Loading...
2011060610 - Attachment 11 - 16005 Los Gatos BoulevardTo the Members of the Town Council and Planning Dept.: This is a petition created by owners of Placer Oaks HOA. In gathering the signatures for this petition, we approached persons in the neighborhood closest to and most affected by the traffic and all the proposals of this project. We found that approximately 85% of those approached readily signed the petition. If we extrapolate this percentage to the town populous, we can see that a super majority of the community is against this proposal. We found their major worries about this development as it is now proposed to be concerned with the increasing traffic, and we found our neighbors to be in acceptance of the 4 major arguments presented in this petition. Your serious consideration of our petition is greatly appreciated. Owners in Placer Oaks Homeowner's Association, John Shepherdson, Ada McDaniel and Gita Rostamyzdi REcEIv o JUN1F2'011 TOWN OF ©ANNINGCDIVIGSIO S N ATTACHMENT 11 PETITION TO LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 16005 LOS GATOS BLVD. ("SWANSON" PROPERTY) QUESTIONS PRESENTED Should the Town of Los Gatos approve the mixed use development of 16005 Los Gatos Blvd.? Should the developer be required to put up Story Poles? Does the project unduly increase the risk of injury to children? Will the project adversely affect traffic flows? Does the project adversely impact the views or privacy rights of neighbors? SUMMARY ARGUMENT The project should be denied for the following reasons: 1) Due Process. Deficient story poles were put in that fell down. The Town staff recommended replacement, and the builder has refused. A fully informed Community is required for this "game -changer" project on the corner of Los Gatos Blvd., and Blossom Hill Rd. 2) Risk of Injury to Children. The project involves 16 residential 3-4 bedroom homes, and 9 condominiums. Five to Fifteen (and perhaps more) children will be living close to one of the busiest intersections in Town. The project increases the risk of serious injury to children. In the future hybrid 1 vehicles will increase, which with their quiet motors, increase the risk of injury by 50%. The risk of injury will only increase with time. 3) Traffic. Traffic volumes and speeds are increasing in Los Gatos. The project will impair the flow of traffic, as large service trucks will be ingressing or egressing on Los Gatos Blvd, Blossom Hill Road, and Place Oaks Drive. 4) Views and Privacy. In violation of the Town Code, and General Plan, Residents of Placer Oaks condominiums will have views blocked, and privacy impaired by the planned 2-story homes with pitched roofs. TOWN "RULES OF THE ROAD" FOR DEVELOPMENT Applicable Los Gatos Code Provisions Sec. 29.40.605. - Intent. The R-M (multiple -family residential) zone applies to areas served by streets and other public improvements and services which are generally sufficient to sustain multiple residential development, and where the highest and best use of the subject property and surrounding properties is multiple residential. The R-M zone is the major multiple residential zoning district in the Town and is designed to allow various density ranges with actual specific density to be determined by the deciding body, depending on the particular characteristics of specific parcels, the uses surrounding them and the design of the development proposed. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.010, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21-77) Sec. 29.40.610. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a R-M or multiple -family residential zone: (1) Single-family dwelling. 2 (2) Two-family dwelling. (3) Small family day care home. (4) Residential care facility, small family home. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1363, 8-1-77) Sec. 29.40.615. - Conditional uses. In addition to the activities authorized by section 29.10.610, the activities listed in the table in section 29.20.185 are allowed if a conditional use permit is issued. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.030, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1363, 8-1-77; Ord No. 2149, § 1, 5-1-06)' Sec. 29.40.620. - Lot width. Minimum lot width in a R-M or multiple -family residential zone is sixty (60) feet. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.040, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1337, 11-1-76). Sec. 29.40.625. Lot area. The minimum lot area in the R-M or multiple family residential zone is eight thousand (8,000) square feet. