10 Attachment 3 - August 9, 2023, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 16PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/9/2023
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: August 9, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of One Existing Office and Four
Residential Buildings, Construction of an Assisted Living and Memory Care
Facility, Variance from the Maximum Height and Lot Coverage of the Zone,
Merger of Four Lots Into One, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on
Property Zoned O. Located at 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and
17484 Shelburne Way. APNs 529-11-013, -038, -039, and -040. Architecture
and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010,
Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared for This Project.
Applicant/Property Owner: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a. Swenson.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 16 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023, and
11:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 9, 2023.
The Staff Report inadvertently omitted reference to the Conceptual Development Advisory
Committee (CDAC) review of preliminary plans for the proposed project, which occurred on
June 10, 2020.
The agenda and link to the staff report are available online here:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06102020-1692.
The meeting minutes are available here:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06102020-1692
ATTACHMENT 3
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard and 17484 Shelburne Way/S-21-008, U-21-
010, M-22-008, V-21-003, and ND-22-001
August 9, 2023
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at
http://www.losgatosca.gov/15860WinchesterBoulevard)
Previously received with August 9, 2023 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings
4. Draft Conditions of Approval for Architecture and Site, Variance, and Lot Merger
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit
6. Project Description
7. Letter of Justification
8. Market Study
9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report
10. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Arbor Resources
11. Town's Consulting Arborist Peer Review by Monarch Consulting Arborists
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Development Plans
14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2023
Previously received with the August 9, 2023 Addendum Report:
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, August 8, 2023.
Received with this Desk Item Report:
16. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, August 9, 2023.
August 9, 2023 Los Gatos Planning Commision Public Comments – Swenson Project (Agenda Item #3)
1
Dear Planning Commission,
As a planner, I understand the importance of early and consistent engagement with affected
neighbors of any new development project. This engagement allows neighbors to express their
concerns to the project team and be part of the design process to ensure a project that is
compatible and, most importantly, welcomed by the neighborhood.
As a planner and an affected neighbor, I am disappointed in the applicant and Town staff's lack
of engagement, public outreach, and collaboration on this project.
Here are some points to consider in your deliberations:
1.The applicant only conducted one neighbor meeting, August 2nd (last Wednesday) with my
community on this version of the project.
2.Town staff received no public comments on the draft IS/MND because they failed to notice
the neighborhood adequately.
3.The applicant installed non-compliant story poles before receiving an exception and did
not attempt to install the approved alternatives before receiving a second exception for the
now-installed on-site project boards and video simulation (which no longer works as of
writing this letter).
4.The project’s Town webpage is cumbersome and lacks timely information like
upload/revision date, making navigating the project application packet challenging, even
for someone like me.
5.Town staff’s project oversight is lacking and biased towards the applicant; sending an
earlier (July 26, 2023) public hearing notice when the on-site boards states an August 9th
hearing date is one example.
6.In Section G of staff’s report, there is no mention of how the project does not meet the
following 2020 General Plan Land Use Element policies (not an exhaustive list) : LU-1.1,
1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 6.1 through 6.10, 7.2 through 7.4, 9.1, 9.9, 10.4
7.In Section G, Town staff references the 2040 General Plan in certain instances, but the
application was submitted in 2021 and should only be subject to the 2020 General Plan.
8.The applicant does not provide any information about the facility’s operations in the
application, mostly because they have yet to idenfity a potential operator.
9.Town staff relies on the applicant-provided market study, which are solely intended to
determine project financial feasibility and return on investment (ROI), to make required
CUP findings.
10.Project design makes heavy assumptions about the facility's operations such as required
number of units/beds, parking spaces, etc. without an identified operator or regulations for
such facilities.
EXHIBIT 16
August 9, 2023 Los Gatos Planning Commision Public Comments – Swenson Project (Agenda Item #3)
2
11. Assisted living facilities are regulated and licensed by the state. Still, no information in the
application packet confirms this facility would meet regulatory requirements (market study
makes vague statements such as “this market study assumes competent management
will be in place” and “proper adherence to state regulations is assumed.”)
12. This facility “is targeting at the high-end of the private pay marketplace” per the market
study(page 35, PDF page 136); not what a reasonable person would consider affordable
housing.
13. Project proposes senior housing, which would make this project not a pure commercial
use but moreso a mixed-use development, which has additional Code requirements such
as parking for each proposed use.
14. Variance findings cannot be made because the property does not have unique or
extraordinary circumstances; the height and lot coverage exceedances are a pure
disregard for Town development standards to make the project profitable
15. Applicant was aware, especially in light of the previous project’s administrative record of
proceedings, of the property’s challenges to development and what a project that fits the
neighborhood context would look like comparatively
16. Project does not fit within the neighborhood context of the surrounding community and
does not conform to O Zone development standards
17. My community has always been available to discuss and collaborate with the applicant,
but the applicant has made little effort to do so with us and other neighbors.
18. Town staff should of required more neighbor outreach from the early stages of this projects
as a requirement before setting this project for hearing.
19. The applicant’s August 2nd meeting was in vain; I do not realistically believe the applicant
will make any changes to the projects based on my community’s feedback this late in the
process
20. I support the proposed assisted living use, but not the project as-designed.
In sum, I hope the above points will help you determine that this project should be recommended
for denial not just based on staff’s inability to make the required Variance findings, but for two
other reasons: (1) general lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and (2) a
general lack of engagement, outreach, and collaboration with affected neighbors.
