 17 by coming down Winchester, University and Blossom Hill. This article highlights the issue, which I know the council is well aware of.

Similarly, the Site Access and Circulation analysis accounting for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists to the facility was conducted in October 13th 2020 and therefore outdated due to the changes in the bicycle lanes for the street. The recommendations put forth within the document reference back to when parking in front the curb was allowed and prior to the creation of the dedicated bicycle lane.

In addition, to arrive at the estimated 347 trips, Swenson sites the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition as their source for trip estimation, which was published in 2017. The Eleventh Edition of the manual was published in 2021 with more updated multimodal trip generation data and specifically calls out changes to the Assisted Living (25) and Congregate Care Retirement Community (255) rates in the ITE’s Updates to the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition summary. I would also like clarification as to why only the beds / units are being considered, as well as question its justification as a comparison to a previous estimate based on office traffic estimates. Given that the most similar use listed in the VTA is that of a hospital, it stands to reason that there will be much more traffic generated beyond just that of the occupants.

Page 696 ends

The document states that there may be up to 24 employees onsite per work shift. It makes no reference to how many estimated trips these employees would make, nor how many shifts.

For an assisted living facility there will need to be at least some level of supervision 24 hours a day, which I can take to mean up to three shifts and therefore potentially 24 employees x 3 shifts x 2 trips = 144 trips in addition to the given estimate. Similarly there is no mention whatsoever of how many estimated trips would be accrued through the loading zone for supplies, or additional visitors to the facility - both of which we can assume to be likely given the frequent mentions of the loading spaces being developed into the facility for just such purposes.

Overall, at minimum, I would request this study be completely redone today as we cannot rely on an impact study performed 7 years ago with estimates based on data collected in 2017.

Just in April, at our town hall, 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 projects that would see a net increase in our traffic of so substantially should be heavily scrutinized in order to ensure we are keeping our community safe.

ZONING VARIANCES
The increased load on traffic is a byproduct - and leads me into my second objection - of the sheer size of this project. As you can see from the rendered videos of the facility from the Swenson group, this would be far and away the largest structure on the street. There are two variances that are being requested that would enable this to be so - an increase in the lot usage from 40% to 50%, and the ability to exceed the 35 foot height limit. I would strongly object to granting either of these variances for two reasons:

Firstly, the land area for this project is already quite large and thus the normally zoned 40% seems to be perfectly adequate. One specific objection to this plan is that this property is normally zoned for Office space and thus a 10’ setback from the side wall. However granting Swenson a conditionally approved usage permit to allow for an Assisted Living facility should then require them to follow the RM zoning guidelines which calls for a setback of 12’-20’ from the side wall, depending on if the windows are part of a bedroom or living room. According to the plans on page 35, the setback is only planned for 10’ from the south side wall - which is adjacent to our property - and will most likely need to be adjusted to 20’ given these are living

Page 697 ends

units. If the building is updated to come into code, perhaps they would not require the additional 10% square footage variance.

Secondly, the height limit variance request claims that “due to the slope of the lot along Shelburne Way, the height of the building exceeds the 35-foot height limit at the mid and rear point of the property.” This language is attempting to downplay the exact length and amount above the limit that is planned, thus painting the project as necessitating it as an unfortunate consequence of the geography.

In reality, according to Page 32 of the Project Plans document, the guiding line for the maximum allowed height is blatantly inaccurate, with the document explicitly stating that it is measured against the natural grade. The town’s website in contrast states that the “maximum height of a principle building in the zone is 35’ (measured 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).” Therefore, taking the finished grade (which the plans clearly mark as the green line), the bottom of third floor is at 34’ - thus making virtually the entire third floor above limit, with the building going up to as high as 50’ at the roofline. That is 42% above the limit which is an egregious amount to be over limit.

Even the western front on Winchester (which is at the lowest grade) is an entire 4’ higher than the limit. There does not appear to be even an attempt to adhere to the spirit of these requirements in creating a lower profile for the city with virtually the entire project above the 35’ limit. For contrast, the apartment building to the south side of our townhome community is two story and has tiered floors in order to match the grade versus keeping one continuous roofline that extends 50’ into the air.

In addition to these requests, I would also like to call out the seeming lack of respect the developer has shown the community to date. From the way they addressed the Brian Mekechuk, the Mayor of Monte Sereno, during our last hearing to the fact the developer was already granted multiple variances that have made objection to the project more challenging.

Because of the massive size of this project they were able to request and were granted a variance to avoid use of netting to mark out a visual indicator of the building for the public to see. Instead, they erected (incorrectly) markers using flags (that today are not even upright) last year. When they failed to meet that minimum requirement, they requested (and were granted) another variance to avoid putting up and fixing their poles, instead to put up billboards with a QR code to a virtual render of the project. Small billboards with small text that are not

Page 698 ends

very visible or noticeable as you drive by the property. This was back in April, granted using a justification that the rains had delayed them so that they could not fix the flags quickly enough.

Despite being granted that variance, it still took them over two months to put up the billboards, which in combination with the derelict poles and broken flags, absolutely do not draw the same level of attention that a properly marked out visual would have provided the community.

Perhaps if they had not designed a building that has a 10% larger square footage and is 42% higher than the town’s limit, they could have properly netted it.

To compound that, we received fliers mailed as late as July 14th stating that the hearing for this project proposal would be on July 27th, despite the billboards erected weeks earlier stating the hearing as August 9th. Even up until the day of on the town council’s agenda it showed as the hearing for July 27th - I am out of town and called in just to be sure I did not miss the hearing in case I had the date wrong. I do not know if this was foreseen and simply unfortunate, or pushed out due to how late the billboards were put up for view, but it certainly seems like a deliberate attempt to confuse, misinform or dishearten the community from opposing this project.

PROTECTED TREES
If somehow these points are not sufficient to reconsider this proposal, the final point I would like to raise to the council is the consideration of two protected trees on our property. The arborist and assessment that the developers are presenting only include the trees that are directly on their projects land, however there are two large oaks that sit on our property less than 30’ from the proposed site. Encroachment on their setback limits will also be entering into their space. These oaks would be defined as protected under the town’s Large Protected Tree provision as they are over 48 inches in diameter. If this project were to move forward as designed, I would ask, at a minimum, that there be an additional inspection performed as to the impact that the size of this building will have on these trees - both to their root system and based on the light that would be lost by the 50’ wall erected next to them - and have any feedback taken into consideration to the design plans.

We work with an arborist on any projects we do within our townhome community and are so mindful that we do not dare even alter the soil composition underneath them in order to ensure we do not shock them.

CONCLUSION

Page 699 ends

Taken all together, I personally believe that the best course of action would be for the council to deny Swenson the variances that are being requested, and would deeply implore the members to vote as such. We are already conditionally allowing this property to be re-zoned from an office space to a multi-family residential space - let us simply require it to be built according to code.

Allowing this project to go over the square footage limit by 10% and the setback limit by 50% and the height limit by 42% seems grossly abusive of the town’s generosity as well as sets a precedent for other such developments in the future.

Alternatively, in simply denying these requests, the council would help (1) ensure that our traffic stays within moderation per the property size, (2) our town maintain the overall aesthetic and profile we’re striving for, (3) provide a building of appropriate size, scale and timing that can be properly presented to the community for consideration and (4) ensure no undue risk to the natural environment that we are so proud of within our community.

Sincerely,
Ashley & Eric Hulser
Los Gatos, CA

Page 700 ends

ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION 2023-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE THE

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
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.

PROPERTY LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
AND 17484 SHELBURNE WAY
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: GREEN VALLEY CORP. D.B.A. SWENSON APPELLANT: ERIC HULSER
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered a request 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 (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project with additional conditions to reduce the building height and plant evergreen trees along the south property line; and
WHEREAS, the facts in the record support the findings; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 701 ends

Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on September 19, 2023, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council was unable to make the findings required to grant an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, in accordance with Town Code section

29.20.275, with the Town Council finding the following:

1. There was not an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission; and

2. The Planning Commission decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission decision to approve the Proposed Project, including the conditions added in the Planning Commission’s decision requiring the height reduction and planning of evergreen trees are upheld.

2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law.

Page 702 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 19
th day of September 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 703 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 704 ends

RESOLUTION 2023-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO

APPROVE THE 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 AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

PROPERTY LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
AND 17484 SHELBURNE WAY
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: GREEN VALLEY CORP. D.B.A. SWENSON APPELLANT: ERIC HULSER
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered a request 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 (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project with additional conditions to reduce the building height and plant evergreen trees along the south property line; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning ATTACHMENT 10
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 705 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving a request 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 is granted and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

2. The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the applications will be returned to Planning Commission for further consideration.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 19
th day of September 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 706 ends

RESOLUTION 2023-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO

APPROVE THE 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 AND DENYING THE PROJECT.

PROPERTY LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
AND 17484 SHELBURNE WAY
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: GREEN VALLEY CORP. D.B.A. SWENSON APPELLANT: ERIC HULSER
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered a request 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 (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project with additional conditions to reduce the building height and plant evergreen trees along the south property line; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for ATTACHMENT 11
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 707 ends

their meeting on September 19, 2023, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 19
th day of September 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 708 ends

RESOLUTION 2023-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO

APPROVE THE 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 AND APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS.

PROPERTY LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
AND 17484 SHELBURNE WAY
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: GREEN VALLEY CORP. D.B.A. SWENSON APPELLANT: ERIC HULSER
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered a request 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 (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project with additional conditions to reduce the building height and plant evergreen trees along the south property line; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for ATTACHMENT 12
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 709 ends

their meeting on September 19, 2023, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 19
th day of September 2023, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 710 ends

From:

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:10 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Eric Hulser'
Subject: RE: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Note to Town Council [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
Please include the atached leters with the staff report.

Thank you.

Best,
Bryan
ATTACHMENT 13

Page 711 ends

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.

Page 712 ends

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.

Page 713 ends

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]

Page 714 ends

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

Page 715 ends

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 Road 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

Page 716 ends

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

Page 717 ends

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

Page 718 ends

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.

Page 719 ends

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).

Page 720 ends

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:

Page 721 ends

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

Page 722 ends

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).

Page 723 ends

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

Page 724 ends

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:

Page 725 ends

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)

Page 726 ends

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

Page 727 ends

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.

Page 728 ends

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.

Page 729 ends

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

Page 730 ends

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

Page 731 ends

From:

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Eric Hulser'
Subject: 15860 Winchester
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please include in the packet.

Thank you.
--
Bryan Mekechuk

Page 732 ends

Page 733 ends

9/10/23, 3:46 PM Los Gatos: Assisted living, memory care facility proposed https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/23/assisted-living-memory-care-facility-proposed-near-vasona-park/ 2/4 Plans to demolish two office buildings and replace them with a three-story, 114- unit assisted living and memory care facility were filed with the town last month.

The proposed facility would be called the Oaks at Los Gatos and would be built at he e fac ty w be ca the Oa at Gatos a wo be b t at 400-420 Blossom Hill Road, which is adjacent to Vasona Park.

The developers are Vacaville based Chronograph Properties and San Jose based he ve ope s a a av b s Ch o og ph t es a S e ba e Swenson.

Jason Reyes, 35, is a principal with Chronograph and said it’s a family-owned business, as is Swenson.
“I was born into the senior living industry,” Reyes said. “My mom has been an assisted living administrator since I was born.”
Reyes wanted to open a facility for his mom to run and that happened when Cornerstone Assisted Living opened in Vacaville. Today, Reyes’ mom, wife and three aunts work there h ee a n s wo k e e
Like the Los Gatos Weekly Times ike the s Gato Weekl Time Facebook page a eb ok pa e for neighborhood news for neighborh d news and conversation from Los Gatos and beyond. and on er ation from o atos and beyond All the units at the Oaks at Los Gatos would be rentals As proposed there would A e un s a he Oaks a os Ga os o d be en a s As p oposed, he e wou d be 36, 290 square foot memory care units, Reyes said be 36 90 e foot m m ca t , ye “Tha may sound sma , b en you ave peop e h memo y a e ssues, you hat may sound small but when you have people with memory care issues you want them to be comfortable, he said We ve found that smaller units make w nt them to be om o tab , he d “We’ ound that ma e n t make them feel more comfortable ” hem fee mo e omfo ab e
The ma ng 8 a t e wou ange f om 55 e foot t o to 80 he remaining 78 apartments would range from 355 square foot studios to 780 square-foot two-bedroom two-bath apartments s a e foo o bed oom, o ba h apa men s Th wou not be n nd pe nt ng f c y, Reye t d his would not be an independent living facility, Reyes stressed “Independent living units have laundry facilities and full-size kitchens ” Reyes Indepe en v ng un s ave aund y fa es and fu s e ki hens, Reyes said None of my apartments will have laundry or full size kitchens We provide “None m apa tme t w ave aun o u z k tc en We p de meals housekeeping and laundry—it’s all inclusive ” mea s, o sekeep g and aund y i ’s a in s ve Tha sa , he ass s ed iv ng un s ou d n u e m o aves, ef ge a o s and a hat said the assisted living units would include microwaves refrigerators and a limited amount of cabinet space imi ed amou of ab e spa e

Page 734 ends

Page 735 ends

9/10/23, 3:46 PM Los Gatos: Assisted living, memory care facility proposed https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/23/assisted-living-memory-care-facility-proposed-near-vasona-park/ 4/4 SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
ALL A CCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS!

Page 736 ends

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 10

ADDENDUM
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve the 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 Office. 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 ND22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project. Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson. Appellant: Eric Hulser. Project Planner: Jennifer Armer.

REMARKS:

Attachment 14 includes an additional response from the applicant. Attachment 15 includes additional materials from the appellant. Attachment 16 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, September 14, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, September 18, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments previously received with the September 19, 2023 Staff Report:

1. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 2 through 14

2. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Addendum Report, with Exhibit 15

3. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 16

4. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

Page 737 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21- 010, V-21-003, M-22-008, and ND-22-001
DATE: September 18, 2023
ATTACHMENTS (continued):

5. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Action Letter

6. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received August 21, 2023

7. Applicant Response Letter

8. Additional Materials Provided by the Appellant

9. Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission Decision

10. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Remand Project to Planning Commission

11. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Deny Project

12. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Approve the Project with Modifications

13. Public Comment
Attachments received with this Addendum:

14. Additional Response from the Applicant

15. Additional Materials from the Appellant

16. Public Comment

Page 738 ends

From: Jessie Bristow <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 4:13 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional Material's Response of Attachment 8 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Jennifer,
Please accept this email as our response to the additional information provided by the appellant.