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.050, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1349, 3-21-77) Sec. 29.40.630. - Density. An ordinance zoning property R-M must set one (1) of the following density ranges in terms of dwelling units: (1) R-M: 5-12 (five (5) to twelve (12) dwelling units per net acre). (2) R-M: 5-20 (five (5) to twenty (20) dwelling units per net acre). (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.060, 6-7-76) 3 Sec. 29.40.635. - Density -findings. The specific density for each building site in a R-M or multiple -family residential zone shall be determined by the deciding body when issuing the conditional use permit. The determination shall be accompanied by findings that the density prescribed: (1) Will be adequately accommodated by streets serving the development either in their existing configuration or a configuration which is intended to be created in the immediate future and that the development will not overburden existing streets or other public improvements such that the provision of public services to the general areas will not be impaired. (emphasis added) (2) That the architectural design of the development, the site planning therefor, and the characteristics of the lot, including its shape, area, topography, vegetation and, existing structure will be such that adjacent properties will not be adve_r..sely-affected:-(emphasis added) (3) That individual dwelling units will be serviced by light, air, off-street parking, open space, privacy and other such amenities which are normally incident to well - designed residential development. (4) . Any multiple residential development existing on the date this zone classification is applied thereto, the density of which does not exceed the maximum limit for this zone, shall be deemed by operation of law to have had its density approved pursuant to the provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.070, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21-77) Sec. 29.40.640. - Location of buildings and courts. The following are the location restrictions for buildings and lots in a R- M or multiple -family residential zone: 4' (1) The minimum distance between main buildings is twenty-four (24) feet; provided, that there shall be at least forty (40) feet between any wall of a main building containing living room windows and any other wall of a main building. (2) Courts shall have a minimum of twenty (20) feet between opposing walls; provided that if one (1) of the opposing walls contains: a. Living room windows, the minimum distance between such opposing walls is forty (40) feet. b. Bedroom windows, the minimum distance between such opposing walls is twenty-four (24) feet. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.080, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1337, 11-1-76) Sec.29.40.645. Yards. Minimum front, side and rear yards in a R-M or multiple -family residential zone shall be as=follows: (1) Front 25 feet (2) Rear 20 feet (3) Side, single-family and two-family dwellings 8 feet (4) Side, multiple -family dwellings 10 feet Provided that if the wall facing the side yard contains: a. Bedroom windows 12 feet b.: Living room windows 20 feet. (5) Side abutting street 20 feet (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.090, 6-7-76; Ord, No. 1337, 11-1-76; Ord. No. 1407, 10-16-78) Sec. 29.40.650. - Height. The maximum height of any principal building in a R-M or multiple - family residential zone is thirty (30) feet, except when the building has cellar parking the maximum is thirty-five (35) feet. The height shall be measured as provided in section 29.40.045 and is subject to the exception listed in section 29.10.090. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.100, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1337, 11-1-76; Ord. No. 1450, 12-3-79) 5 Sec. 29.40.655. - Lot area coverage. Maximum building coverage on a lot in a R-M or multiple -family residential zone, including any type of accessory building, is forty (40) percent. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.110, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1337, 11-1-76) Sec. 29.40.660. - Recreational open space for multiple -family dwellings. For multiple -family dwellings other than residential condominiums there shall be a total open space area of two hundred (200) square feet for each dwelling unit, usable for outdoor activities. This area is in addition to required yards, is a minimum requirement, shall be composed of private area, community areas or both, and may be in the form of balconies or decks, all as determined by the deciding body. Any areas intended to serve as private open space shall be screened for privacy of the occupant as required by the deciding body. (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.32.120, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21-77) Los Gatos General Plan 1) P. L-4: Mixed Use Commercial development must provide "proper transitions and buffers to any adjacent residential property." 2) P. L-8: L.I.1. 14: "Story Poles: Require the installation of story poles prior to the approval of new development as required by Town resolution." 3) P. L-10: Maintain the existing character of residential neighborhoods by controlling development. 4) P. L-10: L.P.3.3: Protect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential uses by assuring buffers are developed and maintained. 5) P. L-10: L.P. 3.4: Prohibit uses thatmay lead to deterioration of residential uses or adversely impact public safety. 6 6) P. L-13: L.P. 4.3: New construction must be compatible with existing neighborhood. 7) P. L-14: L.I.4.12: Story Poles: Require the erection of story poles prior the approval of new development. Time Frame: On -Going. 8.) P. L-17: Community opinion stated land uses along the Blvd. should create a shopping experience and destinations that complement the Downtown. 9) P. L-18: New development must be designed to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent residential areas. 10) P. L-20: The Santa Cruz Mountains are a -major natural feature: 11) P. L-21: L.I. 8.3: Require .Story Poles. Time Frame: Ongoing. 12) P. S-5: Town is characterized by safe, quiet community with few crime or traffic related hazards. 13) P. S-5: Goal: Reduce the potential for injury or loss of life from traffic hazards. LOS GATOS BLVD. PLAN 1) P. 6: "Architecture will provide distinctive, pedestrian friendly buildings which protect existing vistas and open spaces. All buildings must incorporate materials, colors and styles that reflect the history and character of Los Gatos." 2) P. 7: Goals for Public Improvements: 1) "To reduce the speed of automobile traffic on the Boulevard and at major intersections while maintaining a safe, smooth and efficient flow to both local and through traffic, including emergency vehicles." 7 3) P. 10 Land Use Goals: 1) Promote commercial activity that complements the Town. 2) Provide a stable source of income, employment, and goods and services. 3) Encourage mixed uses compatible with surrounding uses. 4) Higher density uses at north end to residential uses at south end. 4) P. 11: Policies 1) Similar types of uses should be clustered. 2) New development must be designed in order to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent residential areas. 3) South of Shannon Road: single family residential or offices. 4) North of Lark: commercial and mixed use. 5) South of Los Gatos -Almaden Road: neighborhood commercial, multi -family residential and offices 5) Private Improvements: "The Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards have been developed and adopted in order to serve as recommendations for the design treatment of private improvements in the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Area. The Standards are established for use by the Town Council, Planning Commission, staff, project applicants and property owners in providing for the public health, safety, welfare and convenience of the community. The Standards will ensure environmental and design quality in the development and redevelopment of Los Gatos Boulevard." 6) Town Polices: 8 1) P. 13: Proposals must fit natural conditions of site and respect scenic corridors. 2) P. 13: Proposals must minimize interference with the privacy, quiet and view of surrounding residential properties. 