I look forward to continued engagement, outreach, and collaborative work with Swenson for a
much-needed uses in our community.
Respectfully submitted, Dylan Parker,
From: James Parker
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Swenson Public Comments
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
I have an additional question - why wasn't the staff report, meeting minutes, and public comments
received for the June 2020 CDAC meeting not included in the packet? It is part of the administrative
record of proceedings for the project and PC should be made aware of the CDAC's feedback and
directions provided early on in the Town's review process in light of public comments received. I am
hopeful this was an oversight and will be quickly corrected.
Please consider this email as additional public comments to forward as a desk item for the Wednesday
PC hearing.
-Dylan Parker
From: James Parker
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Swenson Public Comments
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Jennifer,
I have another supplemental public comment for today's Desk Item report (see below):
In my opinion, the project traffic analysis is inaccurate in many aspects:
1. Only weekday local traffic counts when weekend traffic should be taken into consideration. For
example, Winchester and University become parking lots during peak summer beach cut through
traffic. I have noticed this year alone (2023) that cut through traffic has increase dramatically both in
volume and duration.
2. Traffic report does not reflect the reconfiguration of Winchester Boulevard conducted in late 2022,
most notably the reduction of one northbound lane of travel and introduction of two buffered bike
lanes on both sides. In my observations, I have noticed that this new configuration has increased traffic
volumes during peak travel times (and during the hellacious beach traffic mentioned above).
3. Local traffic counts were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most people were not
commuting or otherwise generating VMTs. The consultant instead uses a questionable tactic of
adjusting the counts upward to match total volumes from a 2016 study conducted for the previous
office building project. Perhaps more counts should of been conducted in 2023 to more accurately
reflect current commute patterns in light of the COVID pandemic restrictions expiring or otherwise not
being an determining factor of artificially lowering the counts.
This list could go on, but I am stopping at three points since I think is is quite evident with these
comments, and the ones previously provided, that staff really was not reviewing these documents and
or managing the application packet as thoroughly as I would expect as a fellow planner. All the items I
have commented on thus I would customarily flag and comment to my applicants in the intial
completeness (or what the Town calls deficiencies) review so they may correct before the project goes
to hearing.
It also begs the question of who was peer reviewing these documents on the Town's behalf? It is
commonplace for this size of project to have Town consultants do so, at the applicant's expense, to
provide an unbiased third party opinion.
-Dylan Parker
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
August 9, 2023
Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860 Winchester Boulevard Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001d
We support Staff’s recommendation of “Denial” for the applications noted above and request that the
Planning Commission deny the applications.
For context, we own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the corner of Winchester
and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed development. We have owned
since 1997. Also, we own a dwelling at in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the
Los Gatos community for the past 20 years – we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable
development that fits with Los Gatos. Attached to this letter are six (6) individual letters that we have written
regarding this property since 2017.
As evidenced by these letters, the various and changing Applicants to develop this landmark property on
Winchester Boulevard have created an immense amount of work by others to identify the problems and errors
in the applications. This effort has been undertaken by residents in the Los Gatos community, Town Staff, the
Planning Commission, and Town Council. The issues identified in the six letters that we have written have not
been addressed by the Applicant.
In this application, Mr. Jessie Bristow of Swenson Builders is requesting approval for demolition of four
residential buildings and associated detached structures, construction of an assisted living and memory care
facility, variance from the maximum height and lot coverage for the zone, merger of four lots into one, and
removal of large protected trees.
Swenson Builders has refused to work on the issues and communicate with the community. Specifically, there
has been no neighborhood outreach. While the Town does not require applicants to communicate with the
community, community outreach is a leading practice promoted by planning commissions in most jurisdictions
so applicants can understand and address community concerns prior to public hearings.
Immediately after the public hearing in the Town Council meeting on April 4, 2023 regarding the Applicant’s
request for a Story Pole Policy exemption, I met with Mr. Bristow, gave him my personal contact information,
and asked him to convene a neighborhood meeting that the residents of Via Sereno could attend. He indicated
that I live in Monte Sereno, not Los Gatos, and input from a neighboring jurisdiction is not required. Jesse
acknowledged my request then ignored me.
August 9, 2023 Page 2
Regarding the findings that must be made to approve the individual applications1 associated regarding the
proposed development at 15860 Winchester Boulevard, please note the following:
Outdated and Stale Plans and Reports
First, please note that the findings by Staff are based on outdated and stale plans. Please refer to all dates in
the documents, plans and reports. For example, the Winchester Memory Care Assisted Living sheets are dated
April 1, 2021 and the Existing Conditions are dated November 1, 2021.
The letters from the Applicant are dated from December 13, 2021 and the latest revision date is August 2,
2022. The conditions and statements in the letters should be current, not stale (e.g., traffic conditions, bicycle
conditions, neighborhood outreach and communications, etc.
The traffic study referred to by the Applicant, and relied on by Staff in the findings, is noted under the caption,
“Transportation Element”. This traffic study is inaccurate and outdated. See also Traffic Study by TJKM.
Several of the required findings to support these applications are included in the Town’s Consulting Architect
Report by Cannon Design Group. This report is dated May 4, 2021 and is stale. The photographs and
renderings do not include the Class IV bike lanes, which are an important and valuable feature of Winchester
Boulevard. Findings should cannot be based on outdated reports.
