The URL can be used to link to this page

10 Attachment 8 - Additional Materials Provided by the AppellantATTACHMENT 8 Zoning Uses Office Zone The following uses are permitted in O zone: ●Offices, administrative, professional, medical, dental and optical laboratories associated with a professional use, real estate, insurance, stocks and bonds, and other similar offices characterized by absence of retail sales. ●Retail sales by a pharmacy within a medical building Residential Multi-family Zone The following uses are permitted in a R-M zone: ●Single-family dwelling ●Two-family dwelling ●Small family day care home ●Residential care facility, small family home ●Multiple Family Dwellings and Condominiums Page 9 85% oppose a height variance 82% opposea lot variance 85% worry traffic is an issue Page 22Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 41% live in the immediate area 32% would’ve joined an information session if offered by the Applicant 7% were invited to an information session by the Applicant 0% believe their input was considered Page 23Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 34% aware of the story poles from 2022 38% thought project on hold or abandoned 21% aware of video exemption to poles Page 24Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 13% saw the video prior to the survey 57% believe video misrepresents height 50% aware building exceeds the height limit Page 25Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 “This building is way too big for the current area. It is out of scale and not be fitting the neighborhood. The other size will just create more traffic and parking issues as well as ruining the view of the neighborhood.” “I attended the Planning Commission meeting that approved the variance and felt the comments of myself and fellow neighbors to the construction site were totally ignored and our concerns not addressed.” “Comes right up to front doors of University Oaks Condos…they’ll see into our bedrooms and we’ll see into theirs.” “The height variance is a big deal. This community does so much to maintain the character of the community…trees and etc. Why would they bend on this. I am opposed to this variance. The other thing that concerns me is the traffic flow disruption, extra parking on street, environmental impact for trees and wildlife.” “Such a dense structure is not supported by the recently narrowed Winchester Blvd. This project has inadequate driveway and parking space and will add too much traffic, which is already extremely heavy on Winchester Blvd during school hours, commute hours and on weekends. The development poses numerous traffic safety hazards for elementary school children and the broader community.” Page 27Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 “They make the height limit to keep Los Gatos a town and not a city - it should be followed.” “This will also add a lot of traffic. As is, we can’t get to town during summer as Winchester traffic is horrible.” “It sets a precedence that affect the integrity of our neighborhood for future construction and it is way out of place for the area.” “The Eichlers in Via Sereno are ‘inside-out’ designs with lots of floor to ceiling glass in all rooms including bedrooms and bathrooms. A tall building will allow a view of those private areas from windows and balconies. This is an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of those houses.” “Essentially disappears from the story post to be a massive project that is under represented in the video. Furthermore, none of it was socialized with neighbors like myself. It’s evident from the story poles that this massive building will block the entire hillside and ridge line which is currently visible from Winchester.” Page 28Survey Resul s will be upda ed prior o Town Council mee ing on Tuesday Sep ember 19 This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:14 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Survey Underway [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Jennifer/Joel, I am letting you know that there is a digital survey being conducted to provide data to Town Council for their meeting next week. The survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions. Also, the survey gathers data on the video rendering of the proposed project. I know that the story pole regulations being reviewed to determine how to change the requirements. The survey is “in production” so it cannot be changed, and it will cloud the results if you were to explore/surf through the production survey. There is a non-production version that is identical to the production survey. Here is a link to the non-production digital survey. Please try using the non-production survey and explore the different routes through it. Answer questions one way and follow them through and submit the survey. Then, start again and answer the questions differently so you can see how the questions change. There are no results with the non- production survey. It will give you a better understanding of how to interpret the results of the digital survey that is currently in production and gathering responses. Also, feel free to share the link to the non-production survey with others so you can evaluate its usefulness and validity. If you have any questions, I’d be pleased to answer them. Best, Bryan -- Bryan Mekechuk From: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:15 AM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Eric Hulser' Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Note to Town Council [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good morning Jennifer, Please include the attached statement in the packet for the appeal. More to follow but wanted to get this stand-alone item to you. Best, Bryan -- Bryan Mekechuk Digital Survey Description Page 1 Digital Survey Note to Town Council To gather data from residents on the proposed development, a digital survey was created for the proposed development and a link to the digital survey was posted on NextDoor on Monday, September 11, 2023. The notice on NextDoor was: