TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 04/26/2017 ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM DATE: APRIL 26, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-023, SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-16-002, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-16-003. PROJECT LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: DOUG RICH, VALLEY OAK PARTNERS. PROPERTY OWNER: SOUTH BEACH PARTNERS LLC AND CUMULUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, REMOVE A SECOND UNIT, REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES, AND MERGE FOUR LOTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BELOW GRADE AND AT GRADE PARKING. APNS 529-11-013, -038, -039, AND -040. DEEMED COMPLETE: JANUARY 5, 2017 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: JULY 5, 2017 REMARKS: Exhibit 31 includes public comments received after distribution of the April 26, 2017 Addendum Report. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously received with January 25, 2017 Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA Associate Planner Reviewed by: Community Development Department Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003 DATE: APRIL 26, 2017 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (21 pages) 5. Letter of Justification/Project Description (three pages), received March 3, 2016 6. Neighborhood Meeting Outcome and Attendees (two pages), received September 13, 2016 7. Consulting Arborist s First Report (46 pages), dated February 12, 2016 8. Consulting Arborist s Second Report (seven pages), dated June 10, 2016 9. Consulting Arborist s Addendum (two pages), dated July 22, 2016 10. Consulting Architect s Report (three pages), received May 5, 2016 11. January 13, 2016 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes (two pages) 12. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (eight pages) 13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated January 5, 2017 14. Public Comment (seven pages) 15. Development Plans (29 pages), received January 5, 2017 Previously received with January 25, 2017 Addendum Report: 16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 24, 2017 17. Additional information provided by the application, received January 24, 2017 (two pages) 18. Project information sheet provided by the Parks and Public Works Department, received January 24, 2017 (four pages). Previously received with January 25, 2017 Desk Item Report: 19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, January 24, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, January 25, 2017 (four pages) Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report: 20. Communication from the applicant, received February 21, 2017 (misidentified as Exhibit 16 in the March 22, 2017 Staff Report) Previously received with April 26, 2017 Staff Report: 21. Revised Required Findings and Considerations 22. Revised Conditions of Approval (21 pages) 23. Project Submittal Summary of Changes, received March 14, 2017 (two pages) 24. Project Submittal Summary of Changes Addendum, received April 7, 2017 (12 pages) 25. February 16, 2017 Neighborhood Meeting Attendees, received February 17, 2017 (two pages) 26. Applicant s Traffic Consultant Letter, received March 31, 2017 (three pages) 27. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 25, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2017 28. Revised Development Plans, received March 14, 2017 (28 sheets) N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Winchester 15860-15894 04.26.17 DESK.docx 4/26/2017 11:40 AM
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003 DATE: APRIL 26, 2017 Previously received with April 26, 2017 Addendum Report: 29. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 25, 2017 30. Revised Project Information Sheet provided by the Parks and Public Works Department, received April 25, 2017 (five pages) Received with this Desk Item Report: 31. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, April 25, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, April 26, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Winchester 15860-15894 04.26.17 DESK.docx 4/26/2017 11:40 AM
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shauna and Bob Garzee 704 Winchester Blvd Los Gatos, CA 95030 April 23, 2017 Jocelyn Puga Town of Los Gatos Planning Comm ission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA Subject: 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard. Architecture and Site Application S-16-023 Dear Jocelyn and Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am writing with regards to the proposed office building at 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd. My husband and I live at 704 Winchester Blvd in the University Oaks condominium complex which is the immediate neighboring southern property to the project. I along with other homeowners of University Oaks and other impacted neighbors have been in discussion with the developer via their representative, Doug Rich. We met in person with Doug and his team several times regarding impacts to our homes and neighborhood with the developer working on some of the issues we raised but in no way, have they addressed the serious concerns which have been raised. Our concerns are in the areas of size, design, traffic, parking and safety which I have outlined below. I request consideration for the following: Reduce the size of the development so that our residences are not faced with a looming wall by either reducing the height to one story or reducing to less than 35 feet. Improve the buffering between University Oaks and the proposed complex by adding more and taller plantings or trees to help reduce the impact of a looming wall and maintain some semblance of the residential neighborhood feel that we currently enjoy. Mitigate the potential safety issues of the unsecured stairwell and buffer area between the wall on our property and the office complex. Restructure the parking such that there are not cars visible to and headlights pointing towards the homes in University Oaks. Eliminate left turns from the Winchester driveway. Remove the newly added floor to ceiling windows on the south side to protect privacy of residences and eliminate the likelihood of lights shining into