High Pressure Natural Gas Pipeline under Winchester Boulevard
Since we live on Winchester Boulevard, we receive confidential communications regarding Pacific Gas &
Electric’s high pressure natural gas transmission pipeline that feeds the Town of Los Gatos is under the
Northbound lane of Winchester Boulevard. This high pressure natural gas transmission line is similar to the
transmission line that exploded in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, killing eight people.
Please refer to the map published by Pacific Gas & Electric below.
1 Architecture and Site Application S-21-008, Conditional Use Permit Application U-21-010, Variance Application V-21-003, Subdivision
Application M-22-008, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-22-001.
August 9, 2023 Page 3
On sheet A-2.0, the Water Boiler, Generator and Electrical Room will be 25 feet from the property line. The
underground excavation for the underground garage will go further West from the finished wall. The location
of Pacific Gas & Electric’s high pressure natural gas transmission line is not noted on any of the plans (due to
the confidential nature of such transmission lines).
The smaller the setback, the closer excavation will be to the underground transmission line. The Applicant
should propose a setback that will include a safety factor that corresponds to the increased risk of disturbing
the existing high pressure natural gas transmission line. The front setback proposed in the prior application
was 35 to 44 feet along Winchester Boulevard – this should be considered as the underground setback as well.
Homeless Individual on Shelburne Way
The Town understands and estimates that there are an estimated 18 to 20 permanent homeless individuals
that reside in Los Gatos. The Town has funded initiatives to help these individuals. At the same time, the Town
has invested in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) consulting work.
Since we often walk on Shelburne Way, we have observed the permanent homeless person that lives in her car
at the South West corner of Shelburne Way and University Avenue.
Previously, the Town approved a 30,070 sq ft, two-story office building and the Applicant proposes a 81,633 sq
ft three-story facility. The larger the building at 15860 Winchester Boulevard, the more excavation and
concrete will be needed. The volume of trucks and length of construction time will increase dramatically.
Consideration should be given to how the increase in size will affect this homeless individual.
Traffic Study by TJKM
The Traffic Impact Analysis Report by TJKM dated March 25, 2022 cannot be used for any findings to support
these applications because it is wrong and outdated.
This report does not acknowledge or consider the effect of the existing Class IV bike lanes on Winchester
Boulevard (see 3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities). Further, Table 4 refers to intersection control as “Signal” at
Winchester Boulevard & Shelburne Way, and University Avenue & Shelburne Way. These signals do not exist.
Figure 6 is wrong.
Vehicle traffic timing and patterns associated with an assisted living and memory care facility, which operates
24 hours a day, 365 days per year, are materially different than traffic patterns associated with an office
building. Both our mothers spend their final years in assisted living facilities and we observed the visitor
patterns to the aging patients. Many of those visits are on weekends and during meal times. The children and
grandchildren of aging patients visit often on weekends.
Although “beach traffic” is at its worst on Saturdays, it is significant on Sundays. Any traffic studies used in
findings to support the applications must analyze and quantify the effect of staff and visitor traffic to 15860
Winchester relative to beach traffic. The traffic studies used do not consider such traffic patterns.
[rest of this page left blank]
August 9, 2023 Page 4
As recommended by Staff, we ask that the Planning Commission deny the applications related to 15860
Winchester Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Attachments
01/19/17 Letter to Planning Commission
01/24/17 Letter to Planning Commission – ADDENDUM
01/30/17 Letter to Doug Rich, Valley Oak Partners, LLC
10/14/17 Letter to Town Council
10/17/17 Letter to Town Council
10/22/22 Letter to Town Council
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 19, 2017
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
We own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the corner of Winchester
and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed development. We have
owned since 1997. In addition, we own a dwelling at in Los
Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years and we look
forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive
and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. We were invited to, and attended the
information session hosted by the applicant, then reviewed the story poles in December and
January, and went through the complete application as filed with the Town of Los Gatos.
After reviewing all information available and based on living opposite the property, in our opinion
the proposed development does not meet the required findings in order to be approved by the
Planning Commission. Specifically, the proposed project does not meet the Commercial Design
Guidelines regarding mass and scale.
Concerns
First, and foremost, one of the most desirable attributes of Los Gatos is its setting – Los Gatos is a
small town that is framed by beautiful hillsides on each side of Los Gatos Creek. The town prides
itself on maintaining its character and has approved developments that are consistent with its
character and setting. Importantly, the Town of Los Gatos (and Monte Sereno) have managed the
development of the surrounding hillsides to preserve their natural beauty for the enjoyment of
everyone.
The Town of Los Gatos established Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to manage the
development of the hillsides around Los Gatos. The Planning Commission has invested significant
time and resources to implement and maintain those guidelines, including the size and visibility of
January 19, 2017 Page 2
structures and even lighting at night (consider 15680 Gum Tree Lane). The Planning Commission
has been extremely diligent in protecting our hillsides.
Winchester Boulevard is one of the major arteries into Los Gatos and one has excellent views of
the hillsides when going South on Winchester into Los Gatos.
The proposed development will box in that view and establish a precedent for building height of
future developments along Winchester Boulevard. Specifically, the proposed application is to
build to the maximum allowed height of 35 feet.