7) Appendix P. 2: Town policy should control use permits for restaurants to channel that activity into the downtown. DISCUSSION THE. PROJECT IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENT TO PUT UP, AND KEEP UP, STORY POLES. One, the General Plan makes clear that the requirement to put up Story Poles is an "on -going" requirement... Two, the developer put up Story Poles, which failed in winter storms. The responsibility for the failure lies with the builder. Three, when the Poles were up, there was a large public turnout at the Planning Commission meeting, and many speakers spoke against the project. After the Poles went down, there was a much smaller turnout at the next meeting, when the project was approved. Four, the Town staff strongly recommended the developer reinstall Story Poles, and it refused: 9 Five, there is a concern that other developers may follow the same approach, which is not good for the Town. Six, at the last Planning Commission meeting the view was expressed by at least one member that it was hard to visualize the project, which makes sense without the Poles or a model to view. In light of the above, we urge the Council to not approve the project until Story Poles are put up, and stay up, to allow the public proper notice, and to weigh in. 11. THE PROJECT INCREASES THE RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY TO CHILDREN. One, Children Closer to Blvd. The project calls for 3-4 bedroom residential units, which will cause a projected 5-15 (or perhaps more), kids to be living closer to Los Gatos Blvd, one of the busiest Town intersections. Two, at least one study shows major thoroughfares create the greatest risk of injury for children. Three, our Mayor acknowledged in his recent State of the Town address that traffic volumes and speed are already increasing. Four, large service trucks will be moving through the proposed development, which will slow the flow of traffic, and create risk of harm to resident children and their friends. 10 Five, hybrid vehicles, with their quiet motors, increase by 50% the risk of pedestrian injury. Therefore, more kids, near Tots of quiet cars, going 25-35 mph, creates the conditions for a serious collision. Six, are children living on the site, or visiting it, going to walk all the way to intersection stoplight to cross the street, or just run across the open roadway to get to Jamba Juice? Seven, the "Open Space" in the project adjoins a commercial parking lot. How safe is that for a play area, with a circulating group of strangers pulling in constantly? THE PROJECT WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION IN TRAFFIC FLOWS. One, the flow of traffic on the Blvd will be impaired by: 1) Cars making right -turns off the Blvd into'the project. Cars slowing down to make the turn will slow the traffic behind it. 2) Service trucks ingressing and egressing the project will certainly slow way down to make their turns, which will slow the cars behind them. 3) Children in the development will cause trucks and cars to slow down, which will slow the ingress movement, and backups will extend out into Blvd. and Blossom Hill Rd. Two, residential and commercials users will most certainly traverse down Placer Oaks Drive and Oak -Rim Way as short-cuts, and clog already heavily 11 trafficked streets. Cars will also go deep into the nearby residential______ neighborhoods for alternative ways to and from the site. IV THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS TO NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT VIEWS AND PRIVACY OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. One, for residents of Placer Oaks condominiums, the two story structures, with pitched roofs will, it is estimated, block about 85% of the existing views of the mountains. From the street, almost all of the view of the Santa Cruz Mountains will be obliterated. We welcome Council members to come out and see for themselves. Two, the project will create a blockage of the mountains for those in apartments on Oak Rim, the single family homeowners on Placer Oaks, and others down the street who drive or walk up and down Placer Oaks Drive. Three, the project will seriously invade the existing privacy rights of those in the Placer Oaks condominiums. The owners of the projected two story units will be able to look down into the backyards of the condominiums. Four, clearly the project violates both the spirit and letter of the Code, and General and Los Gatos Boulevard Plans which require protecting the vistas and privacy of existing residential property owners. If this project is passed, no doubt in the sale of the units they will be marketed with the marvelous views of the 12 Santa Cruz Mountains (once enjoyed by the existing adjacent residential property owners and occupiers). Five, the developer purchased the project knowing adjoining