Item 1 - 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard Desk Item and Attachment 9PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 06/10/2020
ITEM NO: 1
DESK ITEM
DATE: June 10, 2020
TO: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-20-002.
Project Location: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard. APNs 529-11-
013, 38, 039, and 040. Property Owner/Applicant: Green Valley Corp.
D.B.A. Swenson Builders.
Requesting Preliminary Review of a Proposal for Construction of an
Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility; or Construction of a Mixed-Use
Building on Property Zoned O.
REMARKS:
Attachment 9 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, June 5,
2020 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 10, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously received with June 10, 2020 Staff Report:
1.Location map
2.CDAC application
3.Project Description Letter
4.Project Data Summary Concept A
5.Project Data Summary Concept B
6.Conceptual Plan Concept A
7.Conceptual Plan Concept B
8.Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 5, 2020
Received with this Desk Item Report:
9.Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, June 5, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 9
June 9, 2020
Dylan Parker
702 Winchester Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95030
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMITTAL
To: Conceptual Design Advisory Committee
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Supplemental Comments for Swenson Development Proposal; Conceptual
Development Application CD-20-002
Dear Members of the Committee,
This letter serves as supplemental comments based on Swenson’s project description
letter and project data for both proposed projects to augment my original comments
transmitted to the Committee on June 4th via Staff. I am adding supplemental
comments as these documents were not available on the Town’s website as of May
27th, 2020 when I originally retrieved the two plan sets. I was made aware of these
items when accessing the Town’s website on June 4th to confirm final details in my
original email. Here are my additional thoughts for consideration:
1.Swenson asserts that both projects are “less impactful option” in their undated
project description letter. However, both projects are larger in square footage to
the previously approved office building based on their project data sheets.
2.Swenson’s statement of “but these may be altered dependent upon an identified
operator for the facility” implies that no “tenant” is lined up to occupy the building;
the same issue Valley Oak encountered in the failed attempt to develop the
previously approved office building. As a neighbor, I would prefer to know who is
running the facility to research their track record regarding patient health and
quality of care especially in light of current events of how quickly COVID-19
spread through nursing care/group home facilities.
3.Swenson did not provide the correct plan sets for review of the three story
apartment building when the uploaded plans only reflect two stories. This
misleads and confuses members of the community.
4.Swenson’s project data tables are missing critical information such as General
Plan designation, Zoning District, APN, parcel size, that has to be gleaned from
other sources which makes it challenging for members of the community to
understand clearly. In my opinion it is the burden of the applicant to provide all
the information they can to the community for a productive conversation and
informed decision process. Information that the applicant can easily glean from
public records/staff/Town Planning website.
5.Swenson’s apartment building project data table notes 100 market units. Even with
the Town’s highest density residential zone of R-M, the density is capped at 20
dwelling units per acre. In this instance, Swenson could only develop 26 units. So
how do they bridge the gap between 26 and 100? They fail to mention in the
description the intent to provide affordable housing. However, even if you consider
the Town’s generous 100% density bonus which would net an additional 26 units if
they meet the affordable housing requirements, Swenson is still short 48 units. Not
providing this information and not providing density calculations is another example
of how this is inaccurate description of the proposed projects and further erodes
Swenson’s assertion that the project is the “less impactful option”.
6.The statement in Swenson’s description letter, “after early feedback from community
members and property neighbors, the Senior Living Memory Care and Assisted
Living facility has been the favored use versus the Mixed-Use Apartment Building.
Based on this feedback, Swenson has further developed design and massing for the
senior care facility” is a stretch of the truth in my opinion. As an attendee of the
meeting, I agree that the group determined that the use was preferred out of the two
presented, but there was also expressions of concern about the use altogether
which isn’t quite conveyed in this statement. Also, our community did not receive
any additional information from Swenson after this March meeting, so we had no
additional input after this meeting and in the design presented to you which does not
reflect the community’s shared concerns which were outlined in the HOA letter
forwarded to the Committee on June 5th
I ask again that the Committee consider these thoughts and my previous June 4th
thoughts and reject the projects primarily based on the incompleteness of the information
provided to have a productive conversation or make an informed decision and the clear
evidence of Swenson’s lack of care or consideration to our community’s needs.
Yours respectfully,
Dylan Parker
702 Winchester Boulevard
Cc: University Oaks Homeowner’s Association