The Office Professional zone starts at the Southernmost part of the proposed development and
continues North along Winchester to half way between Farley Road West and Pleasant View
Avenue. The full block between Shelburne Way and Farley Road West may still be developed.
Underscoring the precedent that this proposed building will establish, the applicant has even
included another two story building on the North side of Shelburne Way – see the sketch on sheet
IM1.2.
Although set back from Winchester, the face of the building is a monolithic wall, broken with two
open glass rooms looking down onto Winchester. While perhaps breaking the lines, these two
features serve to block the views of the hillsides even more as these features are higher than the
majority of the roofline.
The applicant stated in their covering letter, “Large glass openings complete the design while
providing plenty of natural light and views of the hills to the east.” The applicant acknowledges
the views and, by providing those views for their tenants, the proposed structure will blocking the
views for everyone else.
While the application is consistent with the general plan and zoning and may follow the ‘letter of
the law’, the application does not follow the ‘spirit of the law’ as set forth by the Town of Los
Gatos. For example, it is desirable to have a transition to building heights and other dimensions
at the perimeter of a zone and individual properties. Said differently, the general plan and zoning
is not an algorithm – hence the need and role for a Planning Commission to review proposed
developments, encourage community outreach and hold public hearings.
Approving the application with the maximum height will block views of the Los Gatos hillsides,
which the Town of Los Gatos has committed to preserve.
Denying the application as submitted should not be a surprise to a developer in Los Gatos.
Developers are encouraged to engage neighbors and other stakeholders prior to submitting their
application to the Planning Commission.
The applicant hosted an information session on September 12, 2016. I attended that
presentation and, with the others in the room, I found it difficult to understand the scale and
scope as no cross sections or elevations were presented – it was somewhat abstract. Since then,
the applicant has added additional information to their application (e.g., the sketch referred to
earlier with the two story building on the North side of Shelburne Way.
At that meeting, I asked a number of questions and outlined four major concerns: (1) size and
mass of the proposed structure; (2) traffic turning left into and left out of the at-grade parking
from/to Winchester Boulevard; (3) traffic turning left from Winchester Boulevard onto Shelburne
January 19, 2017 Page 3
Way for access into the underground parking; and (4) the loss of privacy related to a balcony at
the North side of the proposed building on Shelburne Way.
Given that I articulated these issues, I expected the applicant to follow up with me, one way or
another, since they requested my name and contact information from all attendees at the
information session.
Since the meeting, I did not receive any further communications from the applicant. Upon
reviewing the application as submitted to the Town of Los Gatos, none of my concerns were
addressed whatsoever. Clearly, the information session was a perfunctory ‘check the box’ step in
their application.
Considerations for Applicant
To support this application, which we would like to do, we offer the following for the applicant to
consider:
1. Move the building East by approximately 10 feet and lower the maximum height above grade,
as measured from Winchester Boulevard, to 25 feet. This will continue to allow views of the
iconic hillsides on the East side of Los Gatos.
2. Integrate sustainability elements in the design. For example, consider future mounts for solar
photovoltaic panels and even stationary storage (vs. generator back up). In their review of
the conceptual plans on January 13, 2016, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
commented, “LEED certification would be preferred.” The applicant ignored this comment
and has not outlined their reasons for doing so. Other applications in the Town of Los Gatos
pursue various levels of LEED certification (e.g., Silver or Gold).
3. Protect the Coastal Oak trees on the property that are being saved. This would be
accomplished by moving the building East and, to some extent, making the building length
shorter (not as far North to the Coastal Oak on Shelburne Way).
4. Prohibit vehicles from turning left when entering or exiting the at grade parking.
Given the opportunity, we will meet with the applicant to review proposed alternatives and
provide feedback.
* * * * * * *
It is in everyone’s best interest to see the site developed in such a way as to add value to the
developers, the surrounding neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 24, 2017
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Commissioners:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
For ADDENDUM
We are providing additional information to our letter dated January 19, 2017. In doing so, we reiterate
the following:
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and
sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. We do admire the style of the building.
To summarize this letter, we believe that the Planning Commission should CONTINUE the applications to
a later date so the applicant can:
1. Provide information as requested (e.g., additional cross sections and elevations) and answer
questions the applicant is unable to answer during the meeting.
2. Meet with interested members of the community and present information to them and receive
their feedback (i.e., additional community outreach).
3. Update the Transportation Impact Analysis to include traffic flows to/from Daves Avenue
Elementary School via Bruce Avenue.
If the Planning Commission must make a decision on January 25 then we ask that the Planning
Commission DENY the applications.
Increase Community Outreach
Unfortunately, as with the North 40, the Planning Commission (and Council) probably recognize now
that the public really doesn’t get involved until story poles are put in place. Until then, many members
of the community are reticent to review the plans in detail and focus on the proposed development.
The only outreach in the community for this project was a meeting held on September 12, 2016. Two
signs were erected when the story poles went up in December 2016, which is when the community
really became aware of the project.
We are disappointed with the limited community outreach associated with this application. It was
misleading to have the applicant’s structural engineer at the meeting on September 12, 2016 and then
see the applicant imply this person attended as a member of the community. Regardless of the intent,
the financial interest should be disclosed to be transparent to staff and the Planning Commission.
January 24, 2017 Page 2
On a positive note, the applicant did follow up with residents only immediately adjacent to the project,
which they promised to do at the September 12 meeting.
