10 Presentation - Appeal of 15860 Winchester BlvdAppeal of Approval for
15860 Winchester Blvd
Project / Application Number: 5-21-008 | U-21-010 | V-21-003 | M-22-008
The variances requested are the result of
the project design, not site constraints or
topography.
Similar three-story buildings in the vicinity
do not require variances.
1.Town Council Should Deny Variances
2.Setbacks Should Follow R-M Zoning
3.Height Variances Shown are Misleading
4.Digital Survey Results
Page 1
Town Code Sec. 29.20.170
On August 9, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 making the findings
to grant the variance request citing topography despite:
1.Another project had already been approved on the exact
same property requiring no variances.
2.Town Staff being unable to make the same findings.
3.Other buildings in the vicinity (notably the apartments two
properties south at 1025 N Santa Cruz Ave) step down to
match the same slope.
4.The project on 400-420 Blossom Hill Road is a three-story
assisted living and memory care facility that meets the 35’
height limit.
The deciding body, on the basis of evidence submitted at the
hearing, may grant a variance if it finds that:
1.Because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of this ordinance
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zone; and
2.The granting of a variance would not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
such property is situated.
Page 2
Town Code Sec. 29.20.170
The deciding body, on the basis of evidence submitted at the
hearing, may grant a variance if it finds that:
1.Because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of this ordinance
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zone; and
2.The granting of a variance would not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
such property is situated.
If a building was designed for this property and did not require
variances for height and lot coverages then the property itself
cannot be the issue:
1.Granting this variance would constitute a special
privilege for this development
Page 3
Building height of 50’
with variance
Building height of 35’ above lower
of natural or finished grade with
no varianceAugust 2017 November 2022
Photos above are from Google Street View, at same location, at the corner of Via
Sereno and Winchester Boulevard.Page 4
No Site Specific Issues
The Applicant engaged Cushman & Wakefield to complete a
market study and analyze the market conditions for the
proposed development of the 125 unit, assisted living / memory
care facility to be situated on a 1.31-acre parcel of land in Los
Gatos.
The site description does not indicate any abnormal conditions in
the site which would indicate topographical reasons for a
variance for building height or coverage.
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. Market Study Report, August 3, 2023
Page 5
Assisted Living - Rental Rates
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. Market Study Report, August 3, 2023
Page 6
Memory Care Unit - Rental Rates
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. Market Study Report, August 3, 2023
Page 7
While the property is zoned Office, the
building and intended use are more in-line
with a multi-family development.
Accordingly, any setbacks should follow
residential multi-family zoning.
1.Town Council Should Deny Variances
2.Setbacks Should Follow R-M Zoning
3.Height Variances Shown are Misleading
4.Digital Survey Results
Page 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
Greater Zoning Height Limits for Residential
Multi-Family
Office Zone
The maximum height of a principle building in the O
zone is 35 feet.
(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).
Residential Multi-family Zone
The maximum height of a principle building in the RM
zone is 30 feet.
(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).
If a building has cellar parking the maximum height is
35’.
Page 10
Greater Zoning Setbacks for Residential Multi-Family
Office Zone
●Front 25’
●Rear 20’
●Street side 15’
●Side 10’
Residential Multi-family Zone
●Front 25’
●Rear 20’
●Street side 20’
●Side, multiple family dwellings 10’
Provided that if the wall facing the side yard contains:
○Bedroom windows 12’
○Living room windows 20’
Page 11
The requested variances are even more
contentious when viewed in context for how
far outside the limits the requests go.
1.Town Council Should Deny Variances
2.Setbacks Should Follow R-M Zoning
3.Height Variances Shown are Misleading
4.Digital Survey Results
Page 12
50’ - 81,633 sq ft
The proposed maximum height is 50’1” and the gross floor area is 81,633 sq ft.
Source: Page 3 of the Applicant’s Project Plan Document on file with the Town
The proposed height is 42% above the maximum height limit.
It is 271% larger than the previous development (30,070 sq ft).
Page 13
Previous Project Preserved View of Ridge
Page 14
Current Project Completely Obscures View of Ridge
Page 15
Variance Areas Shown by Applicant are Misleading
The Applicant’s plans do not show the requested
height variance areas accurately.
The top image shows the variance area above the
natural grade from the ground closest to the
perspective view. Measuring height is from the lower
of natural or finished grade directly below each part
of the building.
The bottom image implies the entirety of the building
is below the maximum height limit, which conflicts
with the architectural plans.
The Applicant’s plans showing the height variances
are misleading and cannot be relied upon.
Page 16
Variance Areas Shown by Applicant are Misleading
Many of the renderings in the project plan show
variance area in the legend but do not represent it on
the plans.
The image shows a cross-section of the building with
the southern portion removed, showing the height of
the building above finished grade.
The building is four stories and more than 50 ft tall.
Failing to show the height variance is misleading.
Yellow highlighting added, not present in Applicant’s plans
Page 17
Variance Areas Shown by Applicant are Misleading
The eastern view the building shows it is over 50’
above finished grade. This variance highlighting was
not shown on the submitted plans, though it is
defined in the legend.
This overlay shows the area that is above the height
limit from page 45 of the submitted plans.
Yellow highlighting added, not present in Applicant’s plans
Page 18
Variance Areas Shown by Applicant are Misleading
The south facing wall is three stories, which exceed
the zoning requirement of 35’.
This building contains both living and bedroom
windows, not offices, directly facing south - which for
a Residential Multi-family zone would require a
setback of 20’ and a height limit of 30’ (reflected in
blue highlighting).
The balconies and windows on the second and third
floor offer views directly into the living rooms and
bedrooms in the adjacent University Oaks.
The building approved by Town Council in 2017 did
not offer such views.
Yellow highlighting added, not present in Applicant’s plans
Page 19
A link to a digital survey was posted on
NextDoor on September 11 and made
available to the community.
As of 10:00 am on Monday, September 18,
seventy-eight (78) individuals responded to
the digital survey.
Attached is the raw summary of the
responses to the survey.
The survey was closed on Monday,
September 18, 2023 and the survey results
are set forth on the following pages.
1.Town Council Should Deny Variances
2.Setbacks Should Follow R-M Zoning
3.Height Variances Shown are Misleading
4.Digital Survey Results
Page 20
Of 78 respondents, only 14%
support the approved plan.
Page 21Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
85% oppose a height variance
82% oppose a lot variance
83% worry traffic is an issue
Page 22Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
38% live in the immediate area
29% would’ve joined an information session if offered by the Applicant
8% were invited to an information session by the Applicant
1% believe their input was considered
Page 23Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
33% aware of the story poles from 2022
38% thought project on hold or abandoned
24% aware of video exemption to poles
Page 24Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
14% saw the video prior to the survey
56% believe video misrepresents height
49% aware building exceeds the height limit
Page 25Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
Voices from the Community
Page 26Survey Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
“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 Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
“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 Results Updated on Monday, September 18, 2023
The variances requested are
the result of the project
design, not site constraints or
topography.
Page 29