The information developed by the appellant and Mr. Mekechuk demonstrates a skewed survey. Most data and analytical surveys used in studies have multiple approaches in gaining feedback and information, such as in-person questionnaires, telephone canvassing, online surveys, and demographic information from data sets from the county or the U.S. Consensus. Their approach is interesting, and I am unsure of what they are trying to accomplish, as some of their information in their survey is not accurate.

Fortunately the development and reinvestment of property in the Town of Los Gatos and the State of California is not dictated by those who have Nextdoor accounts. There are responses in the survey of where people support the project and are against the project. From the provided survey it seems the opinion is split. Page 29 and 30 of the survey even have comments of people sharing that the additional height is not a big deal, the proposed project is a good use of the site, and that we need to build more density in the Town of Los Gatos.

I would also like to respond to the survey's introduction:

While it may appear to be a good use of the land, there is a very similar facility that is almost completed on Blossom Hill Road. You may have seen the construction site just on the east side of Highway 17. It is a senior living/memory care facility as well.There will be two very similar facilities less than 0.7 miles apart.

A true survey would provide objective information and not try to sway those who are being canvassed.

However, to criticize a project of the same use that caters to a growing demand and need for the community, the state, and nationwide, is quite ridiculous. I would compare this criticism to being upset about two different apartment buildings on each end of the same block, or being upset that there are two gas stations on the same street.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jessie B.
--
Jessie Bristow | Development Project Manager
SWENSON | 740 Front Street, Suite 315 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 cell | 831.475.7100 office | [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 14 Page 739
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 740 ends

From: Eric Hulser
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Subject: Updated Appeal Slide Deck and Survey Results
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Town Councilmembers,
(included via BCC)
My name is Eric Hulser and I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed development at 15860 Winchester Boulevard.

Attached is an updated version of the slide deck which I will be presenting tomorrow night along with the raw survey summary, updating what was submitted with the staff report last Thursday.

The survey has been closed and the only changes to the presentation reflect the survey results as of today.

Respectfully,
Eric Hulser
Los Gatos, CA
ATTACHMENT 15

Page 741 ends

Page 742 ends

Page 743 ends

Page 744 ends

Page 745 ends

Page 746 ends

Page 747 ends

Page 748 ends

Page 749 ends

Page 750 ends

Page 9 ends

Page 751 ends

Page 752 ends

Page 753 ends

Page 754 ends

Page 755 ends

Page 756 ends

Page 757 ends

Page 758 ends

Page 759 ends

Page 760 ends

Page 761 ends

Page 762 ends

Page 763 ends

85% oppose a height variance
82% oppose a lot variance
83% worry traffic is an issue
Survey Resul s Upda ed on Monday, Sep ember 18, 2023 Page 22

Page 764 ends

38% live in the immediate area
29% would’ve joined an information session if offered by the Applicant 8% were invited to an information session by the Applicant 1% believe their input was considered
Survey Resul s Upda ed on Monday, Sep ember 18, 2023 Page 23

Page 765 ends

33% aware of the story poles from 2022
38% thought project on hold or abandoned
24% aware of video exemption to poles
Survey Resul s Upda ed on Monday, Sep ember 18, 2023 Page 24

Page 766 ends

14% saw the video prior to the survey
56% believe video misrepresents height
49% aware building exceeds the height limit
Survey Resul s Upda ed on Monday, Sep ember 18, 2023 Page 25

Page 767 ends

Page 768 ends

Page 769 ends

Page 770 ends

Page 771 ends

Page 772 ends

Page 773 ends

Page 774 ends

Page 775 ends

Page 776 ends

Page 777 ends

Page 778 ends

Page 779 ends

Page 780 ends

Page 781 ends

Page 782 ends

Page 783 ends

Page 784 ends

Page 785 ends

Page 786 ends

Page 787 ends

Page 788 ends

Page 789 ends

Page 790 ends

Page 791 ends

Page 792 ends

Page 793 ends

Page 794 ends

Page 795 ends

Page 796 ends

Page 797 ends

Page 798 ends

Page 799 ends

Page 800 ends

Page 801 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
This development will negatively impact traffic flow and safety near an elementary school. It will have a great deal of ambulance traffic that is not safe to have in this location. And the structure does not provide adequate space for medical and other emergency vehicles that inevitably need to regularly visit a memory care/assisted living facility of any size and especially a massive one, such as this. It needs to be relocated near the Good Samaritan Hospital and North 40 Development and away from Daves Elementary School.

The building is too large for the neighborhood. The zoning sets the limit for a purpose and there is no reason to exceed the limit
Following height variance is a must for the natural beauty of the town It seems to me that the Town and the Developer are attempting to mislead the public in the overall height of the project.

There is nothing unique regarding this property that would allow the findings to approve a variance.

People buy properties and rely on the zoning for building heights and setbacks and do not expect variances to be granted without making specific findings.

It looks like a behemoth and it is dwarfing the properties surrounding Common sense and understanding
I along with many others live close by, the height will block the view.

Massive building will impact our neighborhood
Town has worked hard to maintain 35 ft limit. Why is video showing young, active people if it's memory care? LG knows developers try to trick us (N40). Town council needs to overrule the Planning Commish, send Swenson back to the drawing board.
31/50

Page 802 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
It looks too big
New building should match the surrounding buildings.

The height variance is a big deal.This community does so much to maintain the character of the community ... trees and etc. Why would they bend on this. I am opposed to this variance. The other thing is that concerns me is the traffic flow disruption, extra parking on street, environmental impact for trees and wildlife.
they make the height limit to keep los gatos a town and not a city- it should be followed The Eichlers in Via Sereno are "inside-out" designs with lots of floor to ceiling glass in all rooms including bedrooms and bathrooms. A tall building will allow a view of those private areas from windows and balconies. This is an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of those houses.

Traffic flow would be severely disrupted
Needs to belong to the nature of the neighorhood
More traffic with more area
No
Citizens don't like their representatives cutting secret backdoor deals to enrich their friends, at the cost to the community as a whole. There is no valid reason that a person with integrity would approve such an unfair deal.
32/50

Page 803 ends

Page 804 ends

Page 805 ends

Page 806 ends

Page 807 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
The building is too large for the neighborhood which includes residential properties immediately beside it
Disproportionate to neighborhood homes - UNSIGHTLY
I would want to know why the Town is interested in granting the requested variances to this developers of this project? It seems suspect and misleading.

There is nothing unique regarding this property that would allow the findings to approve a lot coverage variance. People buy properties and rely on the zoning for lot coverage and do not expect variances to be granted without making specific findings.

It seems every developer goes for an outrageous height and lot coverage proposal as a negotiating starting point rather than proposing something reasonable. They are playing a game.

Common sense and community awareness
Granting the variance will detract from the "small town" atmosphere of Los Gatos and Monte Sereno It is bigger than anything else around
Everyone needs to follow the same rules
no
I think the lot coverage specs are there for a reason. For example, would the lack of permeable land 1) cause more run off from storms and cause a negative impact like flooding on neighbors, and 2) remove habitat for animals, insects and plants. The City of Miami Beach had to reduce the allowed percent of coverage allowed about 10 years ago.
37/50

Page 808 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
same reason as i put for height variance
Traffic flow would be severely disrupted
Residential areas across the street are impacted
More traffic and congestion in area
I was not allowed either
Citizens don't like it when their representatives cut shady backdoor deals to enrich their friends at the cost of the community. No person with integrity would make such a deal. Allowing "no story poles" was a ham-fisted attempt to hide this malfeasance from the community. Shame on you all.

No
Again, it us too big for Winchester. It will be horrible for the neighborhood and lower our investment The size of the building is too large for the lot size. It is out of place in size not in keeping of the look of our Los Gatos neighborhood on Winchester
Common sense. We have lived in Los Gatos for 14 years. Trying to shoehorn this building into an undersized lot is going to bring nothing but problems. Our planning commission was given incorrect information and intimidated the panel. They are unscrupulous and untruthful. Don't do business with them. Please. We live here.Approving the variance is tacit president approval for other deceitful opportunists to prey on Los Gatos.
38/50

Page 809 ends

Page 810 ends

Page 811 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
population needs and deserves a more up-to-date, and clean environment to spend the remainder of their lives.

Please make any additional comments on the restrictions that the Town Council should consider for this development.
10 out of 78 answered
same as before.

The building should take into consideration that there are residential properties in the immediate vicinity and should follow the zoning requirements that other buildings and developments are required to follow. No special privileges should be granted
Town Council should not grant the variances and direct the applicant to change the design for the proposed building so it meets the zoning requirements.

Overbuilding Los Gatos
I work in this health care setting. Currently I have seen them being built in larger numbers than what the population currently will require going forward
They need to consider the environmental impact.

TOO MUCH TRAFFIC FOR THE AREA!
41/50

Page 812 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
Design restrictions adhering to "the look and feel of Los Gatos". NOT the type of design instituted for The North Forty.

This building is way too big for the current area. It is out of scale and not be fitting the neighborhood.

The other size will just create more traffic and parking issues as well as ruining the view of the neighborhood.

The nature of this business is not conducive to the residential peace safety of our neighborhood.

Please make any additional comments on why you are opposed to this development. 17 out of 78 answered
We don't need another senior living center in this small town. We need housing for our new generation.

To bring money into this town
The builder has shown disregard for the community, dishonesty in their dealings with this projectthere have been numerous shady practices from erecting story poles incorrectly then going and asking for exceptions, letting the poles go derelict, posting incorrect dates on their signage, posting incorrect statistics on their signage, threatening the council with builders remedy, cracking callous jokes at our expense by claiming the proximity to our homes shouldn't be a problem due to the fact the elderly wouldn't be able to see in anyway. There has been no attempt to work with us as a community to come to an amenable solution and their attitude towards the town at large has been deplorable. There is no cause to grant these variances, we should not grant them.

There is no precedent for such a massive structure anywhere in the vicinity, and as such, it is does not meet the requirement for a variance. To grant a variance is most definitely the inappropriate granting of special privileges to a developer!!!
42/50

Page 813 ends

9/18/23, 9:50 AM Winchester Development Survey v1 .0
It is set much too close to a busy street with not enough ground level driveway and parking for residents, visitors and the numerous medical and emergency vehicles that such a facility would inevitably require.

There is already quite a bit of traffic on Winchester, especially on summer weekends and when school is in session. I can't imagine what this would do to the neighborhood residents.

Too big and too tall buildings are disproportionate and unsightly for the neighborhood and town Instruction will make a huge mess in the area. Traffic will be degraded. It looks ugly.

I live off Winchester just two blocks up the street from the proposed development. Over the course of 30 years I have seen more and more nondescript office complexes pop up along Winchester and replace smaller, perhaps run-down houses. These new buildings make it feel more like an office park rather than a residential community; the corporate, charmless aesthetic contributes to an overwhelming feeling that Los Gatos and Monte Sereno are interchangeable with any other generic Bay Area suburb. If the area is inevitably to be developed then I would urge the town to make it much smaller in height and lot size-i.e. human scale-and make meaningful steps to reduce car traffic and speed and increase walkability and bikeability (especially since this development is geared towards elderly people with limited mobility). The last thing we need is more traffic on Winchester, which increasingly feels like an artery road for Highway 17 rather than a residential street. I am not opposed to development, but I am tired of seeing generic, multi-story buildings pop up rather than community-focused spaces that would actually be appealing destinations for the neighborhood residents. This one reason why young people, including myself, are moving away or considering it.

The neighborhood character is negative
Once I learn that my representatives are lying to me, a citizen, I will do anything I can to shut them down - everything they touch is now poison. Is that clear enough? The question should not be "why deny the variance," it should be "why should it be approved?" And approving the variance will pave the way for other projects that want the same. 43/50

Page 814 ends

Page 815 ends

Page 816 ends

Page 817 ends

Page 818 ends

Page 819 ends

Page 820 ends

Page 821 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 822 ends

From: Georgina Van Horn
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Town Council Meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Council Members,
This email is concerning Architecture and Site Application S-21-008 and the Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision. I live at . one of two closest townhouses to the Site at the University Oaks Condominiums.

I understand that there will be a building at this site, however, the building proposed is enormous! It comes almost to the 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 Ave. is lined with trees to Daves Ave. From that point all the buildings are low and mostly behind trees.

We at the University Oaks have worked to keep us looking like a woodsy area because of the parks right across the street on University Ave. Also to keep our small town feel.

My front door is not on Winchester Blvd. but faces the huge side of the two and three story proposed building. They would be looking into my three upstairs 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 as if it takes the whole lot. We should be able to see that it only covers 40%. They are also higher than town regulations.

I ask you to please deny the variances of coverage and height. A concern is also the cutting of valuable trees! Having a building this size would not only impact this whole area but also many lives.

Thank you for your concern and work for our wonderful town! Sincerely,
Georgina Van Horn
ATTACHMENT 16

Page 823 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 824 ends

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 10

DESK ITEM
DATE: September 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve the 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 Office. 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 ND22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project. Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson. Appellant: Eric Hulser. Project Planner: Jennifer Armer.

REMARKS:

Attachment 17 contains public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 18, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 19, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments previously received with the September 19, 2023 Staff Report:

1. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 2 through 14

2. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Addendum Report, with Exhibit 15

3. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 16

4. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes ATTACHMENTS (continued):

Page 825 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21- 010, V-21-003, M-22-008, and ND-22-001
DATE: September 19, 2023

5. August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Action Letter

6. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received August 21, 2023

7. Applicant Response Letter

8. Additional Materials Provided by the Appellant

9. Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission Decision

10. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Remand Project to Planning Commission

11. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Deny Project

12. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Approve the Project with Modifications

13. Public Comment
Attachments previously received with the September 19, 2023 Addendum:

14. Additional Response from the Applicant

15. Additional Materials from the Appellant

16. Public Comment
Attachments received with this Desk Item:

17. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 18, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Page 826 ends

From: Nicole Ricci
To: Clerk
Subject: Architecture and Site Application S-21-008
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:26:30 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
This email concerns Architecture and Site Application S-21-008 and the Appeal of a Planning Commission decision for the property located at the corner of Shelburne Way and Winchester Blvd.

Please deny the variances for coverage and height for the reasons listed here:
- The variances are not minor adjustments to existing rules, but rather are tantamount to tripling the scope and size of what was intended to be built on a lot of this size. Instead of a building of 30,000 sq ft, this project will be 81,000 + sq ft! And that's not a typo! The same goes for the height. It allows three stories when there are no three story buildings in existence in the entire area. It allows for 50 ft high structures where only 35 ft should be allowed.