We are offering to attend any future meetings and provide feedback to the applicant, and we believe
others in the community may attend such meetings as well (similar to Alberto Way).
Provide Cross Sections and Elevations
During our review of the application, we found the single East/West and North/South cross sections to
be inadequate to understand the application. In addition, we believe the maximum height of the
building was stated incorrectly by the applicant as the highest point of the roof was noted at 414 ft
whereas the actual highest point is almost 416 ft.
Further, the applicant shows the reference elevation for the 35 ft maximum building height in the North
West corner of the project as 382 ft (see A2.0), and is 6-1/2 ft further West than most of the building.
That may be fine for that part of the building – the reference elevation for the Southern portion of the
building should be on the existing grade of the driveway, which is approximately 375 ft.
The reference elevation at the East side of the proposed building should be 372 ft. resulting in a
maximum height of 407 ft. The applicant has picked a “high point” and carried the absolute maximum
height across the property resulting in the proposed building exceeding the maximum allowable height
for Office Professional.
The elevations shown on A4.0 are difficult to understand as the land is sloped and the reference points
are not clear. The structure on the roof, behind the parapet, in the South East corner rises significantly
above the line of the raised seam steel roof, which is shown on A2.0 to be 35 ft above grade.
Please refer to the attached sketches identifying the eight cross sections and elevations that we would
like to see. For clarity, the reference elevations should be labeled on each drawing.
Perform Transportation Impact Analysis
Traffic studies are an estimate and are a starting point for any analysis. After reviewing the
transportation impact analysis completed by Hexagon Transportation Studies, Inc., we identified
significant gaps in the analysis and I spoke with the author of the report on Friday, January 19, 2017.
While the author acknowledged our concerns, he stood by the conclusions (as one would expect).
The major gap in the analysis was understanding the traffic flows generated by Daves Avenue
Elementary School. The traffic flows at the T intersection of Bruce Avenue and Winchester Boulevard,
just steps South and across the street from the proposed development were not identified whatsoever
in the analysis (see diagram below, taken from Figure 1 Site Locations and Study Intersections).
January 24, 2017 Page 3
Although the Town of Los Gatos specifically requested that the impact on Daves Avenue be considered
in the transportation impact analysis, the intent was probably to understand the impact on drop-off and
pick-up at Daves Avenue Elementary School. The report included the following:
The map below shows the streets in the vicinity; many drivers use Bruce Avenue when dropping off and
picking up students at Daves Avenue Elementary School:
January 24, 2017 Page 4
Failing to identify and analyze the traffic flows into and out of Bruce Avenue at Winchester damage the
credibility of the analysis and conclusions of the entire report. Anyone familiar with the area
understands the traffic routes surrounding drop-off (AM) and pick-up times (PM).
In addition, other student activities after school generate PM traffic by parents, teachers and staff, and
others. Further, it is difficult to establish traffic patterns related to Daves Avenue Elementary School
with only one data point (March 2016).
Restrict Entrance/Exit to At Grade Parking from Winchester Boulevard
The transportation impact analysis reviewed the Winchester entrance/exit to the at grade parking and
states, “Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. The speed limit on
Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way is 25 mph.” Very few vehicles follow the posted speed limit
on Winchester Boulevard. If actual vehicle speeds were only 25 mph then the recommendations
regarding the entrance/exit could be plausible – in reality, vehicles are generally accelerating after the
Blossom Hill/North Santa Cruz intersection and are going more than 30 mph where the entrance/exit
would be located.
Fortunately, since there is a vehicle speed indicator for Northbound traffic on Winchester Boulevard, it
would be easy to sample vehicle speeds to see how fast vehicles are actually going.
Allowing vehicles to turn left into or turn left out of the at-grade parking will be dangerous and an
accident will occur. Prohibiting such left turns should be a condition of any proposed development.
In 2016, Traffic Flows are Dynamic, based on Smart Phone Apps
The data sources used by the traffic consultants and their methodology and analysis software
completely ignores the increasing use of smart phone apps, including Waze, Google Maps and Apple
Maps. These apps have changed the dynamic of traffic flows by moving traffic to alternative routes
quickly when arteries are delayed, congested or blocked. These new technologies, which are
increasingly available, affordable and functional, have been recognized by California lawmakers in
establishing new laws regarding the use while driving, Unfortunately, the transportation analysis
industry has failed to include the impact of these new technologies in their analyses. Hexagon (the
traffic consulting firm) should have included a proviso and warning in their report stating that the use of
smart phone apps has not been considered in their analysis or conclusions, which may cause material
errors.
As the Planning Commission knows, minor delays in common traffic patterns are immediately
recognized by smart phone apps; drivers going through Los Gatos as well as drivers living in Los Gatos
rely on changing their route to save a small amount of time (because it takes little such effort). Smart
phone apps that re-route traffic can make dramatic changes in traffic volumes quickly.
Although a peer review of the transportation impact analysis may have been completed, since the traffic
study industry is based on traditional (obsolete) driver behavior, it is not surprising that this
transportation impact analysis is fatally flawed by not considering driving patterns and routes influenced
by smart phone apps.