residential property owners view and privacy protections, and to claim it is unfair or harsh to have to comply with them would be unreasonable. CONCLUSION This is a "game -changer" project. The question is, why are making this huge change on one of the busiest intersections in Town? And doing so without Story Poles? Don't "game -changers" make it even more important the citizenry is fully informed of that change with standard notification compliance? Does it make sense to place lots of children closer to this intersection? Is increasing the risk of serious injury or loss of life worth it? Doesn't common sense show that this project as proposed will cause substantial traffic congestion? Is the development an unfair infringement on existing nearby property owners and occupiers' vistas and, privacy/ The project should be denied approval. There are too many significant adverse impacts. The following persons agree with the above statement, and support its presentation to the Town Coun it for its consideration. Dated: Dated: // Dated: _1 ; S / / Dated: 7/ !C. ll»)( 13 Dated:.. /5 %�c;},1_. Dated: Dated:Z7G s 24'/f L , Dated: Dated: sf2r 1( Dated: c.,/z� Dated: Dated. ' 2 G' 20 ( Dated: S ,2- 20 ( Dated: 5/2,641J Dated: 572 (o /20 Dated: 5/2-6,/20j/ Dated: 6/2 y-2d // Dated: Dated: 5/ ZOO/2.o// Dated: `j /! ,2 6 // Dated: l Dated: 0:7 `"// Dated: `j 2 7 Dated: 5-"I( Dated: 5 7- // Dated: : -/ I Dated: -y2 .11 • 06(4G1,--. lit '�`_`.L 47/ 14 Dated: - Dated: 5 Dated: Dated: 5 Dated:' . Dated: f -0/ 1/ Dated:5 1 1 Dated: 5 3 I Dated: %--3 1- I 1 Dated: if--1//( 5 ( Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: 'IAf 11 Dated: ,-76/04( Dated: S.0A Dated: $J3)1( Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: G e iosv Act %Qi �(DS TD 314-M L? [pc , San _ y ��—l')t �'C�4( 712, Dated: 0 Dated: Dated: ei /11 Dated: 52 Dated: Dated: Dated: iE Dated. Dated: Dated: Dated: 5/2giii Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: 'f7/5f / 1 I Dated: (;) 3\ I. ! Dated: 13 I / I I Dated: 5/ 3 I ! I Dated: , if Dated: 5 Dated: Dated: { vviL 1-/eitif5 15 Dated: , Dated: 'i/ -1, _ / i Dated: 2.'! •j l Dated: / Dated: ` 7,f 70 /:.c / Dated: Dated: =- / Dated: /)// Dated: /t • Dated: `� �3c%h%'/ Dated: % '';,' /r;) Dated: -?/s' i (' Dated: `� ( �-�) / r Dated:' " ' (:)- d Dated (..% f // Dated: _:-:.:�. Dated: r Dated:--/ Dated:{' � l Da/ ted ; Dated: Dated: 40 ,j r 4 l jr.r��l r / . ' � 1 }. _ l JI ,.,r . ••, lr' ; 1.i / : 2_ -- _ .ti r4/..('�� •'ll � '•f / /fu, f! � . ,% I / (f S { //_ �/ .(‹ / Y � C .N TOZ__I .. ti," I (-::i ; 11 1, ,ii.L7 0/.7/:-, fr('''-:,,,C;;;-,:,..•,..,. ?- ' f / V t 1- l /`/ a0 Y l.`) - l/ l/ cecV uv(-.f 0,7 ''rat✓ ��� -!*r ,•:/ , ..i:R� / , i;?LG<a 4. '' 7 Dated: /// Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: ( Dated: Si 3c)( It Dated: > '54)/t/ Dated: •vt Dated: ,-- Dated: 0/1( Dated: Dated: c )/ Dated: ; Dated: r Dated: / / Dated:57 / Dated: /1.) l(f Dated: Dated:5 r) Dated: 1 I ?)0 Dated:, \ I 1/1 Dated: '717 61/7 7 , Dated:;) 12) )5?..?Cie5 5:20.47AR I- r t'41 ((tfej•-e4,0 cc'k /C)."(2)ez--y."4 vi j, VlATA2,A i (0 Tfirknk_fte (1-)s (3-15,10S 2153 3 • Pr, ,4 Ave -6 0 L '\/ _ /6 /z6. fl(Ou pi A Ve Ao"/47- AU° e• 7,e I-7— ; 0 )) I (015 (;) I / e— • Lk 6)/ D116-1-74 '9;37_% s , (, I: • 'At k ')-(2) Oak 6, iF , (::."..:),.4•t tAvhi-1 / ---77417N. -:,,Ic( r0 Os Cr i .(- // , ira4c) 0-44% d4. ,,- 2 z7„.4-,‹ /2 tic-i kv,-1 r qv .,__::-- ,....cs e..:.i,4 re s , LA-9 -(-0----.42 • P•lb,i' u-- j.xs..4:,-,-Gia.... 1 '1L 1 \"..,‘-'6-4 ..- • 1. k., .,)-,, 41 Dated: s/'// Dated: '1.31 Dated: Y Po) f Dated: 5'7 / I Dated: 5 3o. v Dated: Dated: / ) Dated: -0-../.30/// Dated:6 130 it ( Dated: Dated: 51,)\ \ Dated: Dated: Dated: • r Dated: Dated: 5l3tt Dated: 3P 6 Dated: Dated: / r - Dated:E)/ Dated:, • '-')/ 9 Lc (v tv t . L )' LET ( I ii 0(1r2_.1) SIAN. ao K `-c"/ ("-ci t;) • (tk ect \.ccul 11-5 LlC ri") 11%1 \ L. I A /W) >I 1 ,20 (31-7k fit-14c go:5 C__11er6.13,<.`7/q`rr52)3 As iook04 (it 6LA /..#:::)-7. (65 G.ci c// cl vsts, IL in,u..r ct (-In Ct 4.(7) A\\W \•02.0k, 2(,) q:S-a3 . • P / , ._. 1 o74- '7 a . /e --..-#..,erAtiall _____v_a_35- at eim--6\ 0 tezt-e-e 1„, . _ ittit i k. AtriWel)i 17 q Grnell[4 71f-r-.4::-c / . dIMN444 /6 0'44 /d/Awig& 4v) Q,—. • 0< J(?/ ( (fr.i/}iiWas() 6 .) C A=tre",-, (r; 'I.,. ? 2, Liii.o. or -1 c rail,e tiv, fi •- 1 . et_ F.0_6/(ielic -0. ). b...-1 Cikril ' IC & • -ii ,....... ..(, _, / - t , /(._A.,.;..„-, ‘• -. . - :_..4_.,),I t-i.,-.).-'0',A ,...