Furthermore, there is no meaningful setback from the busy Winchester Blvd or surrounding neighbors, who have lived in the community for many years. - Many members of the surrounding community that will be impacted have not received notice either in the mail or in the form of being able to view accurate story poles or other physical markers. Instead, a video that few in the community are even aware of, was created in lieu of redoing the existing inaccurate story poles. People incorrectly believe that the current story poles are accurate when, in fact, they are not. Using the weather as an excuse is not appropriate. We live in an area with great weather, and the poles can be put up during a time of the year when there is less wind and rain. The developers simply want to obscure the obscene enormity of their project from the community to avoid mobilizing dissent. - The road that passes this site was recently reduced from two lanes to one lane to widen bicycle lanes to encourage slower driving and more bicycle riding. The reduced road configuration is incompatible with an enormous assisted living and memory care facility. Such facilities require wide roads with multiple lanes where ambulances and other medical personnel can swiftly transport residents to doctors and hospitals as medical needs arise. To impose a large number of medical transport emergencies into an already congested, one lane road, neighborhood with a great deal of elementary school traffic during the week and beach traffic on the weekend is extremely unsafe for everyone involved, including the future residents of this proposed enormous facility.
- The project callously removes many trees that are deemed protected such as Coastal Oaks. -The project thoughtlessly blots out the ridgeline from view with its unprecedented demands for three stories in a neighborhood that does not have any three story buildings. -The developer is clearly trying to maximize his own profits without thought or care about the impact to the future residents of the assisted living community or the current residents that live in the area. He seeks to maximize profit and density at the expense of quality of life for everyone else that will live in and around this project.

ATTACHMENT 17 Page 827
My name is Nicole Ricci, and I have lived in the community since 2008. Although I could have lived anywhere, one of the main reasons that I chose to live and raise a family here was the open and rural feeling of the area. When I bought a home here, it was with the understanding that the town of Los Gatos had consistent rules for development that were fairly applied to all developers. It is understandable that developers want to maximize their profits in a project by pushing the envelope and requesting variances, but what is requested here goes far beyond pushing the envelope. To call it a variance is misleading. A variance implies a slight deviation from the existing rules. What has been requested and approved by the planning commission is a tripling of the original project! To call it a variance is a misleading euphemism. It really is outrageous and beyond the bounds of reasonable land development for the area.

Sincerely,
Nicole Ricci
Monte Sereno, CA. 95030

Page 828 ends

Page 829 ends

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 830 ends

From: Mike McNelly
To: Clerk
Subject: Architecture and Site Application S-21-008
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:35:59 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Council Members,
This email is regarding Architecture and Site Application S-21-008 (Shelburne Way and Winchester Blvd). I strongly urge you to deny the unprecedented variances for height and size of the proposed structure.

The plot of land in question is old, run-down and seems under utilized, so there is considerable community support for allowing developers to build there. However, there are two significant impediments to the proposed building.

First, recent changes to Winchester Blvd were implemented to punish those who drive cars by reducing this critical street down to one lane of traffic. I'm sure this was part of some sort of green initiative, but the result has not been any sort of boon to public transit (the buses are all still empty), nor to bicyclists (there are no more bikes on the road now than before). The only result is that traffic is now a snarled mess and kids can't get to school on time. While the Planning Division might not care about that, they should care if they're trying to authorize a HUGE new structure in the area. In addition to a significant increase in regular traffic, this senior living home is going to need quick access to ambulance services, but the city has made the road impassable during parts of the day. One cannot mandate choking off a main road AND then add a huge new user of that road at the same time. Some senior is going to die because of this, and the city will get sued for millions.

Second, the Planning Division in this matter have acted in a deceitful (and possibly criminal) manner by intentionally misleading the public about the proposed changes. The developer put up short story poles (35' ... that's still tall, as tall as the city allows). Later, in the dead of night, the Planning Division granted a 40% height increase - and since they KNEW the community would hate the idea, they also granted the developer the right to conceal the change. They knew very well that the community would see the OLD story poles, and not bother seeking out and watching some long, boring, difficult to locate video (a video that does not even paint an accurate picture). Citizens in this community count on those orange poles to paint an accurate picture of proposed changes. When the Planning Division chose to use the poles to deceive the community, they set a new precedent of uncertainty and distrust.

I would love to see some sort of new structure built at this location, but the Planning Division's blatant disregard for traffic, existing resident view changes and safety - combined with their ham-fisted attempt to deceive the community that they are supposed to serve is an abomination of governance. Everyone associated with approving the variance should be ashamed of themselves.

I urge you again to deny the variances for coverage and height and to send a strong message to the Planning Division to never try to pull a stunt like this again.

Michael McNelly

Page 831 ends

PREPARED BY: Marina Chislett
Environmental Programs Specialist
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Finance Director, and Parks and Public Works Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 11
DATE: September 5, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510) RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510).

BACKGROUND:

In 2021, community members advocated for a community garden on a Town-owned parcel on Pinehurst Avenue and for a pedestrian path parallel to Lynn Avenue between Union Avenue and Pinehurst Avenue (see Attachment 1). The walkway would be located on two separate properties: one owned by the Town and the second owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

All three lots (one for the garden and two for the walkway) are encumbered with PG&E infrastructure and land rights, Valley Water easements, and existing utility services. Staff is working with PG&E and Valley Water to secure the necessary permissions and any design requirements for these projects.

At its June 20, 2023 meeting, the Town Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Dillingham Associates to provide the necessary design services for both projects. The scope of services for this current phase of work includes project management, evaluation of existing conditions, community engagement, development of conceptual designs, and advancing a preferred design through 35% completion.

Page 832 ends

PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510)
DATE: September 5, 2023
DISCUSSION:

At this time the project is in its early phases with the following work completed or underway:
 Project kick-off meeting held with staff and the consultant team on July 18, 2023;  Staff and consultant team conducted site visits to observe community garden operations in adjacent communities; and
 Field survey is underway and will be completed in September 2023.

A project schedule is presented in Attachment 2.

In these early phases of concept planning and design, the projects are being developed concurrently so they can fit together and cohesively serve the neighborhood. The community garden was envisioned by the project proponents as a way to revitalize an underutilized Town property and provide a common gathering space. The walkway would enhance underutilized properties across from the community garden, enhance the aesthetics of the space, and improve safety.

For both projects, the consultant team will work with the community to identify needs for each space and will develop plans for a phased implementation, with priority on the basic infrastructure needs. For the community garden, the initial infrastructure would include fencing, handicap parking, raised garden beds, potable water service, a tool shed, and storage bins for compost and similar materials. Optional future items might include a community gathering space, shade structures and fruit trees. The pedestrian path project will focus initial improvements on a walking path and the required stormwater management. Future improvements might include benches, landscaping for shade and other amenities that are inspired via the community process.

Direction from Town Council is a critical first step in the development of concepts for both locations. The project team will hold three community meetings to discuss the projects with residents. The first of these will introduce the project goals, identify the constraints of the sites, outline what type of infrastructure can and cannot be placed on each site, and request ideas from the community. At the second meeting, concept plans for each location will be presented and the community will be invited to comment on the concepts. The third meeting will present a final concept plan and phasing based on feedback received. At each of these three meeting phases, in addition to the community meetings, the project will be placed on a Parks Commission agenda. Additional community input will be sought via these Parks Commission meetings.

Page 833 ends

PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510)
DATE: September 5, 2023
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:

Staff is seeking direction from Town Council regarding the Pinehurst Community Garden and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path. This direction will be used to refine the scope and presentation materials for the initial community meetings, which are expected to be held in fall 2023.

COORDINATION:

This staff report was coordinated with the Town Attorney, Town Manager and Finance Director.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted Fiscal Year 2023/24-2027/28 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget is sufficient for this preliminary design service phase of the Pinehurst Community Garden and the Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design.

Budget
through
23/24
24/25
Funding Costs
GFAR $285,000 $100,000
Total Budget $385,000
Costs
Prior Consultation Services $ 14,314
Agreement with Dillingham Associates $ 68,108
Total Costs $ 82,422
Available Balance $302,578
Budget
through
23/24
24/25
Funding Costs
GFAR $190,000 $100,000
Total Budget $290,000
Costs
Agreement with Dillingham Associates $ 55,448
Total Costs $ 55,448
Available Balance $234,552
Pinehurst Community Garden
CIP No. 831-4610
Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design
CIP No. 832-4510

Page 834 ends

PAGE 4 OF 4
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510)
DATE: September 5, 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The Council’s discussion is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. The construction phase of the Pinehurst Community Garden and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path are projects as defined under CEQA and environmental review will be completed in future phases.

Attachments:

1. Project Location Map

2. Project Schedule

Page 835 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

PINEHURST COMMUNITY GARDEN & LYNN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN PATH DESIGN SITE MAP Source: Santa Clara County Assessor Map 2023

MAP LEGEND
Project Site Locations
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 836 ends

Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510) Key:Milestones Meetings Subconsultants Project Tasks/Phases Project/Phase subtask No. Task
Task 1 Project Management
Meeting No.1 - Kickoff / Pre-design Develop Project Work PlanReview of project background documentsSite Visit / Field Meeting / Garden Tour (San Jose sites)(2) Coordination Meetings with Town and other agencies(1) Coordination Meeting with Town’s Staff Arborist (if needed) Task 2 Site Analysis
Base Map Development Site Inventory Plan and Opportunities & Constraints Plan 2A Topographic & Boundary Surve
y
2B Consulting Certified Arborist Services
2C Supplemental Soil Toxicology Analysis (Pinehurst Garden Only) Horticultural and Fertility Soil AnalysisSite Visit / Optional Field Meeting Task 3 Community Engagement
City Council Meeting (9/19)Develop Community Outreach Materials Flyers, Sketches, EtcMeeting no. 1 (Public) - Pre-design, background, program, opportunities & constraintsCompilation of Comments and Feedback on preferred Design Concept from Community and Town Parks Commission Task 4 Conceptual Design Options and 35% Design
4A Conceptual Design Options (up to 3 options)
Coordination with subconsultantsUp to (2) Coordination Meetings with Town and/or other agenciesConcept Design Options - Submittal #1Meeting no. 2A (Public) - Concept, Synthesis and ClarificationMeeting no. 2B (Parks Commission) summary of 2 A
Compilation of Comments and Feedback on preferred Design Concept from Community and Town Parks CommissionComment and Feedback TurnaroundDocument Revisions per Comments (public + Parks Commission) 4B Design
Coordination with subconsultantsUp to (6) Weekly Progress Check-in Meetings with Town PMDraft Design - Preferred Plan - Submittal #2Meeting no. 3A (Public) - Final Preferred PlanMeeting no. 3B (Parks Commission) summary of 3 A
Town Review, Comment and FeedbackDocument Revisions per Comments (Town + Parks Commission)Final 35% Design Package Submittal #3 to Town for approval Apr 2
4 2024
Jul 23 Aug 23 Nov 23
2023
Sep 23 Oct 23 Dec 23 Jan 24 Feb 2
4 Mar 24
8/24/2023 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 837 ends

PREPARED BY: Nicolle Burnham
Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 11

ADDENDUM
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on the Pinehurst Community Garden (CIP No. 831-4610) and Lynn Avenue Pedestrian Path Design (CIP No. 832-4510) REMARKS:

Attachment 3 contains a public comment received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 15, 2023, and 11:00 a.m. Monday, September 18, 2023.

Attachments previously received with the Staff Report:

1. Project Location Map

2. Project Schedule
Attachments received with this Addendum:

3. Attachment 3 contains a public comment received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 15, 2023, and 11:00 a.m. Monday, September 18, 2023

Page 838 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
From: The Javeys
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Garden design suggestion for East Los Gatos Community Garden [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good afternoon Council members,
I read the call for garden designs in the East LG Community Garden. I'm responding with the following suggestion:

Engage the LG Arts and Culture Commission, the Parks Commission and the local Ohlone communities and to develop a plan to plant a native garden and include informational signage to educate and inspire residents and visitors about the garden and its local flora and fauna inhabitants.

Going forward, when public land parcels become available (big or small, criteria tbd) for an upgrade/replanting, commit to redeveloping the space with native plants and include appropriate informational/educational signage per above.

Ultimately, it would be great to create a digital map identifying the various native public gardens and spaces to support self guided tours.

Anyway, just an idea!
Sincerely,
Maureen Cappon-Javey
P.S. I am a member of the ACC (Arts and Culture Commission). On behalf of the commission I'd like to suggest that the ACC play a role in working with the creative community to develop the signage in a creative and art-forward approach to the project as a whole.

Page 839 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
From: Claire Kalia
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:23 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: In support of Pinehurst Garden and Lynn Ave walkway [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi, I am a resident of Los Gatos and my daughter Anjali is on the LG Youth Commission. We live on Blossom Valley Drive and have been following the developments of the Pinehurst Garden and Lynn Ave walkway with interest. This email is simply to let you know how much our neighborhood supports this project and to urge you to support this project which will help pedestrian safety, encourage environmental stewardship and promote walking and gardening in our community.

Thank you!
Claire
--
claire kalia, attorney-at-law
kalia law p.c.
commonsense counsel for startups + small businesses

Page 840 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 12
DATE: September 14, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting an Enabling Resolution to Establish an Equity Commission Entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission and Direct its Recruitment with the Annual Fall Commission Recruitment
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider adopting an Enabling Resolution (Attachment 1) to establish an equity commission entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission and direct its recruitment with the annual fall Commission recruitment.

BACKGROUND:

In 2021, Town staff began to identify Town processes, policies, and other Town work that would enhance equity and inclusion in Los Gatos. In addition, the adopted 2040 General Plan contains a new Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element. On August 17, 2021, the Town Council approved engaging ALF Insights (ALFI), the consulting arm of American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley, to complete a phase of discovery, engaging community partners to ascertain their understanding of the Town’s Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) work to date as well as gather input on equity and inclusion efforts in the Town. ALFI summarized the themes and ideas gathered in those meetings and provided a set of recommendations in a Discovery Report accepted by the Town Council on September 6, 2022.

Also on September 6th, the Town Council directed the Town Manager to continue work with ALFI to assist in strategizing and identifying Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Implementation Actions to include clear goals and action items.

DISCUSSION:

To do this work, ALFI convened a Community Advisory Group to move the Discovery Report recommendations forward and provide concrete steps for implementation. The Community

Page 841 ends

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting an Enabling Resolution to Establish an Equity Commission Entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission and Direct its Recruitment with the Annual Fall Commission Recruitment.

DATE: September 14, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Advisory Group utilized the initial Discovery Report recommendations as a jumping off point for their dialogues. Attachment 2 contains the Implementation Actions as the summary of that work. This product complements the Town’s larger JEDI Plan and other potential implementation actions, which are scheduled to come before the Council on October 17, 2023 as discussed in more detail under Conclusion and Next Steps.