Mitigated Negative Declaration – This Project Has a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
EMC Planning Group Inc. prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2016 for this
project. This Monterey-based organization concluded that under “1. Aesthetics a) Would the project
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?” there would be Less Than Significant Impact. We
January 24, 2017 Page 5
disagree with this conclusion as the analysis fails to consider pedestrian traffic and a significant amount
of other traffic on Winchester Boulevard, which now varies due to smart phone apps as described.
Statement of Reasons to Support Findings (page 2 of November 2016 report)
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The scenic vista toward the Santa Cruz Mountains is already partially obscured under existing conditions
and the proposed buildings would only affect a brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester
Boulevard, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on a scenic vista.
Winchester runs North / South, not East / West … let’s turn to what is this conclusion based on.
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (page 17)
a. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (general plan EIR) identifies southward views of the
Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town. Due to the
heavily-wooded nature of the Town, these views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the
Town’s major north-south running streets.
There are limited distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains looking southward from Winchester
Boulevard, but most currently available views of the mountains are perceivable when looking across
Winchester Boulevard away from the project site and thus would not be obstructed by project
development. Potential views of the ridgelines across the project site are mostly obstructed by existing
development or tree cover along Winchester Boulevard. The mountains are briefly visible across the
project site at the corner of Shelburne Avenue. The existing house at that corner is about 18 feet tall with
a gable roof and is set back from Winchester Boulevard by about 30 feet and Shelburne Avenue by about
40 feet. The proposed project building would be approximately 20 feet closer to Shelburne Avenue and
almost twice as tall. The proposed project would eliminate the brief view of the mountains from
westbound Winchester Boulevard. The project proposes to maintain several existing trees along
Winchester Boulevard and to plant new trees lining the street frontage where trees are proposed for
removal. The tree planting would preserve comparable views to those existing on Winchester Boulevard.
The proposed project would slightly reduce views of the mountains, but would not result in significant
impacts to any designated scenic vistas as identified in the general plan. Thus, impacts would be less
than significant.
The authors of the report equate the views of trees that block the mountains (as stated above) as
identical to a two-story building blocking views of the mountains. We disagree strongly.
The authors should consider pedestrians walking on the West side of Winchester Boulevard. The Town
of Los Gatos promotes and motivates pedestrian activity – anything that make walking less pleasant,
such as blocking and eliminating views of the mountains, should be evaluated negatively.
For drivers, the authors believe there is only a brief view. Coming from Monterey, the authors may not
be familiar with traffic issues Southbound on Winchester Boulevard. The Planning Commission knows
that, increasingly, there are lengthy traffic delays Southbound on Winchester Boulevard, especially in
the summer with beach traffic and with smart phone apps promoting alternative routes including using
Winchester Boulevard to avoid congestion on Highway 17. By lowering the building height, anyone
caught in traffic when driving Southbound on Winchester will have (more than a fleeting) opportunity to
enjoy a view of the mountains (especially on beautiful sunny days that are prime beach traffic days).
January 24, 2017 Page 6
Everyone driving East on Via Sereno will lose the view of the mountains when stopped at the corner of
Via Sereno and Winchester. The view from that corner of Via Sereno is not “brief.”
Overall, we disagree with the author’s conclusion that there is Less than Significant Impact and request
the Planning Commission find the impact as “Potentially Significant Impact”. Mitigating this impact may
be achieved by lowering the height of the building.
Provide Buffer to Residential Areas
Although the applicant claims that there is a 78 ft buffer on the South side of the site, the “at grade”
parking structure is, in reality, just under a one-story structure (the cross sections requested previously
in this letter will illustrate this). When viewed from the South, the proposed building is massive as it is
more than 35 ft height above the existing grade.
Policy LU-6.3 states, “Protect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential uses by assuring
that buffers are developed and maintained.”
For a project such as this, some type of tiered buffer would be more appropriate under Policy LU-6.3.
Sustainability as a Condition for Approval
Other than related to bicycles, the applicant has not volunteered to incorporate any sustainable
elements beyond which are required by Title 24. Ignoring sustainability of this project is underscored by
the applicant’s avoiding the comment by the Conceptual Advisory Development Committee regarding
applying for LEED certification (see memorandum dated January 6, 2016).
The windows and orientation of the building will result in significant solar heat gain from the Western
sun, which is apparent from SP4.0. The project design does not prevent solar heat gain, which will result
in higher energy consumption for the life of the building. Occupants will have high operating costs and
require additional equipment, such as moveable window blinds, that will adversely affect the benefits of
the west-facing windows while detracting from the building appearance.
Applying for LEED certification will require the applicant to consider all aspects of building design and
construction, including resource consumption (e.g., energy and water), durability and environmental
impact.
For such a development in one of the most travelled gateways into Los Gatos, LEED certification should
be a requirement by the Planning Committee.
* * * * * * *
As stated previously, we believe it is in everyone’s best interest to see an attractive and sustainable
development that fits with Los Gatos so that it adds value to the developers, the surrounding
neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos.
If this application is continued, we will meet with the applicant and discuss all items set forth in this
letter.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
January 30, 2017
Mr. Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Mr. Rich:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
Request for Information
We met on September 12, 2016 at the neighbor information session that you hosted at Los Gatos Lodge.
Since then, you should have received copies of letters dated January 19, 2017 and January 24, 2017, and
heard my public testimony on January 25, 2017.
The Planning Commission gave you specific directions to consult with neighbors and I have offered to
provide you with feedback. To start, I ask you to:
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors.