our homes and neighborhood during the night. Consider a design that is more in keeping with the look and feel of the immediate neighborhood. Size The size of the proposed office is massive in comparison to other office complexes along Winchester south of Lark Avenue. The next largest complex in the vicinity is the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office which is significantly smaller. Even with the changes to the proposed complex since the last Planning Commission the build will still loom over us due to the complex being at the maximum height of 35 feet and the way they proposed to develop the property with an underground garage and then two full stories on top of the garage. We will basically have a huge 35-foot wall of building along the upper south side of our community. That along with the loss of many large oak trees will significantly alter views and negatively impact residents on the south side of this complex. Design The design of this complex is definitely not in keeping with the 'look and feel' of Los Gatos and does not in any way blend into the neighborhood. Allowing this size and design will likely set precedent for what EXHIBIT 3 1
other redeveloped properties along Winchester will look like forever changing a very charming area into something that does not blend with the local look and feel. The recent addition of large floor to ceiling windows along the south side of the build will further erode the privacy of the residences to the south as now office building occupants will have a direct view into residences plus a very high likelihood of office lighting impacting us during evening/night. Traffic This complex will add a significant amount of traffic to the immediate area. Turning onto Winchester from University Oaks driveways is currently difficult due to sight line and the speed at which motorist drive. Additionally, this is a heavily travelled student route during the morning and afternoon. Given the dangers of pulling out onto Winchester the developer should be mitigating the chance of accidents by not allowing left turns from the complex driveway. However, despite our continuing to raise these safety issues the developer will not make changes such as not allowing left turns onto Winchester or other allowances as they feel it could impact a tenant's interest in the building. Parking The current development shows 40 parking spots at grade. However, it should be noted that at grade is a misnomer as the parking will be much higher than the current driveway on the property. The parking on the south side of the complex along the driveway has cars pointing directly at our complex generating both lighting and privacy concerns. Given the height difference there will be car lights shining into our homes plus the potential for people to see into the homes. The developer changed the design to include a wall rather than a screen but is not interested in making changes to this parking lot that would help with the issue of car lights and left turns onto Winchester. Safety There are several elements of this development with raise safety concerns for us. First, there is a stairwell leading to/from the parking garage that is approximately 5 feet from to our property line with an open space between the complex property and our wall. The developer has told us they have no plans to secure this stairwell. This is a concern as it is a spot that could attract unwanted and possible dangerous activity during off hours. In closing we believe that it is in the best interest of the Town and the neighborhood to address these concerns by reducing the scope of this complex into something that is in keeping with the look and feel of the neighborhood and Los Gatos. Thank you, Shauna and Bob Garzee
Jocelyn Puga From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:51 PM Jocelyn Puga Joel Paulson; Georgina Van Horn Further information on sight lines in response to new Hexagon Transportation Consultants Jocelyn and planning commission, Please include this as part of the public record. I would like to comment on the new report from Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated March 31st submitted to the planning commission (exhibit 26). The report includes a photograph documenting potential sight lines for left turns. Please note the following: 1. The photograph was taken standing in the street. 2. If the photograph was the vantage point of a driver, the driver's car would already be the entire length of the bumper, hood, dashboard and driving wheel into the road (something I would estimate to be around 6'). 3. The street in this case is the existing curb. The plan includes moving the curb several feet backward from the current curb making the starting viewpoint of casual drivers much worse than this or my submitted photos shows. 4. The vehicle shown in the picture looks to be parked, if not parallel to the first tree, maybe even the second tree. If you instead consult the photograph I submitted where the car is parked at the start oflegal parking, this is almost a car length difference. If you consider the photo of the illegal but normal parking this is almost three cars difference. 5. The photo seems to be taken before the trees had the spring foliage. In summer, these trees block the view far more than when they are fully leafed. I would assert this photograph is very misleading and question the validity of findings therefore. As someone who turns from this location every day, I definitely state this view in no way represents the actual sight lines a driver needs to consider. As the neighbors have stated multiple times, this is a very real threat to human lives. Safety needs to consider the worst case sight lines, not this absolute best case exaggeration. This is not a question of queuing and traffic annoyances. This is a case where only one accident could affect the lives of those traveling within our town. Note that the neighbors have suggested a potential solution that avoids the need for this entrance altogether mitigating multiple safety and traffic concerns. We suggested the consideration of a single entrance off Shelburne with an up/down ramp servicing both parking levels. Thank you Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com) 1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank