10 Attachment 2 - August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Addendum Report, with Exhibit 15PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/9/2023
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: August 8, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four
Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care
Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone,
Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on
Property Zoned O. Located at 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and
17484 Shelburne Way. APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. Architecture
and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010,
Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project.
Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 15 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1.Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at
http://www.losgatosca.gov/15860WinchesterBoulevard)
Previously received with August 9, 2023 Staff Report:
2.Location Map
3.Required Findings
4.Draft Conditions of Approval for Architecture and Site, Variance, and Lot Merger
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21-
010, M-22-008, V-21-003, and ND-22-001
August 8, 2023
EXHIBITS (continued):
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
6. Project Description
7. Letter of Justification
8. Market Study
9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report
10. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Arbor Resources
11. Town's Consulting Arborist Peer Review by Monarch Consulting Arborists
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Development Plans
14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2023
Received with this Addendum Report:
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
From: Georgina Van Horn
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 5:27 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Planning Commission Mtg Wed. Aug. 9
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission,
This email is concerning the Architecture and Site Applcatiom S-21-008 15860 Winchester Blvd. I live
at . one of the two closest townhouses at the .
The building proposed for the site is enormous! It comes almost to our wall that separates the two
properties. It would overwhelm the entire area south of Daves Ave. and a main entrance into
town. Winchester Blvd. from Lark is lined with trees to Daves. From that point all the buildings are low
and mostly behind trees.
We at the have worked to keep us looking like a woodsy area because of the parks
right across the street from us on University Ave. Also to keep our small town feel.
My townhouse door faces the huge side of the two to three story building. They would be looking
into my upstairs three bedroom windows and I would be able to see into their windows.
The town has a 40% coverage. They are asking for 50%. Looking at the front of the building it looks
like it takes the whole lot. We should be able to see that it only covers 40%!
I ask you to please consider these many factors. Having a building that size would not only impact
this whole area but also many lives.
Thank you for all your work for our town.
Sincerely,
Georgina Van Horn
EXHIBIT 15
From: Demian Raspall
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Dave Weigand; Karen Vincent
Subject: Swenson's Development Proposal for 15860 Winchester Boulevard [S-21-008, U-21-010, V-21-
003, M-22-008]
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Members of the Conceptual Design Advisory Committee,
I am the serving president of the University Oaks Homeowners Association. Our community is located
directly adjacent to the proposed development by Swenson.
On behalf of our homeowners, I kindly request the attached pdf letter to be included in the packet for the
CDAC meeting, and thoughtfully considered when reviewing Swenson's application.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Demian Raspall
on behalf of University Oaks Homeowners.
Ref: Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit U-21-010, Variance Application
V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008
University Oaks Condominium Association
707 University Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
August 7 th 2023
Via electronic mail
Ref: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
Dear Members of the Conceptual Design Advisory Committee,
We would like to share our concerns regarding the proposed project on the adjacent parcels to
our community. We believe this project, as presented, is not a good fit for our town. This
situation is amplified by the developer's lack of interest in being a good neighbor.
Lack of communication
● Swenson has been developing this project for the last few years. However, the last
communication we had with them was in October 2020 when they shared their
preliminary design and we provided our initial feedback.
● For more than 30 months Swenson refined the project without seeking any feedback
from our community.
● 2 weeks ago, in the midst of confusion with the hearing dates, they reached out to
schedule a meeting with us. We held that meeting on August 2nd.
● Swenson shared, for the first time with us, their project plans in the application. Their
general tone was “ this project is finalized, you can voice your concerns at the public
hearing ”.
● As far as we know, Swenson has not reached out to other members of the community
either.
We are extremely disappointed with the way Swenson has treated us. Following our initial
feedback in 2020 we have never been approached again. We have serious concerns with the
design but we were never given an opportunity to discuss with them. They clearly had no
interest in getting our input on their design.
Page 1 of 2
Size of the building facing our community
● The proposed building is massive in size and has a very tall facade facing our University
Oaks community.
● The buffer area between our community and Swenson’s building is insufficient to
provide visual screening and sound abatement.
● Swenson argues they kept only 2 stories facing our property but, in reality, because of
the steep grade it is really a 3 story structure.
● Project is not designed with the neighborhood context or surrounding environment in
mind, like the existing scale and character of surrounding structures. This area would be
better suited with the established character of the area of single and two story
residential and non-residential structures.
Additional concerns raised by members of our community include
● Density
● Parking/Traffic
● Bulk/Massing/Height
● Tree removal
● Visibility/Privacy
● Artificial Light Encroachment/Shadow Effect of Building
We would have liked an opportunity to sit with the developer, discuss our concerns and be
given an opportunity to explore alternatives that can make their building compatible with our
needs . Unfortunately, Swenson has avoided contact with our community and downplayed the
size and impact of their project, with us and with the community at large, by avoiding outreach.