To provide context to the work, definitions were identified (Attachment 3), many of which are based on the adopted Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element. A status of the Town’s implementation of ALFI’s initial Discovery Report and other JEDI actions is contained in Attachment 4.

One of the most significant recommendations of the Community Advisory Group is the establishment of a new Commission, entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission (TUSC). Its purpose would be to work to create more equitable opportunities and increase a sense of belonging for all Los Gatos community members and visitors through community engagement and collaborative activities. It would be an advisory Commission to the Town Council to help the Town implement its JEDI Plan.

The proposed composition of 15 people is larger than the majority of the Town’s Commissions to reflect a broad spectrum of perspectives and include members from other Town Commissions (see Attachment 1). Specifically,
 Two Youth Commissioners;
 One Arts and Culture Commissioner;
 One General Plan Committee Member;
 One Community Health and Senior Services Commissioner;  One Town of Los Gatos business owner and resident;
 Two Town of Los Gatos business owners or employees who may or may not reside in Los Gatos;
 One Town of Los Gatos faith leader who leads a congregation in Los Gatos but does not reside in Los Gatos;
 One Town of Los Gatos non-profit employee who may or may not reside in Los Gatos; and  Five Town of Los Gatos residents.

Should the Council establish TUSC, staff further recommends that the Council direct its recruitment to occur this fall with the Town’s annual Commission recruitment. Staff would create an application specifically for this Commission. Interviews for vacancies on all

Page 842 ends

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting an Enabling Resolution to Establish an Equity Commission Entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission and Direct its Recruitment with the Annual Fall Commission Recruitment.

DATE: September 14, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Commissions are tentatively scheduled for December 6, 2023. Once seated, TUSC would meet monthly beginning in January 2024.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt an Enabling Resolution for the Unity and Solidarity Commission and direct its recruitment with the Town’s annual fall Commission Recruitment.

Staff intends to return to the Town Council on October 17, 2023 to discuss the overall JEDI Plan for the Town, including the Implementation Actions recommended by ALFI (Attachment 2).

Given the other important business of the Town on the September 19th, a separate agenda item allows the Town Council to consider all of the JEDI Plan action items together and prioritize the initial work of the new Commission.

COORDINATION:

The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Attorney.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no monetary impact with the creation of a new Commission.

The creation of a new Commission does add new work to the Town Manager’s Office at a time when it is also absorbing Council Strategic Priorities related to the Senior Roadmap and the Town’s unhoused residents. A new Commission would also increase the workload for the Town Attorney and Town Clerk. If Council approves the new Commission, workload items would be redistributed among existing staff to handle the monthly meetings beginning in January 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The establishment of a new Commission is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Attachments:

1. Draft Enabling Resolution

2. Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Implementation Actions

3. Definitions

4. February 2023 Update on Discovery Report and Town Work Plan Items

Page 843 ends

1 of 4
Draft Resolution Date
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT RESOLUTION 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

ESTABLISHING THE UNITY AND SOLIDARITY COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby formally establish the Unity and Solidarity Commission (TUSC).

WHEREAS, the Town is working to institutionalize Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Town’s ethos, the role of TUSC is to support and foster new opportunities for marginalized groups in the Town.

WHEREAS, TUSC will be committed to Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion across all sectors within the Town of Los Gatos and the purpose of TUSC is to work to create more equitable opportunities and increase a sense of belonging for all Los Gatos community members and visitors through community engagement and collaborative activities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The TUSC is hereby established as an advisory committee to the Los Gatos Town Council and shall operate in the manner hereinafter prescribed.

2. Membership/Organization
a. The Town is seeking a diversity of members that includes but is not limited to:
youth; seniors; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA+); those that are disabled; and religious diversity. The Commission shall consist of fifteen (15) members. Membership composition shall be:
i. Two (2) Youth Commissioners as voting members, whose term of office shall be for one (1) year with no limitations on reappointments, appointed by the Youth Commission;
ii. One (1) Arts and Culture Commissioner as a voting member, whose term of office shall be for one (1) year with no limitations on reappointments, appointed by the Arts and Culture Commission; iii. One (1) General Plan Committee member as a voting member, whose term of office shall be for one (1) year with no limitations on reappointment, appointed by the General Plan Committee; iv. One (1) Community Health and Senior Services Commissioner as a voting member, whose term of office shall be for one (1) year with no limitations on reappointments, appointed by the Community Health and Senior Services Commission;
v. One (1) Town of Los Gatos business owner and resident as a voting member, whose term of office shall be for three (3) years with a twoterm limit, appointed by the Town Council; vi. Two (2) Town of Los Gatos business owners or employees who may or may not reside in Los Gatos as voting members, whose term of office

Page 844 ends

2 of 4
Draft Resolution Date
ATTACHMENT 1
shall be for three (3) years with a two-term limit, appointed by the Town Council;
vii. One (1) Town of Los Gatos faith leader who leads a congregation in Los Gatos but does not reside in Los Gatos as a voting member, whose term of office shall be for three (3) years with a two-term limit, appointed by the Town Council;
viii. One (1) Town of Los Gatos non-profit employee who may or may not reside in Los Gatos whose term of office shall be for three (3) years with a two-term limit, appointed by the Town Council; and ix. Five (5) Town of Los Gatos residents whose term of office shall be for three (3) years with a two-term limit, appointed by the Town Council. b. Commission members is expected to report back to the Board, Committee, Commission, or organization the Commissioner represents (i.e., Arts and Culture Commission, faith community, etc.).
c. The Commission shall appoint a Chair and Vice Chair. d. Commission members shall serve without compensation. e. The Commission shall hold regular monthly meetings.
f. The Commission shall establish a regular time and location for its meetings and shall otherwise call and conduct its meetings in compliance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
g. Meeting attendance requirements will conform with all current Town Resolutions and Policies.
h. A record of all meeting minutes and resolutions of the Commission shall be kept and shall be a public record.

3. Powers and Duties
a. The duties of TUSC shall be to:
i. Act in an advisory capacity to the Town Council in matters pertaining to creating equitable opportunities and a sense of belonging within Town.

The TUSC’s scope of work may include the following items:

1. Community Based Programming
a. Develop new and promote current programs/events
that foster unity and diversity within the Town.
b. Identify Equity Training opportunities for Town Council, staff, residents, business owners/employees, students,
and/or Commission/community members.
c. Incorporate community feedback into programming and
training.

2. Collaborative Efforts
a. Foster stronger collaborations between current Town
Boards, Commissions, and Committees and communitybased organizations to integrate equity practices and principles.
b. Build relationships with local public and private school systems in order to provide support and resources for

Page 845 ends

3 of 4
Draft Resolution Date
ATTACHMENT 1
Equity work.
c. Build collaborative processes with other Town Boards, Committees, and Commissions to ensure integration of
Equity practices into the Town community grant
program.

3. Policy Recommendations
a. Make policy recommendations to the Town Council
regarding Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Unity issues.

4. Communications
a. Create a communications campaign centered around
equity education and promotion of Town events.
ii. Not to affect powers of the Town Council. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as restricting or curtailing any of the powers of the Town Council, or as a delegation to TUSC of any of the authority or discretionary powers vested and imposed by law in such Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 19th day of September 2023 by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: __________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

Page 846 ends

4 of 4
Draft Resolution Date
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: __________________

Page 847 ends

1 Town of Los Gatos
Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI)
Implementation Actions
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 848 ends

2 OVERVIEW
The Town of Los Gatos identified work plan items in 2021 when it became clear that the Town could be doing more to create a welcoming community in Los Gatos. These early efforts focused on Town processes, policies, and other Town work that would enhance equity and inclusion in Los Gatos. In addition, the Town engaged ALF Insights (ALFI), the consulting arm of American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley, to complete a phase of discovery, engaging community partners to ascertain their understanding of the Town’s JEDI work to date as well as gather input on equity and inclusion efforts in the Town. ALFI summarized the themes and ideas gathered in those meetings and provided a set of recommendations about gaps in the current plan and suggestions on a process for on-going community engagement in a Discovery Report provided to the Town.

From those recommendations, the Town of Los Gatos re-engaged ALFI to assist in strategizing and identifying Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Implementation Actions to include clear goals and action items. To do this work, ALFI convened a Community Advisory Group to move the Discovery Report recommendations forward and provide concrete steps for implementation. The Community Advisory Group utilized the initial Discovery Report recommendations as a jumping off point for their dialogues and planning conversations. The following Implementation Plan is the summary of that work. This product complements the Town’s larger JEDI Plan and other potential implementation actions.

Page 849 ends

3 CRITICAL DOCUMENTS
ALF Insights Documents Town of Los Gatos Documents
ALFI Discovery Report February 2023 Update on Discovery Report and Town Workplan Items
Town of Los Gatos JEDI Definitions Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element
Town of Los Gatos Unity and Solidarity Commission
Charter

KEY HIGHLIGHTS AND NEXT STEPS
After six months of meetings with the Town of Los Gatos and the Community Advisory Group, there were several key highlights:
- Community Advisory Group members showed great passion and concern regarding the Town of Los Gatos being inclusive and equitable for all residents, workers in all sectors, and visitors. This was a consistent theme that recurred in every meeting.
- The Community Advisory Group was appreciative of the current JEDI work the Town of Los Gatos has put forward but expressed concern regarding implementation and if commitment would remain for long-term goals. The Community Advisory Group views the JEDI work as a long-term engagement and commitment by the Town and Town leadership.
- The Community Advisory Group suggested that the Town Council establish The Unity and Solidarity Commission (TUSC), with the purpose of cementing the goals and objectives of the Town’s JEDI Plan and these Implementation Actions into the ethos of the Town of Los Gatos. The Community Advisory Group helped draft a proposed initial charter for the new Commission. This recommendation was the most significant and valued desired outcome of the meetings, a natural progression of the work that the Town, community participants and ALFI have done.

Page 850 ends

4 - In order for the work to be successful, the Town needs to commit resources for the community-based work and leverage natural partnerships and collaborations.

ALFI recommends the following next steps:
- Realizing the Plan: in order for the JEDI work to be successful, intentionality for how the Plan is implemented and monitored needs to be larger than the Town staff and centered in the community. This must be a top priority for the Town staff and Council. To that end the following immediate steps are recommended:
- Integration of this document with the Town’s full JEDI Plan. - Acceptance of the JEDI Plan by Town Council.
- Acceptance by Town Council to create The Unity and Solidarity Commission. - Implementing the Plan:
- The Town should work to implement the components of the plan as appropriate and should Council create TUSC, the Council should determine the priorities for the Commission’s first year work plan based on the action items identified below.

OVERALL PURPOSE
The overall intent of this work was to ensure that the Town of Los Gatos is creating an environment that is welcoming and safe for all of its residents, workforce and visitors. To that end, the following definition of belonging was adopted by the Community Advisory Group as a northstar for the Town’s equity work. This and the other terms and definitions utilized by the group are linked in the table above. “Belonging is a core need of all humans and is defined as a system of values and practices where no person is left out of the circle of human concern. It is more than just access. It is having a meaningful voice and an opportunity to participate in the design of cultural structures. Belonging includes the right to contribute as well as the right to make demands and it requires shared power, access, and opportunity among all individuals within a shared system. Belonging is about being seen, heard and valued for the uniqueness that each individual brings into the circle.” (Sourced from Othering and Belonging Institute)

Page 851 ends

5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
To develop these actions and set goals, the Community Advisory Group was guided by ALFI through a process that used the categories outlined in the Discovery Report. The goals below relate to these categories directly. The categories highlighted the following:
- Collaborative, on-going engagement with community groups engaged in equity-based activities - Creation of safe spaces that allows for community to learn together and engage in equity work - Development of equity capacity through intentional learning about the impact of historical inequities in the community
- Linking equity work to the vibrancy of the Town’s economy - Engaging school districts and youth so that the voice of youth and the needs of school districts is heard and supported
- Building affordable housing to ensure more economic diversity The Implementation Actions are designed to highlight work flows in the major areas identified by the Community Advisory Group, connected to the Discovery Report work. The goals are happening concurrently and are often interdependent from one area of work to the other. This is intended to be an initial roadmap for the Town and community groups. Additionally, the Town Council could direct the work of the Unity and Solidarity Commission (TUSC) to accomplish some of these critical activities. As the work is initiated and realized, there should be intentional review and re-alignment as needed in order to account for changing capacity and budget needed to accomplish the work.

Goals Action Steps Timeframe to
Complete Task
Responsible Parties

1.0 Oversight:

Create a Process
for Oversight of
the Town’s JEDI
Plan

1.1 Form The Unity and Solidarity
Commission (TUSC)
- Submit the draft JEDI Plan, concept of
TUSC and its charter to Council for
approval.
- Promote the availability of the
application for TUSC, based on the
Year 1 Town Council/staff

Page 852 ends

6 Council establishing the new
Commission.
- Council selection of Commission
members
- Council to identify TUSC Priorities and
first annual work plan created by the
Commission

1.2 In partnership with other Commissions,
review the community grants rubric for the
community grant distribution process through
an equity lens.

Year 1 As directed by Town
Council

1.3 Create an annual review process and
evaluation of the JEDI Work Plan action
items.
- Create standing discussion item for the
TUSC to review progress on the JEDI
Plan
- Submit annual progress update to the
Council
Year 1 As directed by Town
Council

1.4 Recommend additional action items to
the Town Council in order to make visible the
equity issues that matter to the larger
community.
- Utilize the TUSC meetings to obtain
community feedback, discuss and
identify potential equity action items to
inform the on-going JEDI Plan
Longer Term TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

Page 853 ends

7 Implementation, and listen to other
community ideas.

2.0 Safety: Create
a robust & safe
process for equity
focused,
community-based
programming

2.1 Review the Town’s four events (Spring
into Green, 4th of July, Screen on the Green,
and Holiday Lighting) with an equity lens.
- Propose potential modifications and
expansions to existing Town events to
encompass a wider diversity of multicultural and/or other celebrations. - Consider adding a question to the
Town’s Special Event Permit
application to ask how a proposed
event would support equity and
belonging.