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos.
3. Provide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showing the building
perimeter and tallest points (as defined by the Town of Los Gatos codes).
4. Update the story poles with a contrasting color for any revisions to the building perimeter and
profile.
5. Prepare a LEED checklist identifying the LEED points that this project would generate.
Each of these items are described below.
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors
Please let me know when you would like to meet with your neighbors. Several people have asked me
when the next meeting will be (they know that your project is on the March 22, 2017 Planning
Commission agenda).
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos
At the January 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting many people, including Commissioner Hudes and
Mr. Paulson, felt your proposed building heights and building planes were confusing. I was puzzled by
the reference on A2.0 of 382 ft with other elevations along the same building perimeter of 376 ft, which
could result in a maximum building height of 411 ft at that plane (not 414 or 416 ft).
Since that meeting, I read the relevant Town of Los Gatos codes and noted the following:
January 30, 2017 Page 2
Sec. 29.60.105. – Height. The maximum height of any principal building in an O or office zone is thirty-
five (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 intend-
ed for human activity and is therefore not exempt from the maximum height restrictions of a zone.
Sec. 29.40.045. - Height determination on sloping lots.
Where the slope of a lot (measured in the general direction of the lot lines) is greater than one (1) foot
rise or fall in seven (7) feet of horizontal distance from the street elevation at the property line, building
height is limited to a plane parallel to the surface of the ground unaltered by grading (including
excavation) for the building in question. The plane is at an elevation set by the rules of each zone.
Building height is measured vertically from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof
(slope one (1) in twelve (12) or less), or the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest gable of a
pitched or hip roof.
After reviewing the height requirements and definitions, please incorporate the heights referenced from
sea level in future diagrams for clarity within and across sheets in your application.
3. Provide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showing the building
perimeter and tallest points
Based on the Town of Los Gatos codes, please provide elevations (cross sections) of the natural grade
that will be under the highest points of the roof and parking structure, showing the elevation of the
natural grade above sea level. If you (or your architect) are using BIM (Building Informational Modeling)
January 30, 2017 Page 3
software then this information should be easily and readily available. I use ArchiCAD and can “fly
through” buildings and cut cross sections at any point. The shadow study diagrams on SP4.0 appear to
be generated with BIM software.
Then, after you revise your building (if you choose to do so), based on the Town of Los Gatos codes,
please provide elevations (cross sections) through the highest points of the roof and parking structure,
showing the elevations of the roof relative to sea level.
In advance of the public meeting, please provide the eight cross sections that were requested in our
letter to the Planning Commission dated January 24, 2017. Then, at the neighbor meeting you could
present and explain the cross sections to help everyone attending to understand your proposal.
4. Update the story poles with a contrasting color for any revisions to the building perimeter and profile
After the wind and rain that we experienced recently, the story poles have sagged and are not indicative
of the proposed project. If you revise the building structure and profile (e.g., location, heights, exterior
features) then please update the story poles to reflect the changes. It would be very helpful to use a
contrasting color, such as blue, to highlight the changes and make it easy and fast to understand.
5. Prepare a LEED checklist identifying the LEED points that this project would receive
During the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Hanssen asked you about pursuing LEED
certification to which you responded that you represented that the project would pursue “LEED
equivalent,” going through all the steps except actual certification.
Commissioner Kane suggested that you could “score” your project without the actual, and costly,
certification process. You responded that you would complete a LEED checklist. Your architectural firm,
T Square Studio, has two LEED AP accredited architects and one of those, Chris Roberts, obtained LEED
Gold certification for the NoHo III Office Building.
Presenting how your proposed building would score by using the LEED checklist would certainly
demonstrate (by its score) your level of commitment to sustainability for this project.
Please complete the LEED checklist, even if only a first draft, so the neighbors can understand the
sustainability elements of this project. The LEED checklist and corresponding score should be updated
prior to approval by the Planning Commission and when applying for your building permit.
* * * * * * *
Please contact me by telephone ) or email regarding any part of this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
cc Jocelyn Puga, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 14, 2017
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
My wife, Jo-Anne Sinclair, and I own a house across Winchester Boulevard, less than 150 feet from the
corner of Winchester and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed
development. We have owned since 1997. In addition, we own a dwelling at
in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years
and we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and
sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. Further, the development should not block views of
the Los Gatos hillsides, which the Town of Los Gatos is committed to preserve.
To date, I have attended information sessions hosted by the applicant, reviewed the story poles erected
on the site, reviewed the complete application as filed with the Town of Los Gatos, attended all Planning
Commission meetings where the application was on the agenda, and testified in public hearings.
The Planning Commission is extremely diligent when reviewing applications and seeks ways to approve
proposed developments that will fit with Los Gatos. After an extensive and thorough review of the
application in two meetings, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the application.
I ask the Town Council to deny the appeal. This letter sets forth the reasons why I believe the appeal
should be denied.
Basis of Appeal
In the appeal, the applicant claims (emphasis added):
As part of the motion for continuance at the January 25th hearing, Planning Commission requested
that the applicant “consider architectural tweaks to lesson [sic] the perception of the height or
consider reducing the height of the building” and to “consider moving the building back.” All of these
requested revisions were made and appropriately demonstrated at the subsequent hearing.