Hello Neighbors, You may have wondered about the status of the project on Winchester Boulevard at Shelbourne Way. There is a digital survey to canvass local opinion and provide information to Town Council. Here is the link to the digital survey: https://form.typeform.com/to/LB8L7BuG The Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the project on August 9, 2023 and that decision is being appealed and will go in front of Los Gatos Town Council on Tuesday, September 19. As background, a two-story 30,070 sq ft building was approved in 2017. The current building proposed is three stories and 81,633 sq ft. Here a link to the proposed development on the Town’s web site: https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W While it may appear to be a good use of the land, there is a very similar facility that is almost completed on Blossom Hill Road. You may have seen the construction site just on the east side of Highway 17. It is a senior living/memory care facility as well. There will be two very similar facilities less than 0.7 miles apart. This is a link to The Grove At Los Gatos: https://groveseniorliving.com/ I encourage everyone interested to complete the survey. The survey is open to all people in our community and asks the frequency of travel on Winchester Boulevard. Thank you for considering the survey. As well, links to the survey were emailed to residents and neighbors in the area. The digital survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions. To understand the results of the survey, it would be helpful to have seen the survey questions, including the flow and design of the survey. It would be beneficial to explore the digital survey yet it would not be appropriate to use the “production version.” Since the survey is in production it cannot be changed, and it will cloud the results if you were to explore/surf through the production survey. We therefore created a non-production version that is identical to the production survey. Here is a link to the non-production digital survey. Digital Survey Description Page 2 https://form.typeform.com/to/AQ3g8wOC Please try using the non-production survey and explore different routes through it. Answer questions one way and follow them through and submit the survey. Then, start again and answer the questions differently so you can see how the questions change. There are no results with the non-production survey. It will give you a better understanding of how to interpret the results of the digital survey in production and gathering responses. Also, the survey gathers data on the video rendering of the proposed project. Town Council will be reviewing story pole regulations in the future to determine if, and how, to change the requirements. You will see data from residents regarding their views on video renderings of proposed developments. From: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:15 AM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Eric Hulser' Subject: 15860 Winchester Boulevard - Note to Town Council [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good morning Jennifer, Please include the atached statement in the packet for the appeal. More to follow but wanted to get this stand-alone item to you. Best, Bryan -- Bryan Mekechuk Digital Survey Description Page 1 Digital Survey Note to Town Council To gather data from residents on the proposed development, a digital survey was created for the proposed development and a link to the digital survey was posted on NextDoor on Monday, September 11, 2023. The notice on NextDoor was: Hello Neighbors, You may have wondered about the status of the project on Winchester Boulevard at Shelbourne Way. There is a digital survey to canvass local opinion and provide information to Town Council. Here is the link to the digital survey: https://form.typeform.com/to/LB8L7BuG The Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the project on August 9, 2023 and that decision is being appealed and will go in front of Los Gatos Town Council on Tuesday, September 19. As background, a two-story 30,070 sq ft building was approved in 2017. The current building proposed is three stories and 81,633 sq ft. Here a link to the proposed development on the Town’s web site: https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W While it may appear to be a good use of the land, there is a very similar facility that is almost completed on Blossom Hill Road. You may have seen the construction site just on the east side of Highway 17. It is a senior living/memory care facility as well. There will be two very similar facilities less than 0.7 miles apart. This is a link to The Grove At Los Gatos: https://groveseniorliving.com/ I encourage everyone interested to complete the survey. The survey is open to all people in our community and asks the frequency of travel on Winchester Boulevard. Thank you for considering the survey. As well, links to the survey were emailed to residents and neighbors in the area. The digital survey is fairly sophisticated as the response to one question leads to different subsequent questions. To understand the results of the survey, it would be helpful to have seen the survey questions, including the flow and design of the survey. It would be beneficial to explore the digital survey yet it would not be appropriate to use the “production version.” Since the survey is in production it cannot be changed, and it will cloud the results if you were to explore/surf through the production survey. We therefore created a non-production version that is identical to the production survey. Here is a link to the non-production digital survey. Digital Survey Description Page 2 https://form.typeform.com/to/AQ3g8wOC Please try using the non-production survey and explore different routes through it. Answer questions one way and follow them through and submit the survey. Then, start again and answer the questions differently so you can see how the questions change. There are no results with the non-production survey. It will give you a better understanding of how to interpret the