Year 1-2 Town staff/TUSC with
direction from Town
Council

2.2 Evaluate heritage/holiday celebrations
and recognitions in the Holiday and
Recognition Work Plan.

Year 1 Town staff/TUSC with
direction from Town
Council

2.3 Create public forums and garner feedback
from the community on the types of equity
programming they would like to see offered
in the Town, including but not limited to:
- Community Members
- Business Owners
- Faith Leaders
- Community Based Organizations
- Youth
Years 1-2 Town
staff/TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

Page 854 ends

8 2.4 Working with other Commissions, curate
safe and engaging learning, dialogue and
advocacy spaces for community members,
focused on but not limited to:
- BIPOC communities
- LGBTQIA+ communities
- Youth
- Faith communities
Years 1-2 Town
staff/TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

2.5 Develop a community learning
opportunity focused on historical inequities
and the history of the Town of Los Gatos.

Focused on but not limited to:
- Indigenous communities
- Redlining practices
- Other items as identified through
community partners
Year 3 Town staff/
TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

3.0 Collaboration:

Leverage
community
resources in order
to ensure equity
efforts are
collaborative and
inclusive

3.1 Foster collaboration between community
groups and other partners engaging in equity
work in order to offer joint activities.
- Meet with community partners to
determine how they would like to
manifest equity learning in the
community. Focused on, but not
limited to, the following local groups:
- Businesses
- CBO’s
- Nonprofits
- Education Partners
Years 1-2 Town staff/
TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

Page 855 ends

9 - Faith Based Partners
- Local Businesses
- Town Departments
- Other Town Boards,
Commission, and Committees
- Focus on collaborative projects that
promote art, expression and healing.
- Evaluate Town spaces available for
joint activities and projects and
consider how those spaces can be best
used to promote equity and belonging.

3.2 Engage school districts and youth to
identify their needs for both communitybased and school-based programming. - Ensure schools have access to on site
curriculum that support equity
dialogues on campuses through local
collaborative resources
- Intentionally connect school districts to
community groups for joint projects,
centered in art and expression
- Host a joint session with community
partners and school leaders regarding
equity dialogues and in support of their
joint planning efforts
Years 1-3 Town staff/School
Districts with direction
from Town Council

4.0 Communicatio
n: Develop a
communications

4.1 Create a yearly communications
campaign centered around equity education
Years 1-3 Town
staff/TUSC/Community
Partners with direction

Page 856 ends

10 campaign that
highlights the
Town’s equity work
and promotion of community events. Include
in this process:
- Visible signage/banners
- Local art and art displays
from Town Council

4.2 Create a new Town tagline, in concert
with the mission statement that involves the
spirit of ‘belonging’, as a northstar for
ongoing work.
- Engage the community in the
development of this work
- Garner input from Commissions,
businesses and community-based
organizations
- Present to Council for approval
Years 2-3 Town
staff/TUSC/community
partners with direction
from Town Council

4.3 Engage the business community as a
partner in promoting the benefits of the JEDI
plan and the positive attributes of the Town
of Los Gatos.
- Develop a local business pledge about
belonging and unwillingness to tolerate
discrimination
- Create a plan for outreach and support
for minority owned businesses
- Engage the business community in
supporting the development of more
affordable housing as a path to support
their businesses
Years 2-3 Town staff/
TUSC/Community
Partners with direction
from Town Council

Page 857 ends

11 5.0 Housing:

Educate the
community about
affordable housing
in order to ensure
that the Town
meets its Housing
Element

5.1 Bust the myths about affordable housing
by providing:
- Developer tours to completed
affordable housing build outs
- Education about affordable housing
residents and the services they receive
Year 3 Town staff with
direction from Town
Council

5.2 Investigate ways to attract affordable
housing developers to the Town of Los Gatos
- Review the work of other jurisdictions
and what policy changes they have
made to incentivize the building of
affordable housing
- Publicize opportunities to build
affordable housing with developers
- Educate the community about what
affordable housing brings to the Town,
in order to leverage and develop
community support for these projects.

Year 3 Town staff with
direction from Town
Council
Community Advisory Group Participants
Name Affiliation
Jessica Blitchok Jewish Community Relations Council - Jewish Silicon Valley Kareem Syed Former Los Gatos Resident

Page 858 ends

12 Catherine Somers Chamber of Commerce
Kylie Clark Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
Jeffrey Suzuki Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
Sandrine Chaumette Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
Ali Miano Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
Ami Davis NUMU
Kimberly Snyder NUMU
Alexandra Schindler NUMU
Karen Rubio Plant-Based Advocates
Folake Phillips AWO Center
Jim Foley Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce/Pennant Properties Dominic Broadhead LGS Recreation
Varily Isaacs Former Director of Events, Apple
Devorah Felder-Levy Congregation Shir Hadash
Town Staff
Laurel Prevetti Town Manager
Holly Young Senior Management Analyst

Page 859 ends

13 ALF Insights Team
Jenny Niklaus Chief Impact Officer and Principal
Jason Reynolds ALFI Faculty
Darcie Green ALFI Faculty
Allyson Paul Executive Assistant

Page 860 ends

Town of Los Gatos JEDI Definitions
Community Advisory Work Group: Equity Terms in Groupings (Source: Race Forward) Racial Equity and Racial Justice
Racial Equity: is a process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone. It is the intentional and continual practice of changing policies, practices, systems, and structures by prioritizing measurable change in the lives of people of color.

From GARE: Racial equity is realized when race can no longer be used to predict life outcomes, and outcomes for all groups are improved.

Racial Justice: is a vision and transformation of society to eliminate racial hierarchies and advance collective liberation, where Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, in particular, have the dignity, resources, power, and self-determination to fully thrive.

Distinction Between: Racial equity is the process for moving towards the vision of racial justice. Racial equity seeks measurable milestones and outcomes that can be achieved on the road to racial justice. Racial equity is necessary, but not sufficient, for racial justice.

Diversity, Inclusion, Belonging
Diversity: A variety of racial identities or characteristics (e.g. African Americans, Native Americans, Latinx) as well as people from a range of different social, racial, ethnic, cultural, and economic backgrounds; genders; sexual orientations; abilities; experiences; perspectives; and other personal identities. Diversity is a quantitative measure of representation.

Inclusion: The measure of the quality of representation, such as full access, authentic representation, empowered participation, true belonging and power-sharing. Inclusion is a qualitative measure of representation and participation. 1 ATTACHMENT 3

Page 861 ends

Belonging: Belonging is a core need of all humans and is defined as a system of values and practices where no person is left out of the circle of human concern. It is more than just access. It is having a meaningful voice and an opportunity to participate in the design of cultural structures. Belonging includes the right to contribute as well as the right to make demands and it requires shared power, access, and opportunity among all individuals within a shared system. Belonging is about being seen, heard and valued for the uniqueness that each individual brings into the circle. (Source: Othering and Belonging Institute) Distinction Between: You can have diversity without inclusion (e.g. tokenism, assimilation). You can’t have inclusion without diversity.

Focusing on inclusion gets you further than just focusing on diversity. Belonging is a term that goes beyond the legal or HR definitions and gets to how power and meaningful inclusion can look and feel within the context of a group or network.

Equity and Equality
Equality: Is sameness; everyone gets the same thing. Equality focuses on everyone getting the same opportunity, but often ignores the realities of historical exclusion and power differentials among whites and other racialized groups.

Equity: Ensures that outcomes in the conditions of well-being are improved for marginalized groups, lifting outcomes for all. Equity is a measure of justice.

Distinction Between: Equality uses the same strategies for everyone, but because people are situated differently, they are not likely to get the same outcomes. Equity uses differentiated and targeted strategies to address different needs and to get to fair outcomes.

Equality-focused strategies don’t work for, or benefit, everyone – e.g. teaching everyone the same way does not work for different kinds of learners—each must be taught the appropriate way for them.

Types of Racial Bias
Explicit/Conscious: Conscious attitudes and beliefs about a person or group; also known as overt and intentional racial bias. 2

Page 862 ends

Implicit/Unconscious: Attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, decisions and actions in an unconscious manner.

Individual: Bias by individuals. But if the individual is acting in an institutional capacity (e.g. a teacher or a police officer) their individual bias is also a manifestation of institutional bias.

Institutional: Bias by institutions—such as patterns, practices, policies, or cultural norms that advantage or disadvantage people of color.

Debiasing Strategies: Interventions to eliminate, mitigate or prevent bias are often focused on the individual level, rather than at the institutional level, where interventions are most needed. Debiasing strategies focused on individual change (e.g. “just be aware of your bias),” have dubious impacts and success. Debiasing strategies focused at the institutional levels can help prevent and remove opportunities for bias by instituting practices, policies, and protocols that require institutional actors to address institutional racism.

Levels of Racism
Individual Racism (Internalized & Interpersonal)
- Internalized: lies within individuals. These are private beliefs and biases about race that reside inside our own minds and bodies.

For White people, this can be internalized privilege, entitlement, and superiority; for people of color, this can be internalized oppression. Examples: prejudice, xenophobia, conscious and unconscious bias about race, influenced by the white normative or dominant culture.
- Interpersonal: occurs between individuals. Bias, bigotry, and discrimination based on race. Once we bring our private beliefs about race into our interactions with others, we are now in the interpersonal realm. Examples: public expressions of prejudice and hate, microaggressions (common place intentional or unintentional terms or hostility), bias and bigotry between individuals.

Systematic Racism (Institutional & Structural)
- Institutional: occurs within institutions. It involves unjust policies, practices, procedures, and outcomes that work better for White people than people of color, whether intentional or not. Example: A school district that concentrates students of color in the most overcrowded, under-funded schools with the least experienced teachers. 3

Page 863 ends

- Structural: is racial inequities across institutions, policies, social structures, history, and culture. Structural racism highlights how racism operates as a system of power with multiple interconnected, reinforcing, and self-perpetuating components which result in racial inequities across all indicators for success. Structural racism is the racial inequity that is deeply rooted and embedded in our history and culture and our economic, political, and legal systems. Examples: The “racial wealth gap,” where Whites have many times the wealth of people of color, resulting from the history and current reality of institutional racism in multiple systems.

Intersectionality
The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination “intersect” to create unique dynamics and effects. All forms of inequality are mutually reinforcing and must therefore be analyzed and addressed simultaneously to prevent one form of inequality from reinforcing another. Intersectionality brings our understanding of systemic injustice and social inequality to the next level by attempting to untangle the lines that create the complex web of inequalities. It is also a practical tool that can be used to tackle intersectional discrimination through policies and laws. (Intersectional Justice) LGBTQIA+ Discrimination
Being harassed, discriminated against and/or being denied access to employment, housing, access to basic goods and services and/or the ability to participate meaningfully in our society's decision making processes, based on gender identity, sexual orientation and/or gender expression. (Gender Equity Law)
Discrimination Based on Ability: Ableism
Ableism is the discrimination of and social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior.

At its heart, ableism is rooted in the assumption that disabled people require ‘fixing’ and defines people by their disability. (Ableism 101) 4

Page 864 ends

Anti-Semitism
The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jewish peoples. (ADL)
Current Town of Los Gatos Racial Justice Terms: General Plan 2040 Term General Plan 2040
BIPOC Acronym referring to Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Color.

Disadvantaged Community An area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the California Health and Safety Code or a predominantly low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.

Environmental Justice The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes, political and religious affiliation, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies including climate adaptation strategies.

Equality Is sameness; everyone gets the same thing. Equality focuses on everyone getting the same opportunity, but often ignores the realities of historic exclusion and power differentials among whites and other racialized groups.

Equity Ensures that outcomes in the conditions of well-being are improved for marginalized groups, lifting outcomes for all. Equity is a measure of justice. 5

Page 865 ends

Explicit Bias Conscious attitudes and beliefs about a person or group, also known as overt and intentional bias.

Implicit Bias Attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, decisions, and actions in an unconscious manner.

Social Capital A concept in social science that involves the potential of individuals to secure benefits and invent solutions to problems through membership in social networks. Social capital revolves around three dimensions: interconnected networks of relationships between individuals and groups (social ties or social participation), levels of trust that characterize these ties, and resources or benefits that are both gained and transferred by virtue of social ties and social participation.

Socially Disadvantaged Individuals and
Groups
Socially disadvantaged individuals and groups who have
been subjected to prejudice or some form of discrimination or bias because of their perceived identity as a member of a particular group (i.e., race, ethnicity, culture, sex, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, age, immigration status) without regard to their individuality and/or merit.
6

Page 866 ends

STATUS OF DISCOVERY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER TOWN EFFORTS ALF Insights
Town of Los Gatos Discovery Report: Recommendations Update 2/2023 Collaborative, On-going Engagement
- RECOMMENDATION: Form a facilitated, community working group that will come together to build relationships and develop a deeper understanding of JEDI concepts. Use this group to iterate and deepen the JEDI plan that includes short and long-term goals as well as a timeline of activities.
- RECOMMENDATION: Develop a statement of what inclusivity and belonging mean to the Town as a part of the JEDI Plan.
- UPDATE: Both of these items are moving forward through the Community Working Group process.

Develop Safe Spaces
- RECOMMENDATION: Create guidelines for safety that allow working group and community members to develop solidarity and commitment to seeing the process through.
- RECOMMENDATION: Ensure all threats to personal safety will not be tolerated through clear policies and practices.
- RECOMMENDATION: Utilize art and community engagement with art as a path to create safe spaces for learning and expression.
- Public art that celebrates underrepresented groups
- Film festivals at the Town theater (benefit events)
- Listen learn campaign: put those back up connected to conversations - UPDATE: The Town Council has adopted civility guidelines for all Council and Commission meetings, being clear that:
- The Town embraces diversity and strongly condemns hate speech and offensive, hateful language or racial intolerance of any kind at Town meetings.
- Town Council and staff are well aware of the public’s right to disagree with their professional opinion on various Town issues. However, anti-social behavior, slander, hatred, and bigotry statements are completely 1 ATTACHMENT 4

Page 867 ends

unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form at Town meetings.
- All public comments at the Town Council meeting must pertain to items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Town and shall not contain slanderous statements, hatred, and bigotry against non-public officials.

Build Capacity for the Work
- RECOMMENDATION: Provide spaces for members of the community to learn and be in dialogue together.
- Food system and inherent inequities that are a part of that system - RECOMMENDATION: Emphasize that the JEDI work benefits everyone and detail how and why this is the case as they engage in these community dialogues. - UPDATE: The Town is providing spaces for members of the community to learn and be in dialogue together, starting with programming through our Library on Affordable Housing and the intersection of environmental sustainability and equity.

Connect the Work to the Vibrancy of the Town’s Economy
- RECOMMENDATION: Develop a public facing campaign about what the Town is doing in regards to its JEDI work along with its plan. Ensure that there is transparency about what the Town is learning and how they will be adjusting their work in support of the JEDI Plan.