It is not only disappointing but it also sets a very bad precedent as to how land development
could be conducted in our town .
We understand it is the responsibility of our community to provide for senior housing, we also
understand there is a reasonable standard of what needs to be provided and this project
exceeds this standard significantly in respect to density, height, bulk, and overall compatibility
within the surrounding community. Had we been given an opportunity to discuss with the
developer and attempt to unlock that middle ground, we could be approaching This
Commission with different feedback.
We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns and look forward to your
thoughts on the matter.
Yours truly,
Residents of University Oaks Homeowners Association.
Page 2 of 2
From: Suzanne Rollin
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:47 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed project for redevelopment located at 15860 Winchester
Blvd. adjacent to the where I have lived for over 25 years.
I recently attended a meeting of our homeowners association with a representative of Swenson and I
have reviewed the presentation of their plans online. I wish to express my concerns:
The size of the proposed building relative to other buildings and residences on Winchester Blvd. is
enormous. In addition, Swenson is asking for usage of 50% of the land vs. 40%. Swenson is also asking
for a height variance in excess of 35 feet. The effect of the massive size of the proposed building, its
height and 10 foot setback from the wall of our property will place our homes in a cavern. In addition,
the proposed building will have residential units with windows that will look directly into some of our
homes. Swenson’s drawings and video of the proposed building do not illustrate what their building will
look like next to our complex, resulting in a less than accurate illustration of the project.
It appears that Swenson is relying on a 2016 Traffic Operation Analysis that is very out of date. There is
very heavy traffic on Winchester Blvd., particularly on weekends. The recent addition of the bike lanes
has also affected traffic. My understanding is that in addition to the residents, there will be 24
employees at the building per shift, in addition to the traffic generated by deliveries and residents
coming and going.
I am also concerned that the proposed building does not negatively impact the two very large and old
oak trees (Large Protected Trees) on our property.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Rollin
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Eric Hulser
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Objection to 15860 Winchester Blvd
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Jennifer,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Blvd. I apologize if there is
another email I should send this to. This is the formal document I am submitting, and I will be
presenting some additional slides tomorrow in-person at the council meeting.
Thank you,
Eric Hulser
Dear Council Members,
My name is Eric Hulser, I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Ashley
Abercrombie Hulser, as well as my fellow homeowners in the
located at . We are the nearest
neighbors to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Boulevard and are writing in
strong opposition of this project plan’s approval. They have submitted to the planning
committee variance requests that go far above what is an acceptable adjustment and I
intend to show plainly why these should be rejected.
Zoning Requirements
Firstly, this property is zoned for Office use. I understand that they have been granted a
conditional use permit to build an assisted living facility - and we have aligned with them
on that. However, these are no longer offices, these are going to be residential units -
units with living rooms and bedrooms and courtyards for their residents, with units
directly facing our homes in our property. Based on the project plans, this building
aligns to the definition of an R-M zone, which defines requirements for assisted living
facilities with courtyards as this project is proposing - as such, we should hold the
building requirements to the same standard. For instance, in zoning for an Office, the
height limit is 35 feet and the setback requirements from a side wall are 10 feet, which is
what this plan is built toward. But in an R-M zone, there are specific callouts for
buildings with living and bedroom windows facing a side wall, as this building will have.
In that case the setback requirement is 20 feet, not 10. In addition, any parts of these
buildings that are not over cellar parking should then have a 30 foot height limit as
opposed to 35 feet. This may be zoned as an office, but they are not building an office,
they are building a multi-family residential assisted living building, they cannot treat it as
an office.
Variance Requests
Going then into the requests,the height variance that is being requested here is to
exceed 35 feet -much of this building goes as high as 50 feet above the finished grade.
This is not a slight variance,depending on the zoning requirement we set that is 15-20
feet above the height limit for our community.The net result of this is a building that is
far larger than anything else on this street,and a size that has caused various other
issues with this project already.
Image References
This view is on page 32 of the Project Plan submitted to the city.You can clearly see
where they are claiming the Maximum Allowed Height,and it is called out as being
above the natural grade -that is not the measurement,the finished grade is clearly
lower and should be what is used per our zoning requirements.
This is a more accurate representation of this page and the variance request according
to the R-M requirements,assuming this finished grade to be where the garage parking
is located (so still 35’in the back).
Similarly this is the view presented on page 43 of their project plan document,this would be the
theoretical view from our property.However,again,this is a misrepresentation as this vantage
point would only be achievable if you were behind our homes -it is rendered as though our
property does not exist.