‘ , • 1 Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: „. / . Dated: J 7 Dated: .Dated: 51 '2 272.6 t I Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Datedr37-"2 /1 Dated: lc- .2 Dated: • - Dated:_5 Dated 4-- Dated: , 7/25 if( Dated:-' Dated: Dated: / 7( / / Dated: , - 6•1/1 Dated: 43 • l' •11' (; -4,44,------- .., 7 6 0 /(.-- Tt ..-1 •—• .41.—u Lt --, -.1• :.--- ____, , „ • -..., i i. (/)((-Cs ( ) k,(1, 1' e;/'" i . 2-) • ---,• <\, f I) , 4 /,' ' ....,./..L., '•'-'," 1 i . /1, • . • . ; / • • -,i"" ir • • / • I ) • I .11-;'1. ' ;1.-/ Y'11, C1 -1 • , ;la/ yi, ' /Th '7)/7:5' tr,1? ) ( ' '..\2(9-41--e Z-i-c,_ / 6, `)/' `-')' C t'----vA i ),..1 t-s27,A,AL± c/o/ /6,9e / 1 5731, 1-t12.46t 1-ohq- y sid c,- , LA:Al 4;").3 j...-og-t•tt '-/ I 41. -L.• f ' Awl Li 1 *1"9--"--- .--) / _57 /1 • (1_, • /zb . 1 2- 7 cf cc s- 7(. :4-12g:TYA•114 cA)0,--t C:1;-67to (t' 3 (v 7 'Tz , • - L•4 ....„••••• • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May 31, 2011 Mayor Joe Pirzynski RECEIVES 110 Main 5t. JUN - 12011 Los Gatos, CA, 95030 MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL Dear Mayor Pirzynski: I am Ada McDaniel of Placer Oaks Homeowners Association. I have lived on my property at 120 Oak Rim Way since 1976. In the early 2000's, we mobilized neighborhood efforts to defeat a plan by Swanson Ford to build a 3 story structure, which would have eliminated our views of the hills. Again the same issues of privacy, sunlight, and views are being ignored with the 26 and 28 foot high buildings being proposed by Sand Hill Properties, which are adjacent to our property. These building heights are clearly in conflict with the Los Gatos Code (Sec.29.40.635) and the Los Gatos Blvd. Plan (P.6,7,11 &13). Our homes are our savings. You would argue strenuously against such a proposal, if your property was being adversely affected. The General Plan of Los Gatos (P.7&11) makes clear that story poles are an on -going requirement. The poles initial construction was deficient and the builders say pictures of the development are enough for the community to evaluate the proposed, structure. We know the community can not be made aware until they visually see the height of the story poles. The rules must apply to these builders as they do to others. The corner of 16005 Los Gatos Blvd. is one of the ATTACHMENT 12 -2- busiest. The proposed 25 homes of 3 & 4 bedrooms could generate between 10 and 25 school children. They will be occupants of a heavy trafficked setting from the intersection and the large vehicles which must service the 30,000 sq. feet of retail businesses. This , we feel, is a precursor for serious accidents. Surely, as the town's leaders, you do not wish to create a situation which would lead to accidents or litigation against the town. The neighborhood is very concerned about more traffic from this development corning through into the area. Parking on Oak Rim Way and Oak Rim Ct. is full and exudes now onto Placer Oaks Rd. Barriers to limit Left. turns onto Placer Oaks Rd, a traffic signal at Oak Rim Way, and a U-turn at Los Gatos Blvd./Blossom Hill Rd. should all be considered. Yes, the builders own this property and should be able to develop it to recuperate their investment. They should not be allowed to do so in violation of the town rules and in ways which promote traffic hazards and also adversely affect the homes of adjacent neighbors. If I had extensive wealth, I would purchase that property from the developers, and propose —this: an =art. and cultural center on the left front of this area with underground parking. The right front of the property, along Blossom Hill Rd, and even the back of the area could be utilized for businesses at a building height commensurate with those buildings nearby. A -3 cultural center could serve a multitude of purposes and, also, be a reflection of the artistic background of Los Gatos and the diversity of interests which exists here. Pie in the sky, perhaps. However, more traffic, potential accidents, and tall buildings close to property lines which obliterate views of surrounding mountains to us and to our neighbors are not the acceptable answer. I apologize for a letter of this length, but I felt all these ideas needed to be presented and I thank you for your time to listen. Sincerely, Ada McDaniel THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT 13 41.'47 .4- -7 1 Ja1re Lc_ 217.77.1 .r nA 1 2011 _ _ _tl :+i' ens i-'r i L+_r • GaLo_ E;54