Intentionally Engage School Districts and Youth
- RECOMMENDATION: Ensure that the school districts and youth have an intentional and connected voice to the JEDI work as it moves forward. - RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm to the school districts that they are not alone in handling these incidents. Create space for them to work collaboratively with the Town to brainstorm solutions to these problems.
- UPDATE: The Town signed an agreement with the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District and Los Gatos Union School District to be part of a social norms effort. The Districts have been invited to participate in the Town’s JEDI Plan process. - Need to take an anti-racist stance; drugs and alcohol is important but does that really help? Respect, history; an extension of history, where set of beliefs come from; connect to acceptance
2

Page 868 ends

Continue to Build Affordable Housing
- RECOMMENDATION: Continue to build and support affordable housing through the General Plan and Housing Element.
- UPDATE: The 2040 General Plan adopted with its Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element on 6/30/22. The Housing Element with modifications was adopted by the Town Council on 1/30/23, finding it to be in substantial compliance with State law. The Town is continuing to address the detailed comments from the State, engaging with the community in that process.

Town of Los Gatos Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Work Plan Update 2/2023 JEDI Plan
- UNDERWAY: Work with ALFI to prepare an actionable JEDI Plan with clear goals, timeframes, and measurable outcomes. Town staff will lead staff, general public, and other engagement in this effort.

Town Operations
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Require all Town Departments to use a lens of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in the:
- Development of the Town budget, Capital Improvement Program, General Plan (see more information below), and other guiding documents; - Delivery of Town services; and
- Creation of all new programs, projects, and policies. - UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Examine all proposed policies and ordinances in the context of promoting, facilitating, and improving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in Los Gatos. This work is done by the Council Policy Committee, appropriate Town Boards, Committees, and Commissions, and the Town Council.

Communications/Community Engagement
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Expand the Town’s community engagement to include more Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
- Economic; sexual orientation, faith and abilities
- Define community engagement
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Communicate actively on social media and in other forums to reinforce messages of inclusion, belonging, and welcoming. 3

Page 869 ends

Town Boards, Committees, and Commissions
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Recruit Town Board, Committee, and Commission members to reflect diverse communities of color, identity, and backgrounds. - UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into the work of all Town Boards, Committees and Commissions and discuss these efforts with the Town Council and the public.
- UPDATE: DEI training is scheduled for all Town Board, Committee, and Commission members on February 23, 2023.

Transparency in Government
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Expand access to Town records and information to further demonstrate the Town’s commitment to transparency in governmental operations.

Police Reforms
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Biannual Reports to review progress at Town Council meetings on Police Reforms, including independent investigations, mental health/homeless support, traffic stop data, and options for non-emergency calls. - UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Continue to strengthen the Police Department relationship with the County Behavioral Health services staff and Mobile Crisis Response Team.
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Work toward the Police Chief’s goal for all Department personnel to exceed the minimum number of hours of training in de-escalation and crisis intervention.
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Continuously review and update Department policies and procedures to ensure that it is employing the best practices for hiring, training, eliminating bias, and ensuring the public’s safety.

Town Personnel
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Foster a more diverse workforce by updating job descriptions and minimum qualifications to encourage a broader set of candidates, promoting job opportunities using conventional and unconventional techniques to reach deeper into the talent pool, and encouraging professional development to expand skills and abilities.
4

Page 870 ends

- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Strengthen procedures to protect employees from bullying, racism, and other uncivil behavior.
- UNDERWAY AND ONGOING: Encourage justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion training for Town staff members and Departments.
5

Page 871 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 12

DESK ITEM
DATE: September 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting an Enabling Resolution to Establish an Equity Commission Entitled the Unity and Solidarity Commission and Direct its Recruitment with the Annual Fall Commission Recruitment
REMARKS:

Attachment 5 contains public comment received before 11:01 a.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2023.

Attachments previously received with the Staff Report:

1. Draft Enabling Resolution

2. Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Implementation Actions

3. Definitions

4. February 2023 Update on Discovery Report and Town Work Plan Items Attachment received with this Desk Item:

5. Public comment received before 11:01 a.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Page 872 ends

ATTACHMENT 5
From: Folake Phillips
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>
Cc: Holly Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Folake Phillips’s Written Comment
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
As a member of the JEDI Community Working Group, I make this written comment with a heightened sense of urgency and gratitude. The process involved in working as a collective, while keeping in mind my sense of duty as a mother and to other children who look like my son is no easy one. Yet, this is a process I would gladly undergo again if called upon.

In these times of growing divisions, I am proud to share that our community working group meetings were the most productive- we navigated complex discussions, didn’t always have all the answers, yet, diverse perspectives came together in an admirable and respectful manner.

Personally, I honed my civic engagement skills. I felt heard and included. I believe all members experienced growth one way or another. In any case, by and large, we had fantastic moderators help us throughout the process.

The proposed Unity And Solidarity Commission, when established, will signify our community’s commitment to embracing change. The Town of Los Gatos is evolving and looks nothing like it was decades ago. This commission will help us forge connections, bridge gaps and begin to learn how inclusive and representative policies with a JEDI lens foster understanding and improved relations for a sustainable community. Isn’t this what we all aspire to? The Town Council included diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in its approved strategic priorities for 2023-25. Today, I am unequivocally stating my support for the Town’s JEDI Work Plan which will commence soon. A commission will ensure that these priorities are realized through continuous long-term community input and action. The proposed Unity and Solidarity Commissioned is a historic opportunity to make tangible investments that lead to meaningful change for all. The Town Council has stepped up. It is now necessary to collaborate with, and support The Council’s efforts. The creation of a commission will give The Town of Los Gatos the necessary mechanisms to implement the items in the Work Plan.

The proposed Unity and Solidarity Commission will have designated seats for members of key town commissions, businesses, nonprofits, faith leaders, and residents. There will be not one, but two seats for our Youth Commissioners on this commission. Our youth are an underutilized resource, full of energy, ideas, and connections, and they have perhaps the biggest stake in this work. This proposed Unity and Solidarity Commission gives us all the opportunity to bring our youth deeper into the fold and to elevate their voices and ideas. It promises to be a dynamic, thoughtful, and dedicated group of individuals.

I thank the Town Council ahead for approving The Unity and Solidarity Commission. My name is Folake Phillips and I am the Founder & Executive Director of AWO. We are a Los Gatos based social justice nonprofit organization.

Page 873 ends

PREPARED BY: Nicolle Burnham
Parks and Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2023
ITEM NO: 13
DATE: September 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Traffic Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report and provide direction for an updated Traffic Impact Fee and a proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee.

BACKGROUND:

On December 7, 2021, the Town Council updated Town Council Policy 1-08: Transportation Impact Policy (Attachment 1) and directed a nexus fee study to update the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee. The Policy update reflects the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to evaluate traffic impacts in compliance with California Senate Bill (SB) 743. SB 743 required cities and counties to switch from using a Level of Service standard to VMT in transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Since early 2022, staff has been working with DKS Associates to complete a transportation nexus study, update the Traffic Impact Fee, and consider a VMT Impact Fee. As the Town completes the required nexus study, the analysis needs to comply with the changes that Assembly Bill 602 (passed in 2021) brought to Sections 65940.1 and 66019 of the California Government Code. Specifically, AB602 requires that jurisdictions charging impact fees must: 1) complete an impact fee nexus study; 2) calculate the fees for residential developments based on square footage of the proposed units (or justify why square footage cannot be used); and 3) update the nexus study every eight years. The current Traffic Impact Fee was established in 2014.

Page 874 ends

PAGE 2 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
BACKGROUND (continued):

On May 2, 2023, the Council received a report on the technical work to calculate a recommended fee for each land use type. The recommended fee is based on a list of transportation projects from Council adopted plans and the projected amount of development that would occur over the planning period (based on the General Plan). Staff presented both a proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact Fee. During the meeting, Town Council asked a number of questions that necessitated additional analysis. This staff report answers those questions. After considering the responses, the Council may provide direction on next steps for the two fees.

DISCUSSION:

Question 1. Can we reduce the Project List to lower the fee, specifically remove the State Route 17 Corridor Congestion Relief Project?
As mentioned in the May 2023 staff report and presentation, the calculation of impact fees is underpinned by a project list and the amount of development that is projected to occur. The fee calculations establish impact fees that would cover the cost of the required improvements (and potential supplemental funding sources) based on the projected amount of development.

The Town has developed very ambitious goals with regard to transportation improvements.

These are outlined in the General Plan 2040, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Downtown Parking Roadmap. The project list (see Attachment 2) includes the projects outlined in those documents. It is critical to know that collections from the TIF or VMT can only be used to fund projects on this list.

The State Route 17 Corridor Congestion Relief Project is a Measure B project that is being administered by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on behalf of CalTrans. This project was a high priority for the Town of Los Gatos during the deliberation of which projects to include in the Measure B ballot initiative. The project includes adding an auxiliary lane to Highway 17 from Lark Avenue to Highway 9 and reconstruction of the on and off ramp at Highway 17 and Route 9. The project was requested by the Town in an effort to improve traffic flow on Highway 17, discourage cut through traffic in Los Gatos, and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety along Highway 9 near the on and off ramps to Highway 17.

Page 875 ends

PAGE 3 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

The bulk of the project is funded through Measure B Congestion Management Funds, and the Town has a 10% match requirement. The project is still in very early phases of design. Current construction estimates are $110,820,000, which would require a Town match of $11,082,000.

With this project on the project list, fees collected through the TIF or VMT Impact Fee program would be eligible for use as Town match. There is no other known funding source for the required Town match.

If this project were to be removed from the list, the total revenue generation of the impact fee would be reduced from $40,611,343 to $28,529,343, which would lower the fees in every land use category. Table 1 shows the projected fees with and without the Highway 17 Congestion Relief Project.

Table 1. Projected Fees With and Without SR-17 Project Local Match ($11.1M) Land Use (Unit) Scenario VMT Impact
Fee
Traffic Impact
Fee
Total Fee per
Unit
Single Family
(Dwelling Unit)
Without Hwy
17 Project
$7,285 $6,834 $14,119
With Hwy 17
Project
7,437 12,661 20,098
Multi-Family
(Dwelling Unit)
Without Hwy
17 Project
5,207 4,884 10,091
With Hwy 17
Project
5,315 9,050 14,365
Retail (1,000
square feet)
Without Hwy
17 Project
10,163 9,533 19,696
With Hwy 17
Project
10,374 17,663 28,037
Office (1,000
square feet)
Without Hwy
17 Project
8,955 8,400 17,355
With Hwy 17
Project
9,141 15,564 24,705
Industrial (1,000
square feet)
Without Hwy
17 Project
4,201 3,940 8,141
With Hwy 17
Project
4,288 7,300 11,588

Page 876 ends

PAGE 4 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Staff recommendation: Although it would result in a fee reduction, staff does not recommend removing the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief project from the project list. Removing this project from the list would prevent the use of collected TIF/VMT Fees to offset the Town’s costs for the project.

Question 2. What is the probability of securing grant funding for the project list? In developing the project list, staff considered, based on our best available information, the possibility of various projects receiving grant funding. This possibility is reflected in the column labeled “Estimated Funding from Other Sources” in the project list in Attachment 2.

Certain items like the parking program implementation and sidewalk gap filling projects, do not have a clear relationship to any known grant funding. Therefore, staff assumed this would be fully funded through the TIF/VMT Fee collections.

For the Shannon Road Widening and Safety Improvements, the contribution from the County of Santa Clara was counted as funding from other sources with the remainder being funded by the Town. For the various bicycle and pedestrian projects, staff used known funding sources when available and when known funding was not available, assumed 75% grant funding. The 75% threshold is generally consistent with programs the Town has historically used for funding such as the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA), and 2016 Measure B funds.

Staff recommendation: Staff is reasonably confident that grant funding can be secured for projects on the list at the levels that are indicated. Nothing precludes the Town from fully funding any project on the list.

Question 3. Why is the retail/commercial fee lower under the new fee? What do the rates look like if we did not include a trip length factor?
Retail and commercial trips are typically shorter than home based trips (e.g., commute trips) and tend to be pass-by trips rather than new trips. The fee calculation methodology uses both trip length and by-pass factors to adjust for the nature of these trips. In the Town’s current Traffic Impact Fee, retail rates are comparatively high as a result of using standard calculation methodologies. Table 2 shows the projected fees with and without the trip length factor.

Page 877 ends

PAGE 5 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Table 2. Fees With1 and Without Trip Length Deduction
Land Use
(Unit)
Scenario VMT
ImpactFee
Traffic Impact
Fee
Total Fee per
Unit
Single Family (Per
Dwelling Unit)
Without
Trip Length $5,770 $9,825 $15,595
With Trip
Length 7,437 12,661 20,098
Multi-Family (Per
Dwelling Unit)
Without
Trip Length 4,124 7,022 11,146
With Trip
Length 5,315 9,050 14,365
Retail (per 1,000
Square Feet)
Without
Trip Length 17,665 30,076 47,741
With Trip
Length 10,374 17,663 28,037
Office (per 1,000
Square Feet)
Without
Trip Length 6,368 10,842 17,210
With Trip
Length 9,141 15,564 24,705
Industrial (per
1,000 Square
Feet)
Without
Trip Length 2,920 4,972 7,892
With Trip
Length 4,288 7,300 11,588
Notes: Fees with Trip Length Factor are the same as presented in May 2023.

The analysis shows that eliminating use of the trip length factor decreases the fees slightly for residential development, and substantially increases the fees for retail.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends keeping the trip length factor in the calculations and adopting a reduced fee rate for specific land uses based on the Town’s goals for development.

Page 878 ends

PAGE 6 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Question 4. Can we charge higher rate for medical offices? Table 3 provides rates for medical office in comparison to traditional office. The higher fee for medical offices reflects the higher traffic generation for this use reflecting the most recent Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published trip generation rates.

Table 3. Office versus Medical Office Fee Comparison
Land Use Dwelling Unit
Equivalent
VMT Impact
Fee ($)
Traffic Impact
Fee ($)
Total
Fee/1,000 SF
($)
Office 1.23 9,141 15,564 24,706
Medical Office 2.78 20,699 35,243 55,942
Note: Comparison based on a basic fee rate of $20,098 per dwelling unit equivalent.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends developing custom calculation of impact fees where a proposed land use’s trip generation characteristics differ substantially from those of the basic land use categories. The calculations would be based on the adopted basic fee per dwelling unit equivalent or single-family dwelling unit. This approach would provide for a different fee rate for medical office uses.

Question 6. Since homes in the Town are larger than the national average, can the average square footage for a single-family housing unit in Los Gatos be used in the calculations instead of the American Housing Survey Data?
To comply with AB 602, the final residential fee calculations must be converted to square feet for residential land uses. In May, staff presented the conversion to a per square foot fee based on an average single-family house size of 1,671 square feet. Council asked if this was representative of Los Gatos homes.