The second render clearly shows a height limit and attempts to portray that the building is
underneath it in its entirety -going as far as completely omitting the building behind it as though
it does not exist,and does not even align with the first image..
Overall,this rendering is blatantly false as that is not the height limit as shown below.
This view found on page 51 however gives the same vantage point,without the trees and walls
from the render,which clearly shows the finished grade going well below the natural grade that
they are claiming to be the height limit in the previous image -though their height limit line does
adjust accordingly which shows they are aware of the discrepancy.Here,they conveniently do
not include the variance area shading -they show it in yellow on their diagram,however do not
fill it in,leading to a misrepresentation again that there is no variance area..
If we fill in the variance properly against the roofline (as per the zoning requirement which calls
out the height being measured to the grade directly beneath that point)then we get a very
different picture than the above renderings provided by the developer.Again,I would like to
stress these are residential units not office rooms -those are living quarters coming out to a
patio on that bottom floor,there is no cellar parking for this building,and thus should have a
height limit of 30’.
From the rear however is where you truly see the size of this building and the insane amount
above the height limit it is.
This roofline goes to 50’above the finished grade,that is 15-20’above the height limit,for a
large percentage of this project.
In addition,when viewed from above,you can also see the 10’setback limit,based on the other
renders that show the redline being 10’from the side wall.This whole building is 10’too close
to the side -given the fact that these are living patios and quarters for residents,it should be 20’
away.
These are a lot of variances that go well above the intended limits.In addition to these,this is a
very large lot and yet still the developer is proposing to go over that as well using 28,436 square
feet of their 56,889 square feet,above the limit by 10%.This is a massive project and it seems
unfathomable to grant these requests given their size,impact and gross delta above the norm.
Netting Requirements +Public Opposition
Moving beyond the zoning limitations,we have already seen two variances granted for
this project in addition to its conditional use permit -the first to avoid using netting to
mark out the building lines and the second to avoid putting up additional flags when the
builder failed to do it properly in the beginning.The reason they were unable to properly
net this project is directly related to its size.It is so far above the limit that it created an
unsafe condition for them to net.If they simply built a building to code then this would
not have been an issue.
I would also like to call out that I was at the town hall meeting in April when the second
variance was granted.I raised the point that this project is not garnering the appropriate
attention within the community to raise awareness about the size and scope to drive a
proper opposition to it.The actions since seem to align with an attempt to thwart or
dissuade this opposition.The poles that exist remain in a derelict state -the poles are
leaning over,the flags are deteriorated.The developer was granted the second
variance by the council citing the reasoning that it would take too long to fix due to the
rains,erecting billboards would be faster.The hearing was in April,the billboards did
not appear until late June or early July,I do not recall exactly when because the are so
innocuous that it did not draw my attention,which was their explicit purpose and I was
even looking for them.For someone not familiar with the project or area,simply driving
down Winchester Boulevard to their home,they would likely not know it is there -let
alone see the QR code to go view the movie.
In addition,the billboard had the incorrect date for the hearing (or we had the incorrect
cards)however as of July 14th when we received our cards for the hearing,and up until
the day of on the town’s agenda,this hearing was stated for July 27th,not August 9th.
Whether deliberate or accidental,or due to the length of time for the billboards to be
erected,this undoubtedly created confusion for those who were following along to
communicate their opposition.
Renderings
This leads me to the next point on the renderings.We met with the developer on
August 2nd and brought up multiple objections to these views.Many of them do not
properly show the building in context.These angles show vantage points that would be
well farther removed from the side of the building they claim to represent,particularly
where our community is concerned.The size and proximity of the building would not
really allow for it because as stated,it is too tall and too close to show an accurate
depiction from their side wall -it is virtually on top of our property.We will include
videos from our community showing the true vantage point,and have asked for updates
from the developer to show more of the building within proper scope and context of the
community.Their video from their billboard does show a bit more,but none of the plans
that are included on the towns website include that,so unless someone noticed this
signage and actively slowed themselves down to access that QR code link,they would
not have seen it.
Traffic Operations Analysis
In addition to the variances,the size of this project will have a very large impact on traffic in the
Los Gatos Community.As with numerous aspects of this project proposal,the traffic operations
analysis that is being presented is outdated.This document references the “results of the
intersection LOS analysis from the 2016 approved office development transportation study”and
the fact that they claim there will not be a substantial change in impact to not perform an
updated analysis.In addition the Site Access and Circulation analysis that accounts for the
safety of pedestrians and cyclists was conducted on October 13th 2020.Given that this section
is outlining the driveway site requirements and how to ensure a safe vantage point for vehicles
to see cyclists,this needs to be revisited now that Winchester Boulevard has a new dedicated
bike lane that was not present at the time of the initial study.