results of the digital survey in production and gathering responses. Also, the survey gathers data on the video rendering of the proposed project. Town Council will be reviewing story pole regulations in the future to determine if, and how, to change the requirements. You will see data from residents regarding their views on video renderings of proposed developments. From: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:59 AM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Eric Hulser' Subject: Survey Results - Unredacted [EXTERNAL SENDER] Atached are the survey results. We are redac�ng the results to remove personally iden�fiable informa�on and will send you the redacted survey results shortly. -- Bryan Mekechuk This Page Intentionally Left Blank Dear Council Members, My name is Eric Hulser, I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Ashley Abercrombie Hulser, as well as my fellow homeowners in the University Oaks townhome community at 700 Winchester Boulevard. We are the nearest neighbors to the proposed project at 15860 Winchester Boulevard and I stand in strong opposition of its approval. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS To begin with, as with numerous aspects of this proposal, the traffic operations analysis is outdated. The document references that “based on the results of the intersection LOS analysis from the 2016 approved office development transportation study, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service.” We moved into our townhome in 2019 and there has been regular and considerable increases in traffic congestion year over year in the area - particularly on the weekends as people attempt to avoid the 17 by coming down Winchester, University and Blossom Hill. This article highlights the issue, which I know the council is well aware of. Similarly, the Site Access and Circulation analysis accounting for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists to the facility was conducted in October 13th 2020 and therefore outdated due to the changes in the bicycle lanes for the street. The recommendations put forth within the document reference back to when parking in front the curb was allowed and prior to the creation of the dedicated bicycle lane. In addition, to arrive at the estimated 347 trips, Swenson sites the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition as their source for trip estimation, which was published in 2017. The Eleventh Edition of the manual was published in 2021 with more updated multimodal trip generation data and speciﬁcally calls out changes to the Assisted Living (25) and Congregate Care Retirement Community (255) rates in the ITE’s Updates to the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition summary. I would also like clariﬁcation as to why only the beds / units are being considered, as well as question its justiﬁcation as a comparison to a previous estimate based on office traffic estimates. Given that the most similar use listed in the VTA is that of a hospital, it stands to reason that there will be much more traffic generated beyond just that of the occupants. The document states that there may be up to 24 employees onsite per work shift. It makes no reference to how many estimated trips these employees would make, nor how many shifts. For an assisted living facility there will need to be at least some level of supervision 24 hours a day, which I can take to mean up to three shifts and therefore potentially 24 employees x 3 shifts x 2 trips = 144 trips in addition to the given estimate. Similarly there is no mention whatsoever of how many estimated trips would be accrued through the loading zone for supplies, or additional visitors to the facility - both of which we can assume to be likely given the frequent mentions of the loading spaces being developed into the facility for just such purposes. Overall, at minimum, I would request this study be completely redone today as we cannot rely on an impact study performed 7 years ago with estimates based on data collected in 2017. Just in April, at our town hall, I saw constituent after constituent implore the council to improve the safety of our intersections after a young mother passed away after being hit right up the road by a vehicle on Blossom Hill. Any projects that would see a net increase in our traffic of so substantially should be heavily scrutinized in order to ensure we are keeping our community safe. ZONING VARIANCES The increased load on traffic is a byproduct - and leads me into my second objection - of the sheer size of this project. As you can see from the rendered videos of the facility from the Swenson group, this would be far and away the largest structure on the street. There are two variances that are being requested that would enable this to be so - an increase in the lot usage from 40% to 50%, and the ability to exceed the 35 foot height limit. I would strongly object to granting either of these variances for two reasons: Firstly, the land area for this project is already quite large and thus the normally zoned 40% seems to be perfectly adequate. One speciﬁc objection to this plan is that this property is normally zoned for Office space and thus a 10’ setback from the side wall. However granting Swenson a conditionally approved usage permit to allow for an Assisted Living facility should then require them to follow the RM zoning guidelines which calls for a setback of 12’-20’ from the side wall, depending on if the windows are part of a bedroom or living room. According to the plans on page 35, the setback is only planned for 10’ from the south side wall - which is adjacent to our property - and will most likely need to be adjusted to 20’ given these are living units. If the building is updated to come into code, perhaps they would not require the additional 10% square footage variance. Secondly, the height limit variance request claims that “due to the slope of the lot along Shelburne Way, the height of the building exceeds the 35-foot height limit at the mid and rear point of the property.” This language is attempting