Based on information supplied by the Town’s Community Development Department, staff has updated the calculations to use an average single family residence size of 3,660 square feet.

This is based on 66 building permits issued in Town for single family homes from January 2017 though May 2023. During that same period, permits were issued for a total of 177 multi-family dwelling units with an average size of 1,649 square feet.

Table 4 shows refined single- and multi-family per square foot fees using these updated square footage numbers in comparison to the May assumptions.

Page 879 ends

PAGE 7 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Table 4. Single and Multi-Family Residential Fee Comparison VMT
Impact Fee
per Unit
TIF Per
Unit
Average
Unit Size
(SF)
VMT
($/SF)
TIF
($/SF)
Total Fee
($/SF)
Single-Family
at 1,671
square feet $7,437 $12,661 1,671 4.45 7.58 12.03
Single Family
at 3,660
square feet 7,437 12,661 3,660 2.03 3.46 5.49
Multi-Family at
884 square
feet 5,315 9,050 884 6.01 10.23 16.24
Multi-Family at
1,649 square
feet 5,315 9,050 1,649 3.22 5.49 8.71
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that Council direct the use of 3,660 square feet as the basis for the single-family residential fee and 1,649 square feet as the basis for the multifamily fee per square foot fee calculation.

Question 7. Can the Town charge an impact fee on Accessory Dwelling Units? The Town’s Transportation Impact Policy exempts Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) of all sizes from payment of the fee. As a result, no ADUs were included in the TIF or VMT Fee calculations presented in May. California state law allows impact fees to be charged for ADU’s over 750 square feet. Therefore, the Town can charge for ADUs of 750 square feet or larger if the Policy is amended.

Between January 2017 and May 2023, a total of 96 ADUs were permitted in Los Gatos. Of the 96 permitted ADUs, there were 42 ADUs larger than 750 square feet (44%). There are 500 new ADUs assumed in the 2040 General Plan. If Council would like to charge impact fees for ADUs, staff would assume that 44% of the units would be larger than 750 square feet, resulting in 220 units paying into the fee program.

Page 880 ends

PAGE 8 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends charging impact fees for ADUs in excess of 750 square feet. If Council agrees with this recommendation, staff will add ADUs to the calculations, which will lower the overall fee for residential units. Staff would return to Council with the final fee schedules and a proposed revision to Council Policy 1-08: Transportation Impact Policy.

Question 8. Can the Town adopt reduced fees for multi-family housing and what might that look like?
Town Council can adopt fees for any land use category at or below the rates proposed in the May 2023 staff report. In determining fees, Council needs to consider that the fees previously presented represent the fee required for the Town to deliver the project list discussed earlier.

Any reduction in fees would limit the ability to deliver these projects.

Since most of the projected residential growth is in multi-family units (1,572 units), any fee reduction for multi-family developments would have a significant impact on the revenue generated for transportation projects.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council adopt the fully calculated fees for multi-family housing developments and consider credit programs to offset certain categories of units (see question 9).

Question 9. Can the Town adopt reduced fees for affordable housing and what might that look like?
Council Policy 1-08: Transportation Impact Policy Section I.3 states that “The Town Council may exempt housing developments for very low-, low-, and moderate-income residents (as defined by Town Ordinance, General Plan, or statute) from all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fee upon making a finding that the development provides a significant community benefit by meeting current needs for affordable housing.” Based on the State of California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the Town has an allocation of 847 units in the low-, very low-, and extremely low-income categories. An additional 320 units are allocated for the moderate-income category, for a total of 1,167 housing units potentially eligible for exemption from fees per the existing Council Policy. The exemption would be decided by Town Council on a case-by-case basis.

If all of the units in the extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories are exempted, then the project list would be substantially underfunded. Alternatively, the Council

Page 881 ends

PAGE 9 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
could direct the recalculation of the fees without these housing units, which would generate a fee substantially higher for the remaining residential and all other land use categories. This approach is not recommended.

In the final adoption of fees, Town Council has the authority to adopt fees for any land use category at any rate lower than what was presented in May 2023. One simple way to do this would be to provide a discount for deed restricted affordable units at some percentage of the full fee. Table 5 illustrates how affordable housing credits would reduce the fees.

Table 5. Fee Calculation for Multifamily Affordable Housing at Reduced Levels Fee Category
Transportation Improvement Fee
per Unit (VMT Fee + TIF)
Base Multi-family Fee $14,365
Affordable Housing 75% Fee Reduction $3,591
Affordable Housing 50% Fee Reduction $7,183
Affordable Housing 25% Fee Reduction $10,774
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council adopt a 50% fee reduction for affordable units that are deed restricted and meet the requirements for affordability at the low-, very low- and extremely low-income levels. In this scenario, fees would be adopted for multi-family residential, and deed restricted affordable developments would be granted a credit on that fee. While the reduction would impact the ability to complete the projects on the project list, it would offer an incentive for developments to include affordable units, and it acknowledges the challenging finances associated with low-income development projects. This would not preclude the possibility of Town Council approving a complete waiver under the existing Transportation Impact Policy, and provides a clear incentive for low-, very low- and extremely low-income units.

Staff further recommends that Council Policy 1-08 be modified to remove the possibility of a fee waiver for moderate income developments. Moderate income units are those targeted to households at 80% to 120% of the Area Median Income.

Question 10. Do other communities offer fee reductions or credit programs for traffic impact fees?
Funding for affordable housing has fallen dramatically since the official dissolution of the State’s Redevelopment Agencies in 2012 and the production of affordable housing has dropped precipitously due to increased construction costs. Seeing the payment of development impact fees as a barrier for construction of affordable housing units, the City of Sacramento adopted a

Page 882 ends

PAGE 10 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
resolution1in 2018 to reduce impact fee rates for affordable dwelling units to a zero-dollar rate.

The City determined that the zero-dollar rate would not significantly alter the City’s ability to finance the design, construction, installation, and acquisition of public infrastructure or significantly impact existing finance plans. To qualify, the applicant for a rental housing development or for-sale housing development must restrict the units as affordable for a minimum period of 30 years.

The City of Fresno adopted a resolution2in 2007 to provide fee waivers, credits, or reductions for affordable housing development. A fee waiver, credit, or reduction may be given for any development that: (1) creates housing available to low-income families (80% Area Median Income or less) where no more than 30% of the annual household gross income is expended on housing; and (2) meets any requirement provided under an ordinance adopted by Council to create incentives for affordable housing, such as density bonus ordinance. Any fee waiver/reduction or credit given is applicable only to those portions of a development project that provide affordable housing.

Staff recommendation: Town Council should consider a credit program for deed restricted multi-family affordable housing projects as noted in question 9.

Question 11. Can the Town consider a credit program for completed improvements? The current Traffic Impact Policy allows for credits to be given on a case-by-case basis and stipulates that the credits shall not exceed the impact fee payable. Credit is not given for installation of Town standard frontage improvements, project access improvements, or internal circulation improvements. The Policy stipulates that credit shall only be granted for payment of costs or construction of projects included in the adopted project list, unless otherwise approved by the Town Council.

Staff Recommendation: The current Policy affords staff the flexibility to work with developers to deliver the project list in the way that best suits the needs of the Town and the development.

Staff does not recommend any changes at this time.

1 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Major-Projects/R20190185- Rescinding-Resolution-20180428-and-Adopting-Reduction-of-Existing-DIF-Fee-Res-Rates-for-Ne.pdf?la=en 2 https://documents.fresno.gov/WebLink/0/edoc/404748/Resolution%20-%202007-324%20-%201022007.pdf

Page 883 ends

PAGE 11 OF 11
SUBJECT: Receive the Report and Provide Direction for an Updated Transportation Impact Fee and a Proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee
DATE: September 7, 2023
CONCLUSION:

There is an infinite number of iterations that can be performed when considering impact fee calculations, and Town Council can adopt any fee below the maximum justifiable fees. This report documents some of various ways the fees could be modified, and staff is seeking direction from Council on what it would like to see included in the program. Staff will use this feedback to finalize the calculated fees and return to Council with recommended Traffic Impact Fee and VMT ImpactFee schedules, and associated revisions to the Transportation Impact Policy.

COORDINATION:

This agenda item was coordinated with the Town Manager, Town Attorney, and the Community Development and Finance Directors.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with Town Council providing direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachments:

1. Council Policy 1-08: Transportation Impact Policy

2. Project List

Page 884 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 52AD9BB7-C9E7-4370-88F1-1386A21 C4D46

COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
. .

TITLE: Transportation Impact Policy POLICY NUMBER: 1-08 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1988
ENABLING ACTIONS: 1991-174; 2014-017,
2016-068; 2017-011

PURPOSE
PAGES: 37
REVISED DATES: 8/5/91; 3/24/14; 12/6/16;
3/21/17; 12/07/2021
To provide guidance to Town staff and the development community in implementing the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, Chapter 15, Article VII, Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees, and evaluating and mitigating California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impacts.

SCOPE
This Policy is applicable to all land use entitlements, land use projects, and transportation improvements Town-wide.

POLICY
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND APPLICABILITY

1. Projects that are determined by the Town to generate one or more new net Average Daily Trips (ADT) are subject to this Policy.

2. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) shall be exempted from the requirements of Transportation Analysis and the Traffic Impact Fees.

3. The Town Council may exempt housing developments for very low, low, and moderate income residents (as defined by Town Ordinance, General Plan, or statute) from all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fee upon making a finding that the development provides a significant community benefit by meeting current needs for affordable housing.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 885 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 52AD9BB7-C9E7-4370-88F1-1386A21 C4D46 TITLE: Transportation Impact Policy PAGE:
2 of 37
POLICY NUMBER:
1-08

4. Attachment 1- Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines establish a process to comprehensively and accurately analyze potential project effects (adverse and beneficial) on transportation facilities and services in the Town of Los Gatos and other jurisdictions. The TA Guidelines serve three primary purposes:
• Provide an evaluation for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significant impacts and mitigation as a part of the environmental analysis process. • Evaluate a project's consistency with the Town's General Plan. • Evaluate a project's consistency with the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

11. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES

1. All Projects that generate one or more new Average Daily Trips are required to pay Transportation Impact Fees, previously known as Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees.

2. All required Transportation Impact Fees shall be paid in full to the Town in association with and prior to issuance of a building permit. If no building permit is required, the fee shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, or similar entitlement. The amount due shall be calculated based on the fee in place as approved by the Town Council by resolution at the time the fee is paid.

3. The per trip amount of the fee shall be as set forth by the Town Council by resolution, pursuant to Town Municipal Code, Chapter 15, Article VII, Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees.

4. Fees shall be calculated by multiplying net new ADT by the per trip amount in place at the time the fees are paid.

5. Credit against Transportation Impact Fees due shall be granted up to the amount of the Estimated Project Cost shown on Attachment 2, Town of Los Gatos Traffic Mitigation Improvements Project List, for any listed projects for which the developer, as a condition of approval, is required to either construct at the developer's sole cost or contribute a fixed or percentage amount of funding toward future construction of the listed improvement. Where construction is fully funded and completed by the developer, said credit shall be equal to the Project Cost as shown in Attachment 2. Where payment is a fixed amount or a percentage of Project Cost, credit shall be equal to the actual amount due, whether the project is constructed by the developer or others.

Page 886 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 52AD9BB7-C9E7-4370-88F1-1386A21 C4D46 TITLE: Transportation Impact Policy PAGE:
3 of 37
POLICY NUMBER:
1-08

6. No credit shall be given for any public right-of-way dedication required for completion of projects listed on Attachment 2.

7. Credit will be given on a case-by-case basis and shall not exceed the impact fee payable. Any request for credit shall be made prior to the payment of the Transportation Impact Fees. No credit shall be given for installation of Townstandard frontage improvements, Project access improvements, or internal circulation improvements.

8. Credit shall only be granted for payment of costs or construction of projects listed in Attachment 2, unless otherwise approved by the Town Council.

Ill. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED MITIGATION MEASURES

1. To mitigate VMT impacts, the project shall be conditioned for implementation of mitigation measures in the following categories:
• Modify the project's built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project;
• Implement transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project; and/or
• Participate in a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if they exist) to reduce VMT from the project or other land uses to achieve acceptable levels.

2. The Town is taking a Townwide approach for VMT impact mitigation. Attachment 3, VMT Reduction Actions for the Town of Los Gatos, provides a framework for mitigating VMT in the Town.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Page 887 ends

i
TITLE: Transportation Impact Policy
Attachment 1 - Transportation Analysis Guidelines
PAGE: POLICY NUMBER:
1-08
Town of Los Gatos
Transportation Analysis Guidelines
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Intent of TA Guidelines......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Environmental Evaluation..................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Project Types......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 CEQA and Non-CEQA Terminology ....................................................................................... 3

2. Determining the Level of Transportation Analysis................................................................. 3

2.1 CEQA Relief for Projects Consistent with General Plan or Zoning........................................ 4

2.2 CMP Consistency Screening.................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Recommended Process and Documentation ....................................................................... 4

2.4 Contact with Appropriate Town Staff................................................................................... 4

2.5 Consultation with Other Jurisdictions .................................................................................. 5

2.6 Project Trip Generation and Trip Reductions....................................................................... 5

2.6.1 Vehicle Trips................................................................................................................... 6

2.6.2 Person Trips ................................................................................................................... 6

2.6.3 Establishing Trip Generation Rates for an Unspecified Use .......................................... 6

2.6.4 Credit for Existing Trips – Local Analysis........................................................................ 6

2.6.4 Credit for Existing Trips – VMT Analysis ........................................................................ 7

2.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled Methods .......................................................................................... 7

3. Transportation Analysis (CEQA) for Land Use Projects .......................................................... 8

3.1 VMT Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and General Plan Consistency ............................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.2 VMT Assessment............................................................................................................ 9

3.2 VMT Significance Thresholds.............................................................................................. 11 4 of 37

Page 888 ends

ii
5 3.3 VMT Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................. 11

4. Transportation Analysis (CEQA) for Transportation Projects............................................... 12

5. Transportation Analysis per the Town’s Transportation Policies......................................... 12

5.1 Study Area........................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Key Study Elements............................................................................................................. 13

5.3 Data Collection.................................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Project Site Access and Circulation Review ........................................................................ 16

5.5 Analysis Scenarios............................................................................................................... 16

5.6 Analysis Time Periods ......................................................................................................... 17

5.7 Multimodal Analysis Methods............................................................................................ 18

5.8 Traffic Operations Analysis................................................................................................. 19

5.9 Mobility Deficiency Criteria ................................................................................................ 19

5.10 CMP Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................................... 20

5.11 Mitigation Improvements................................................................................................. 21

Page 889 ends

6 1. Introduction
Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines are routinely established by jurisdictions to assess potential transportation effects of proposed projects on the local transportation system. These guidelines are intended to provide a clear and consistent technical approach to evaluating both land use and transportation infrastructure projects within Los Gatos.