Beyond those oversights,we believe the trip estimation number provided needs to be revisited
as well.The developer sites usage of ITE’s Trip Generation Manual,Tenth Edition as their
source for trip estimation which was published in 2017.The Eleventh Edition of this manual
was published in 2021 with more updated multimodal trip generation data and specifically calls
out changes to the Assisted Living (254)and Congregate Care Retirement Community (255)
rates in their Updates to the Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition summary.These would have
a direct impact on the estimations.The other objection we have with this calculation is that it
only factors in the residential units -the number of beds and units within the facility and that due
to the nature of the residents,there is likely to be less travel impact.
However,later in the same document they reference that the VTA would treat an Assisted Care
facility more akin to a hospital.This is due to the staff working there and trips that will be
generated as far as loading,unloading of supplies as well as visitors to the residents in the
community.These trips will happen at all ours of the day,as it also states (however does not
factor into the calculation)there will be as many as 24 employees per shift,which will need 24
hour staffing,which can generate upwards of 144 trips that are unaccounted for alone (24
employees x 3 shifts x 2 trips).There is no mention of just how many additional ancillary trips
there may be,however given the amount of times loading and unloading are called out within
this document,it seems to be a valid assumption that there will be frequent occurrences -
considerably more than an office in today’s hybrid work environment.
Overall at minimum we would request this study to be redone with the latest data and sources
as we cannot rely on an impact study performed over seven years ago based on data derived in
2017.Given the importance and focus that the city is placing on traffic,getting an updated and
accurate assessment seems critical.Just in April at the town hall I joined,I saw constituent after
constituent implore the council to improve the safety of our intersections after a young mother
passed away after being hit right up the road by a vehicle on Blossom Hill.Any project that
would see a net increase in our traffic so substantially should be heavily scrutinized in order to
ensure we are keeping our community safe,and the reason we would see such a high increase
with this project is directly correlated to its size,which is only enabled by granting these
variance requests.
Protected Trees
The final point we would like to bring to the council’s attention is the consideration of the two
large oaks that exist on our property.The arborist study that the developer presented only
assesses the impact to the trees directly on their property,however the construction of this new
building -and the height of it -will likely have an impact on the trees in our community as well,
given the obstruction to the sun and the potential shock impact to their root system as they sit
less than 15 feet away from the adjoining property.
These oaks would be defined as protected under the town’s Large Protected Tree definition as
they are over Oaks over 24 inches in diameter.Any project that we undertake within our
community we consult the arborist for to ensure no impact to these oaks,at minimum we would
request the developer conduct an updated study to understand the impact to them and adjust
any plans according to the findings.
Conclusion
Taken all together,we believe that the best course of action would be for the council to simply
deny this project the variance requests they are seeking,and would deeply implore the
members to vote as such.We have already supported the conditional use to build an assisted
living facility - let’s simply require the building to be built properly according to our zoning
requirements.
Approving these requests, and thus allowing this project to go forward despite the many
limitations it breaks would seem grossly outside of the town’s principles as well as set a
precedent for other such massive developments in the future.
Denying these requests however would help (1) our town maintain the overall aesthetic and
profile we’re striving for, (2) ensure that traffic stays within moderation per the property size, (3)
provide a building of appropriate size, scale and presentation for the community to properly
consider and (4) ensure no undue risk to the natural environment that we’re so proud of within
our community.
We implore you to vote against the granting of these variance requests and the approval of this
project as is all together.
Sincerely,
Ashley & Eric Hulser
Los Gatos, CA
8 August 2023 Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Subject: Winchester Memory Care/Assisted Living Facility Planning Commission 8/9/2023 Agenda Item #3 Dear Chair Barnett and Commission Members, I am writing to clarify and correct my letter of August 1, 2023 regarding the proposed Winchester Memory Care/Assisted Living Facility. I am in support of the facility as originally approved by the Planning Commission. The new proposal has greatly expanded the size of the original proposal which I do not support. While I support additional assisted living and memory care options in Los Gatos, I cannot support the newly proposed expansion of the Winchester facility on 15860 Winchester Blvd. The opinions contained in this letter are strictly my own. Respectfully yours, Tom Picraux S. Tom Picraux Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Bryan Mekechuk
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
Thank you for meeting with me yesterday.
This email is to advise you, and the Planning Commission, that I will submit a detailed
letter setting forth my thoughts on the proposed development at 15860 Winchester
Boulevard.
I fully understand and support Staff’s recommendation of “Denial” for Architecture and
Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance
Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative
Declaration ND-22-001.
You will receive a detailed letter from me tomorrow, and I will attend the meeting
tomorrow evening.
Best regards,
Bryan
--
Bryan Mekechuk