Furthermore, the presentation demonstrated that existing views are substantially impacted by
existing perimeter trees that are being retained by the project, and that the architectural changes to
roof lines and building height were strategically located to address all areas not encumbered by
existing trees.
October 14, 2017 Page 2
Although the applicant stated that all these requested revisions were made in the plans submitted for
the April 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant failed to state that they made one
[egregious] change – creating a corner office with broad glass showing the spectacular views of the Los
Gatos hillsides and impinging on the privacy of the existing adjacent residential properties.1
The applicant says that they complied with the architectural tweaks yet the applicant changed the South
East corner of the proposed building at the last minute.
The appeal should be denied based on that misrepresentation alone.
Building Height is Understated
The applicant stated in their application covering letter (received by Town of Los Gatos Planning Division
dated December 5, 2016), “Large glass openings complete the design while providing plenty of natural
light and views of the hills to the east.” The applicant acknowledged the importance and value of those
views and, by providing those views for their tenants, the proposed structure will block the views for
everyone else.
I raised the issue with the building height in the Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 2017.2
After that meeting, I sent a letter to the applicant dated January 30, 2017 (attached). I hand delivered
copies of the letter to the Town of Los Gatos showing that copies were for Jocelyn Puga and the
Planning Commission. I understand that this letter was stamped and in the Town of Los Gatos file but it
was never provided to the Planning Commission or Town Council.
In that letter to the applicant, I described my concerns regarding the building height in detail and
requested cross sections showing elevations/heights above sea level so everyone, especially the staff
and Planning Commission, could understand the building height. Based on my review of the project site
and my review of the actual land survey as submitted by the applicant, and the applicant’s decision to
ignore my letter of January 30, 2017, I believe the applicant understated what the actual height of the
building would be (references relative to sea level make elevations simple and easily comparable).
During my testimony on April 26, 2017 I referred to my letter (which the Planning Commission did not
receive) and explained the issue.3 Commissioner Hudes asked a question regarding why I thought the
building height may exceed the height requirements. I answered the question by referring to the
elevations on the tree inventory sheets so the Planning Commission could understand the elevations.4
* * * * * * *
Again, I ask that the Town Council support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
appeal.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
1 April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 lines 14 to 24, and page 39 lines 12 to 16.
2 January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 61 line 13 through page 62 line 3.
3 April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 line 24 through page 37 line 15.
4 Ibid, page 39 line17 through page 40 line 14.
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 17, 2017
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: 15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
This follows my letter dated October 14, 2017 where I reiterated my concern regarding the applicant
understating the building height. With Attachment 18 added, the building height can be estimated with cross
sections included in the applicant’s original application.
Town Council should deny the appeal based on the height of the building. First, the building exceeds the
maximum height allowed in Office zone, which is 35 ft. above natural grade. Second, even if the building
complied with the maximum allowed height, the building blocks the views of the Los Gatos hillsides – those
very hillsides that the Town is committed to preserve.
Regarding the building height, the applicant selected the highest point on the sidewalk to use as a reference
point (383.84 ft.) and that reference point is used on the sheet “Reduced Building Heights”. This sheet
includes a note stating (emphasis added), “Building height as shown measured from sidewalk grade; building
height measurement of project complies with Town Code.” Sec. 29.10.020 states, “Height means the height of
all structures, excluding fences, shall be determined by the plumb vertical distance from the natural or finished
grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower profile, to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall, parapet,
mansard, or other point directly above that grade.”
The elevations of the natural grade are show as discrete points on the sheet “Building Shift Eliminated 2
Additional Trees Along Rear & Saved 1 Additional Tree Along Winchester”. The maximum building height at
any point may only be 35 ft. higher than any of those point elevations. The natural grade under the roof peak
is 375 ft.
Starting from the sidewalk (383.84 ft.) the applicant shows the roof peak as 32 ft. 2 inches higher, or at an
elevation of 416 ft. The elevation of the natural grade under the roof peak is 375 ft., resulting in a building
height of 41 ft. This is 6 ft. higher than allowed by Los Gatos.
Again, I ask that the Town Council support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
October 30, 2022
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Re: Story Pole Exemption – 15860 Winchester Boulevard
Based on filings by the applicant, Town Council should deny the application for a story pole exemption.
Story poles indicate that an application has been submitted and is under consideration by the Town. Only after
the applicant has filed accurate information reflecting existing and planned conditions at the site should Town
Council consider, and accept, a request for a story pole exemption.
The applicant (1) omitted any reference, depiction or reference to the Class IV bike lanes from the drawings,
renderings and photographs of the existing site and plans; (2) the traffic studies included in the application on
the Town’s website do not acknowledge or consider the effect of the existing Class IV bike lanes; and (3) the
traffic study in Appendix F shows a traffic signal, which does not exist, controlling the Winchester/Shelbourne
intersection. A brief, cursory review of the materials of the Town’s website identified these deficiencies.
While one may advocate that having plans that omit existing conditions and traffic studies that do not consider
Class IV bike lanes and have wrong traffic signals will not have a material effect on a request for a story pole
exemption, Town Council should consider the precedent they are setting and the message they are sending to
applicants, Town Staff, the Planning Commission, citizens and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the duty of
care and accuracy required by the Town in filings on proposed developments.
Of material importance is that the staff report refers to “… variance from the maximum height and lot cover-
age 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