These guidelines establish a process to comprehensively and accurately analyze potential project effects (adverse and beneficial) on transportation facilities and services in the Town of Los Gatos and other jurisdictions. This information is essential for decision-makers and the public when evaluating land use development and transportation infrastructure projects. These TA Guidelines serve three primary purposes:
• Provide an evaluation for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significant impacts and mitigation as a part of the environmental analysis process. • Guide the Local Transportation Analysis in evaluating a project’s consistency with the Town’s General Plan Mobility Goals.
• Evaluate a project’s consistency with the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

1.1 Intent of TA Guidelines
The Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 seeks to “provide a well-connected transportation system that enables safe access for all transportation modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities.” The TA Guidelines support this goal by evaluating new projects against the policies of the latest General Plan.

For CEQA-based environmental analysis, these TA Guidelines incorporate the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to disclose the effects of the project on the surrounding environment.

Town staff completed an SB 7431 implementation process, which included the preparation of the SB 743 Implementation for the Town of Los Gatos (July 2020) document package. The document package provides detailed technical information pertaining to the options and data considered by the Town of Los Gatos to implement VMT as an impact criterion.

The TA Guidelines present the Town’s approach for determining the need for a transportation analysis, its content, and identifying acceptable transportation improvements for land use and transportation projects proposed within Los Gatos. The TA Guidelines establish a transportation analysis protocol for the following:
• Environmental analysis
1 Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) changed some of the transportation significance criteria under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA. Specifically, vehicle level of service (LOS) is no longer used as a determinant of significant environmental impacts, and a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is required.

Page 890 ends

7 • General Plan consistency
• Congestion Management Program (CMP) evaluation
• Mobility deficiency criteria and thresholds
• Guidance on acceptable transportation improvements
Town staff will review transportation studies and reports based on the process presented in the TA Guidelines. However, each project is unique, and the TA Guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive beyond practical limits. Not all criteria and analyses described in the TA Guidelines will apply to every project. Early and consistent communication with Town staff is encouraged to confirm the type and level of analysis required for each study.

1.2 Environmental Evaluation
The TA Guidelines outline the methods and thresholds with which to evaluate projects consistent with the latest CEQA Statue & Guidelines.

The latest CEQA Statue & Guidelines include revised Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation impact evaluation. The four questions are as follows:

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

1.3 Project Types
A TA is prepared for a project before a discretionary action is taken. The following types of projects, which involve development activity or infrastructure changes in and around the Town of Los Gatos and affect the adjacent transportation system, should be evaluated for TA requirements.
• Land use entitlements or changes in use requiring discretionary approval by Los Gatos, which include General Plan amendments, specific plans (and related amendments), zoning changes, use permits, planned developments, and tentative subdivision maps; or any modifications of use that would generate 20 or more new Peak Hour (vehicle) Trips or at the discretion of the Town’s Traffic Engineer
• Land use activity advanced by agencies other than Los Gatos that is subject to jurisdictional review under state and federal law, such as school districts, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors, and others; or advanced within Los Gatos by agencies other than the Town and inconsistent with the Town’s General Plan.

Page 891 ends

8 • Transportation infrastructure modification or expansion, including capital improvement projects on Town roads, county roads, and state highways that may impact Town facilities and services.

1.4 CEQA and Non-CEQA Terminology
To distinguish the CEQA analysis from the non-CEQA analysis (i.e., the local transportation analysis) the analyses apply different terminologies as summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Select CEQA and Non-CEQA Terms
CEQA Term Non-CEQA Term
CEQA Transportation Analysis Local Transportation Analysis Significance criteria Threshold or performance standard Significant impact Deficiency
Mitigation measure Mitigation improvement
Baseline Conditions Existing Conditions and Background
Conditions
Future Year Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Conditions

2. Determining the Level of Transportation Analysis
Unless explicitly waived by the Town, a TA may be required when any one of the following conditions is met.
• A project has the potential to create a significant transportation environmental impact under CEQA.
• A project has the potential to generate daily vehicle miles traveled greater than the Town’s General Plan future year VMT projections.
• For local transportation analysis, a project has the potential to generate 20 or more new Peak Hour (vehicle) Trips.
• A project that is not consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, per CEQA Statue & Guidelines Section 15183. • A project will alter physical or operational conditions on a Town pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, transit facility or service, or other transportation facility. • An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) shall be exempted from the requirements of Transportation Analysis and the Transportation Impact Fees.

Page 892 ends

9 In general, a TA is applicable for two to five years. After two or more years of inactivity, a TA may need to be updated to reflect changes in the study environment, including traffic growth and other circulation issues.

Nothing in the Transportation Impact Policy shall prohibit or restrict a Project applicant from completing a local transportation study for a Project anticipated to generate less than 20 new Peak Hour trips.

2.1 CEQA Relief for Projects Consistent with General Plan or Zoning Per CEQA Statue & Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with a general plan, zoning action, specific plan, and certified environmental impact report (EIR) would not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects. Additionally, projects consistent with a general plan, zoning action, or specific plan where cumulative impact(s) were adequately addressed in a prior EIR would not require further CEQA transportation analysis.

2.2 CMP Consistency Screening
Projects should reference the most recent VTA Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to determine the need for a transportation impact analysis. In most cases, projects that generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips are not required to conduct VTA’s CMP transportation analysis.

2.3 Recommended Process and Documentation
In coordination with Town staff, the project applicant shall retain a transportation professional to conduct the TA. The transportation consultant should seek Town acceptance of the scope of work before initiating the analysis. In some cases, review by other affected jurisdictions will be required. Appendix A: Transportation Analysis Report Format Outline contains a recommended outline for the TA document.

Each TA will begin by preparing a scope of work that describes the project description, site location, analysis methods, area-wide assumption, study elements, study time periods, and traffic data collection methods. To finalize a TA scope of work for the local transportation analysis, the project applicant will provide an estimate of the project trip generation and trip distribution . These estimates and scope of work should be shared with Town staff to finalize the scope of services. Overall, the TA report will address: 1) environmental analysis, 2) project site access and circulation, and 3) other transportation impacts and traffic deficiencies.

2.4 Contact with Appropriate Town Staff
To minimize the potential for delays in project processing, it is important for the TA to be prepared in coordination with Town staff. Timely coordination will also ensure that potential transportation improvements and environmental consequences are considered as early as

Page 893 ends

10 possible in the planning process, as deficiencies and corresponding improvement costs can have a substantial effect on project costs. Coordination should include the following:
• A pre-application meeting, which will include a discussion of the TA requirements. • Development of an approved scope of work, which includes trip generation, study area, analysis scenarios and parameters, data requirements, and provisions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
• Approval of the project trip generation (person and vehicle) and trip distribution. • Review of all assumptions and the results of Existing Conditions analysis. • Review of the administrative draft report, with adequate time for comments. • Review of a draft report, with adequate time for comments.

If the TA report information will be incorporated into the transportation and circulation section of an environmental document (e.g., Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report), the format of this report may need to be discussed with the environmental consultant, a peer reviewer, and/or Town staff. Upon circulation of the draft environmental document, the format of the final TA report may need to be discussed with the environmental consultant.

2.5 Consultation with Other Jurisdictions
If the study area overlaps with other jurisdictions, staff from other jurisdictions must be consulted to verify study locations, the impact significance criteria, and to consider any current development applications. Section 15086 of the CEQA Statue & Guidelines2 shall be followed as the basis for satisfying consultation requirements. In most cases, overlap will occur for roadway system analysis, but may also include impact analysis of active transportation modes (bicycling and walking), as well as transit system facilities and services.

2.6 Project Trip Generation and Trip Reductions
Person and vehicle trip generation rates are a way to estimate the number of expected pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicle trips that a proposed development will generate. These rates establish the basis of analysis for a proposed project and its effects on the transportation network. Person trip generation should be reported for walking, bicycle, and pedestrian trips, and vehicle trip generation should be reported for single-occupant, and carpool.

Methodologies to estimate project trip generation and trip reductions shall be prepared consistent with the latest VTA TIA Guidelines, with the exceptions described in this document. 2 California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines, 2020.

Page 894 ends

11 2.6.1 Vehicle Trips
Consistent with the VTA TIA Guidelines, pass-by trips shall not be considered in calculating the 20 new Peak Hour Trip threshold that triggers the requirement for conducting a comprehensive local transportation analysis report.

The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual trip generation rates for Specialty Retail Center shall apply to all Specialty Retail.

Uses within the Central Business District (C-2 Zone} are expected to change periodically as part of the natural business cycle. For the purpose of Transportation Impact Fees, changes in use without changes in net building square footage within the C-2 Zone shall not be considered to create a traffic deficiency, shall be exempt from this policy, and no fees shall be charged for a change in use. Any increases in building square footage shall pay impact fees at the ITE Shopping Center rate or comparable equivalent rate for the expanded area, as determined by the Town Traffic Engineer.

The Town reserves the right to require the project sponsor to conduct local trip generation surveys for select projects, depending on land use and conditions in the field.

2.6.2 Person Trips
Person trip generation rates should be developed from empirical studies, person travel survey data, or conversion of vehicle trip rates to person trip rates using a vehicle occupancy factor. In addition, person trip generation by mode may be derived using an approved analysis tool that incorporates data from local trip generation surveys or published trip generation rate data.

2.6.3 Establishing Trip Generation Rates for an Unspecified Use For projects where the ultimate land use is not certain (for example, a large subdivision of flexible commercial-industrial parcels), there are two options for establishing the trip generation rates.
• Option 1: Town staff will recommend the use of the highest traffic intensity among all permitted uses to establish traffic deficiencies.
• Option 2: Estimates can be made using a lower traffic intensity use if the Town and developer establish a maximum trip allowance. Once a proposed land use has been identified, then: 1) the subdivision trip generation allowance must be monitored by the Town as development occurs; and 2) the TA report may need to be updated.

2.6.4 Credit for Existing Trips – Local Analysis
The estimate of new trips generated by the proposed development project may include credit for trips associated with existing uses on the site. Uses are considered as existing if they are actively present on the project site at the time that data is gathered for the transportation impact analysis. Similarly, if a planned (but not constructed) use was already permitted for the site and an improvement(s) was identified and funded, the new TA only needs to assess the

Page 895 ends

12 effects of additional trips above and beyond the trips for the permitted use. Additionally, certain commercial land uses attract vehicle traffic that currently exists on the roadway, rather than generating new trips.

Understanding there are permitted reductions that may be taken under the circumstances listed above, the Town requires that any reductions in project vehicle trip generation are applied according to the latest VTA TIA Guidelines.

In calculating new Peak Hour Trips for purposes of determining whether or not a TA report is required pursuant to this Policy, trip credit shall be granted for an existing use or the most recent former use.

In calculating new Average Daily Trips for purposes of determining the amount of the Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee due, trip credit shall be granted for an existing use or the most recent former use.

Where the property is vacant, the most recent former use shall be used.

Where a portion of the space is changing use, credit will apply to the proportionate square footage of the space under review.

Where the change in use results in fewer trips than the existing or former use, no credit or refund will be due the applicant.

2.6.4 Credit for Existing Trips – VMT Analysis
For the evaluation of vehicle miles of travel, VMT credit for the prior use depends on how the project changes the baseline condition, if the project sponsor had ownership and control of the previous land use, and the reason for stopping the previous land use. Baseline conditions are typically defined at the beginning of an environmental analysis and a CEQA analysis needs to isolate the effects of the project to clearly define the project’s effect on the baseline condition.

To receive VMT credit, the project sponsor needs to demonstrate continuous ownership of site, with on-site occupancy paused only due to the redevelopment activity and not because of some economic or other condition outside the control of the project sponsor. However, this credit should only be applied to total project generated VMT and should not be included when calculating a VMT rate.

2.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled Methods
Although the calculation of VMT is simply the number of cars multiplied by the distance traveled by each car, VMT performance measures can be reported differently. At a minimum, the VMT analysis for Los Gatos will be prepared for two purposes:

Page 896 ends

13 • Greenhouse gas and air quality analysis using project generated VMT on a VMT per service population basis (residents + employment).
• Environmental evaluation by land use and/or transportation project.

The project generated VMT from new population and employment growth and the boundary (total) VMT for a specific geographic area will be prepared using the latest Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)-City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Model (“VTA Travel Model”). Because emissions rates vary by vehicle speed, the project generated VMT and total VMT should be disaggregated by speed bin (typically in five mile an hour increments of speed from 0 to ~80 miles per hour) to allow different emissions factors to be applied at different speeds, which allows for the preparation of a more refined emissions analysis.

3. Transportation Analysis (CEQA) for Land Use Projects For an environmental analysis, these TA Guidelines incorporate the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to disclose the effects of the project on the environment. Town staff completed an SB 743 implementation process, which included the preparation of the SB 743 Implementation for the Town of Los Gatos (July 2020) document package. The document package provides detailed technical information pertaining to the options and data considered by the Town of Los Gatos to implement VMT as an impact criterion.

At its November 17, 2020 meeting, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2020-045, Designating the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled as the Metric for Conducting Transportation Analyses Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Establishing the Thresholds of Significance to Comply with California Senate Bill 743.

The CEQA Statue & Guidelines allow exemptions to projects meeting certain criteria. Project applicant may review the exemptions before preparing CEQA analysis for projects.

Based on the Town’s implementation of SB 743, the following methods should be used to determine VMT impact thresholds and mitigation requirements for land use projects.

3.1 VMT Analysis Methods
The Town elected to conduct a complete VMT analysis consistent with the General Plan future year VMT projections based on long-term expectations for air quality and GHG expectations as part of its General Plan EIR, so that it could make specific use of CEQA Statue & Guidelines Section 15183 to streamline project-specific CEQA analysis that is consistent with its General Plan and other Town documents. For the Town of Los Gatos, addressing transportation VMT impacts in the Town General Plan EIR is a useful way of understanding VMT impacts and how VMT reduction should be balanced against other community values related to the environment, social justice, and the community. By conducting a Town-wide VMT impact analysis, the Town is able to develop a program-based VMT mitigation approach. The concept of a ‘program’ approach to impact mitigation is commonly used in a variety of technical subjects, including

Page 897 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Los Gatos City Council
September 19, 2023