to downplay the exact length and amount above the limit that is planned, thus painting the project as necessitating it as an unfortunate consequence of the geography. In reality, according to Page 32 of the Project Plans document, the guiding line for the maximum allowed height is blatantly inaccurate, with the document explicitly stating that it is measured against the natural grade. The town’s website in contrast states that the “maximum height of a principle building in the zone is 35’ (measured from the natural or ﬁnished grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower proﬁle, to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall, parapet, mansard, or other point directly above that grade).” Therefore, taking the ﬁnished grade (which the plans clearly mark as the green line), the bottom of third ﬂoor is at 34’ - thus making virtually the entire third ﬂoor above limit, with the building going up to as high as 50’ at the rooﬂine. That is 42% above the limit which is an egregious amount to be over limit. Even the western front on Winchester (which is at the lowest grade) is an entire 4’ higher than the limit. There does not appear to be even an attempt to adhere to the spirit of these requirements in creating a lower proﬁle for the city with virtually the entire project above the 35’ limit. For contrast, the apartment building to the south side of our townhome community is two story and has tiered ﬂoors in order to match the grade versus keeping one continuous rooﬂine that extends 50’ into the air. In addition to these requests, I would also like to call out the seeming lack of respect the developer has shown the community to date. From the way they addressed the Brian Mekechuk, the Mayor of Monte Sereno, during our last hearing to the fact the developer was already granted multiple variances that have made objection to the project more challenging. Because of the massive size of this project they were able to request and were granted a variance to avoid use of netting to mark out a visual indicator of the building for the public to see. Instead, they erected (incorrectly) markers using ﬂags (that today are not even upright) last year. When they failed to meet that minimum requirement, they requested (and were granted) another variance to avoid putting up and ﬁxing their poles, instead to put up billboards with a QR code to a virtual render of the project. Small billboards with small text that are not very visible or noticeable as you drive by the property. This was back in April, granted using a justiﬁcation that the rains had delayed them so that they could not ﬁx the ﬂags quickly enough. Despite being granted that variance, it still took them over two months to put up the billboards, which in combination with the derelict poles and broken ﬂags, absolutely do not draw the same level of attention that a properly marked out visual would have provided the community. Perhaps if they had not designed a building that has a 10% larger square footage and is 42% higher than the town’s limit, they could have properly netted it. To compound that, we received ﬂiers mailed as late as July 14th stating that the hearing for this project proposal would be on July 27th, despite the billboards erected weeks earlier stating the hearing as August 9th. Even up until the day of on the town council’s agenda it showed as the hearing for July 27th - I am out of town and called in just to be sure I did not miss the hearing in case I had the date wrong. I do not know if this was foreseen and simply unfortunate, or pushed out due to how late the billboards were put up for view, but it certainly seems like a deliberate attempt to confuse, misinform or dishearten the community from opposing this project. PROTECTED TREES If somehow these points are not sufficient to reconsider this proposal, the ﬁnal point I would like to raise to the council is the consideration of two protected trees on our property. The arborist and assessment that the developers are presenting only include the trees that are directly on their projects land, however there are two large oaks that sit on our property less than 30’ from the proposed site. Encroachment on their setback limits will also be entering into their space. These oaks would be deﬁned as protected under the town’s Large Protected Tree provision as they are over 48 inches in diameter. If this project were to move forward as designed, I would ask, at a minimum, that there be an additional inspection performed as to the impact that the size of this building will have on these trees - both to their root system and based on the light that would be lost by the 50’ wall erected next to them - and have any feedback taken into consideration to the design plans. We work with an arborist on any projects we do within our townhome community and are so mindful that we do not dare even alter the soil composition underneath them in order to ensure we do not shock them. CONCLUSION Taken all together, I personally believe that the best course of action would be for the council to deny Swenson the variances that are being requested, and would deeply implore the members to vote as such. We are already conditionally allowing this property to be re-zoned from an office space to a multi-family residential space - let us simply require it to be built according to code. Allowing this project to go over the square footage limit by 10% and the setback limit by 50% and the height limit by 42% seems grossly abusive of the town’s generosity as well as sets a precedent for other such developments in the future. Alternatively, in simply denying these requests, the council would help (1) ensure that our traffic stays within moderation per the property size, (2) our town maintain the overall aesthetic and proﬁle we’re striving for, (3) provide a building of appropriate size, scale and timing that can be properly presented to the community for consideration and (4) ensure no undue risk to the natural environment that we are so proud of within our community. Sincerely, Ashley & Eric Hulser Los Gatos, CA